Attorney General Pam Bondi faced a grilling from the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 7, 2025, marking her first congressional testimony since the controversial indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. The hearing, held in the aftermath of a turbulent summer for the Department of Justice (DOJ), put the spotlight on mounting allegations of the department’s politicization and the so-called 'weaponization' of federal law enforcement under President Donald Trump’s administration.
The session was anticipated with palpable tension. According to ABC News, Bondi’s appearance followed a series of high-profile DOJ actions that have rattled both career staff and the public. Among the most contentious was the indictment of Comey on two counts—making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation. The case, which came after public demands from Trump himself, was pushed forward despite objections from career prosecutors and only after the replacement of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia with a White House aide and former Trump attorney, Lindsey Halligan. Comey, who has denied any wrongdoing, was scheduled for arraignment in federal court on October 9.
The process leading up to Comey’s indictment was messy, to say the least. As reported by Beritaja, after Erik Siebert, the career U.S. Attorney in charge of the case, voiced concerns about the evidence, he was removed and replaced by Halligan, who quickly secured the indictment. The move sent shockwaves through the department, with several career prosecutors subsequently fired. The Public Integrity Section, which traditionally prosecutes public corruption, was described as "almost wholly emptied out," and over 70% of attorneys in the Civil Rights Division departed, according to NPR and Axios.
Bondi, for her part, has repeatedly rejected accusations that the DOJ is being used as a political tool. In a Fox News appearance last month, she declared, “Whether you're a former FBI director, whether you're a former head of an intel community, whether you are current state and local elected official, whether you are a billionaire funding organizations to try to keep Donald Trump out of office—everything is on the table. We will investigate and will end the weaponization—no longer will there be a two-tier system of justice.” She reiterated this stance during her confirmation hearing, promising, “The partisanship, the weaponization will be gone. America will have one tier of justice for all.”
However, critics from within and outside the department argue that the reality has been quite the opposite. On the eve of Bondi’s testimony, nearly 300 former DOJ employees released an open letter, as reported by Axios and NPR, condemning what they described as an “appalling” erosion of independence and integrity in the department. The letter, organized by Justice Connection, was signed by a wide range of former prosecutors, special agents, immigration judges, and grant managers. Stacey Young, Justice Connection’s executive director, stated, “They’re being asked to put loyalty to the President over the Constitution, the rule of law, and their professional ethical obligations. We’re seeing the erosion of the Justice Department’s fabric and integrity at an alarming pace. Our democratic system cannot survive without the primary institution that enforces the law.”
The letter outlined three primary failures: the prioritization of presidential loyalty over law and ethics, the firing of employees without cause (in violation of civil service laws), and the misuse of anti-discrimination laws to target marginalized groups rather than protect them. The signers also highlighted the mass exodus of seasoned law enforcement professionals and the closure of offices that had been key in preventing community violence. Bloomberg Law data, cited by Axios, indicated that about 107 out of 320 career senior managers had left since the start of Trump’s second term, creating a significant expertise vacuum. The DOJ disputed these numbers but did not provide an alternative count.
Adding to the turmoil, Michael Ben'Ary, a top national security prosecutor, was fired after posting a misleading message on social media. Ben'Ary, who was leading a high-profile terrorism case, accused DOJ leadership of prioritizing “punishing the President’s perceived enemies” over national security. In a pointed resignation letter, he wrote, “Justice for Americans killed and injured by our enemies should not be contingent on what someone in the Department of Justice sees in their social media feed that day.” The DOJ declined to comment on Ben'Ary’s letter.
Bondi also faced tough questions regarding the DOJ’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. In July, the DOJ and FBI had stated that no further releases of Epstein-related files were warranted and denied any evidence that others had enabled Epstein’s abuse. Democrats, however, accused the administration of attempting to cover up any mentions of Trump or other high-profile associates with past ties to Epstein—a claim the administration has firmly denied. Trump and Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial for sex trafficking, were known to be friends in the 1990s, though Trump has since said they had a falling out. A planned House vote to demand the full release of Epstein files was put on hold as Speaker Mike Johnson sent the House home amid a government shutdown.
The hearing also touched on the recent spike in political violence and the administration’s response. Trump had ordered the DOJ to ramp up investigations into so-called “radical left” groups, which he claimed—without evidence—were funding attacks on federal law enforcement. This included sweeping criminal probes into the Open Society Foundations, which the organization dismissed as “politically motivated attacks on civil society, meant to silence speech the administration disagrees with and undermine the First Amendment right to free speech,” according to ABC News.
Throughout her testimony, Bondi sought to deflect criticism by pointing to crimes committed by undocumented immigrants and by arguing that the real weaponization of justice occurred under the previous administration, particularly in the special counsel cases brought against Trump himself. Yet, as the hearing wore on, the tension in the room was unmistakable. Lawmakers from both parties pressed Bondi on the unprecedented turnover within the DOJ, the collapse of key divisions, and the growing perception that the department’s independence had been compromised.
For many observers, the hearing was a stark illustration of the deep divisions and anxieties gripping the nation’s top law enforcement agency. As the dust settles, the debate over the DOJ’s future and its ability to remain independent from political influence shows no sign of abating.
