Recent developments surrounding Attorney General Pam Bondi have raised significant questions about the legal successes of her brother, Brad Bondi. Critics are scrutinizing the Department of Justice (DOJ) amid allegations of conflicts of interest, particularly regarding cases where Brad Bondi has achieved unexpected victories. This scrutiny comes as the DOJ faces criticism for its handling of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
In a letter sent by members of Congress in December, lawmakers expressed concerns about whether the DOJ has “properly implemented firewalls and screening procedures” to separate Pam Bondi from her brother’s legal dealings. They highlighted several cases where Brad Bondi has secured favorable outcomes, raising suspicions about potential improprieties.
One notable case involved billionaire Trevor Milton, who was convicted in 2022 for defrauding investors. Although Milton received a four-year prison sentence, he was pardoned by former President Donald Trump in March 2025. The circumstances surrounding this case have prompted lawmakers to question the integrity of the DOJ’s decisions.
Another instance occurred in August 2024 when the DOJ dropped charges against developer Sid Chakraverty, who faced allegations of wire fraud and providing false information to obtain tax incentives. This dismissal came shortly after Brad Bondi joined Chakraverty’s defense team, although Chakraverty claims Bondi had been involved unofficially prior to the 2024 election.
A similar pattern emerged in the case of Carolina Amesty, a former Florida state House Republican accused of fraudulently obtaining $122,000 in small business loans during the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. Attorney, Gregory Kehoe, requested the dismissal of the case soon after Brad Bondi was hired. Amesty later stated that her legal team “masterfully refuted all the false allegations” against her, attributing the case’s dismissal to their efforts.
These developments have led to heightened scrutiny from lawmakers, who are demanding documentation related to Brad Bondi’s involvement in these cases. They have requested the names of individuals who reviewed and approved decisions, along with the rationale behind those decisions, giving the DOJ until January 2 to respond.
Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, has publicly criticized the DOJ’s handling of these cases. In a statement, he asserted, “The DOJ under Pam Bondi has not been guided by the rule of law, but rather the political grievances and personal motivations of Donald Trump and his allies.” He emphasized that the interventions benefiting Brad Bondi warrant further investigation and transparency for the American public.
Despite the mounting pressure, neither the DOJ nor Brad Bondi has responded to requests for comment. As the situation unfolds, the implications for the integrity of the DOJ and the connections between the attorney general and her brother remain a focal point for lawmakers and the public alike. These cases underscore the broader concerns regarding accountability and the potential influence of political connections in legal outcomes.
