Attorney General Pam Bondi has emerged as one of the most polarizing and influential figures in the Trump administration’s second term, fundamentally reshaping the Department of Justice (DOJ) in ways that have stunned both supporters and critics. As detailed in a recent profile by Ruth Marcus for The New Yorker and discussed in a wide-ranging interview on NPR’s Fresh Air with Dave Davies, Bondi’s tenure marks what many describe as the DOJ’s most tumultuous transition since the Watergate era—perhaps ever.
Bondi’s approach has been anything but subtle. On August 20, 2025, Ruth Marcus told NPR that Bondi has “presided over the Justice Department’s most convulsive transition of power since Watergate,” pointing to her aggressive reversal of policies, investigations into Trump’s adversaries, and the firing of numerous staff members. The attorney general’s fierce loyalty to President Trump is evident not only in her public statements but in her actions—actions that have sent shockwaves through the department and the broader legal community.
One of the most symbolic moments of Bondi’s early days in office was her personal removal of portraits of President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Attorney General Merrick Garland from the National Security Division. Describing the incident on Fox News, Bondi recounted, “I personally took all three photos down. I’m walking down the hall with these pictures.” This act, trivial on its surface, was seen by Bondi and her allies as a decisive break from the past—a signal that the “deep state” era was over. Yet, as Marcus explained, for the career lawyers working in the division, the portraits were an afterthought; their focus was on the classified work at hand, not the artwork on the walls. Still, Bondi’s public pride in this gesture underscored her intent to make a statement about loyalty and allegiance.
This symbolic purge was followed by more consequential moves. Bondi has spearheaded campaigns to fire and prosecute officials involved in the investigations of January 6 rioters and in cases brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against Trump. According to The New Yorker, she has shown “fierce loyalty to President Trump and has adopted a belligerent public persona in media and congressional interactions.” Her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, justified the firings by stating, “Obviously, they prosecuted the president, so they can’t continue to work for him.” But as Marcus noted, this reasoning is far from obvious to Justice Department veterans, who point out that career staff are supposed to serve the law, not the person occupying the White House.
The personnel upheaval has been sweeping. Bondi’s DOJ has dismissed employees for reasons ranging from their involvement in prior investigations to minor infractions such as failing to remove preferred pronouns from email signature blocks. Marcus observed, “Nothing like this has ever happened before in the history of a Justice Department.” She raised the concern that such actions could set a dangerous precedent: “Do we then just have this situation of tit for tat and, you know, you fired our guys, so we’ll fire yours? That just seems like a terrible way to behave.”
Bondi’s belligerence is not confined to internal matters. She has displayed a combative stance toward the media, members of Congress, and even federal judges. Marcus described how Bondi “launched into Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, who dared to ask that question and talk to him in this very dismissive tone about how the department was doing its absolute best to help your liberal state.” Even more striking, Bondi has publicly criticized federal judges, filed misconduct complaints, and demanded recusals—moves that break with longstanding norms of DOJ conduct. “The attorney general of the United States does not talk about rogue federal judges,” Marcus remarked. “This is not normal.”
Substantively, Bondi has orchestrated a dramatic overhaul of DOJ priorities. The Public Integrity Section has deprioritized prosecuting public corruption and stopped enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which had previously ensnared Trump administration officials. Bribery cases from companies have also fallen by the wayside. Instead, the DOJ under Bondi is focusing on issues like illegal immigration and targeting alleged excesses in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The Civil Rights Division has shifted its attention from voting rights and police brutality to pursuing cases against doctors and hospitals providing gender-affirming care for transgender youth and denaturalization proceedings.
Bondi’s leadership has also been defined by her willingness to investigate those she perceives as Trump’s enemies. The establishment of the “Weaponization Working Group” was one of her first acts as attorney general. Headed by Ed Martin, the group has launched investigations into figures such as New York Attorney General Letitia James and Senator Adam Schiff—both of whom have famously clashed with Trump. Marcus noted, “What we are seeing here...is precisely the opposite of Attorney General Jackson’s admonition. They seem to be going after individuals because of who the individuals are and not because what they did rises to the level of any crime, no less a federal crime.”
The consequences of these investigations extend beyond legal jeopardy. As Marcus explained, “The mere fact of being investigated is so ruinous, both emotionally and financially. You need a lawyer. It’s going to cost you thousands and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend yourself.” Even if no indictments emerge, the process itself is punishing—and, Marcus warned, could have a chilling effect on public service and dissent.
Bondi’s background offers some clues to her evolution. Raised in Florida by a father who was a Roosevelt Democrat, she began her career as a local prosecutor, earning a reputation as a capable and fair-minded attorney. Her political ascent, however, was marked by a shift toward more partisan battles, particularly as state attorneys general became more involved in national issues. Bondi’s tenure as Florida’s attorney general included joining lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act and defending the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Yet, as Marcus recounted, she was not always a hard-edged ideologue and even hired Democrats to work in her office.
Bondi’s relationship with Trump dates back to the controversy over Trump University, when her office declined to join a fraud lawsuit against the business after receiving a $25,000 donation from Trump’s charitable foundation—a move that, while not proven corrupt, raised eyebrows. Initially supporting Jeb Bush for president, Bondi switched her allegiance to Trump and later served on his legal team during his first impeachment. Her selection as attorney general came after the withdrawal of Matt Gaetz, Trump’s initial pick, and was met with skepticism from some in the MAGA movement, perhaps fueling her subsequent hardline approach.
Despite her combative style, Bondi has faced criticism not just from the left but from Trump’s own base—particularly over her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case files, where she promised more than she could deliver and frustrated conservative influencers. Still, her close relationship with Trump has thus far insulated her from calls for her removal, though Marcus cautioned that “retaining his support is going to require eventually coming up with some of what he wants. And what he wants is revenge, and what he wants is revenge in the form of indictments and prosecutions.”
Bondi’s time at the helm of the DOJ has been defined by loyalty to Trump, an aggressive and sometimes personal approach to wielding power, and a willingness to upend long-standing norms in pursuit of a new agenda. Whether this era will be remembered as a necessary correction or a dangerous overreach remains to be seen—but its impact on the Justice Department and the country is already undeniable.
