Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Pam Bondi Made a Mockery of Congressional Oversight

Opinion

Pam Bondi Made a Mockery of Congressional Oversight
President Donald Trump holds a press conference with Attorney ...

Checks and balances can only work if government officials are willing to use their authority to check abuses of power by others. Without that, our Constitution is an empty promise.

And without the will to stand up to such abuses, freedom and democracy also become empty promises. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, the Constitution was designed to ensure that “the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”


In this design, he argued, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place….you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

That is why it matters whether Congress is willing to do its job of controlling the Executive. This has never been truer than it is today.

Let’s face it, the presidency is now much more powerful than Congress. Powerful and, as a result, a danger to liberty.

That was true before Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office. It has only become more apparent since then. In response, congressional Republicans have been unwilling to use their authority to rein him in.

No news there. Still, it was shocking to see Attorney General Pam Bondi’s open contempt for Congress displayed in her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, October 7.

It was also shocking to watch Republican Senators cheer her on as she denigrated their Democratic committee colleagues. Both were unprecedented.

Both suggest that our constitutional system is broken and that while Republicans may give lip service to that system, they are guilty of aiding and abetting in its overthrow. In criminal law, someone aids and abets the commission of a crime by another when they intend to assist or participate in that offense.

They can do so by encouraging or facilitating it.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting that Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are guilty of a crime in the ordinary sense.

They are, however, guilty of aiding and abetting Pam Bondi’s and Donald Trump’s crimes against the Constitution. Fidelity to that document requires that we call out their behavior in the strongest terms.

Let’s start with contempt of Congress. The law defines it as willfully refusing “ to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry".

During her appearance before the Judiciary Committee, Bondi refused to answer a long list of questions pertinent to its oversight inquiry. Among them, as California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff pointed out were questions about possible bribery involving Trump border czar Tom Homan, criminal investigations into the president’s political opponents initiated at the behest of the president himself, and the firing of career prosecutors in the Department of Justice.

Those are just a few of the questions the Attorney General batted aside. Committee Chair, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, sat quietly as she stonewalled his colleagues. And when he was not silent, he tried to derail the inquiry by shifting the focus to the behavior of the Biden Justice Department.

Grassley’s opening remarks foretold what was to come. He went on at length about "weaponization" of the Justice Department under the Biden Administration. He characterized investigations of then-former President Trump as “indefensible acts.”This was a political fishing expedition to get Trump at all costs."

Grassley was joined, as Politico reports, by Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who “falsely claimed…that newly disclosed records revealed that the FBI ‘tapped’ the phones of eight sitting U.S. senators during special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of President Donald Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election.”

Not surprisingly, “Attorney General Pam Bondi, during her Tuesday testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not correct Hawley’s characterization of the records.”

But Bondi’s performance was not limited to her refusal to answer questions or to correct erroneous information. She used her appearance to attack Democratic Senators directly, offering up accusations or allegations of misconduct that had nothing to do with the hearing.

She called out Illinois Senator Richard Durbin. “You are sitting here as law enforcement officers aren't being paid. They're out there working to protect you. I wish you love Chicago as much as you hate President Trump.”

In response to a question from California Senator Adan Schiff, Bondi replied, “If you worked for me, you would’ve been fired because you were censured by Congress for lying.”

She accused Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal of misrepresenting his military record. She claimed that Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had ties to “dark money” groups and backed legislation that would “subsidize [his] wife’s company.”

Such personal attacks would not have been allowed under Senate rules if they had been made on the Senate floor during a debate. But Chairman Grassley did nothing, and neither did any of his Republican colleagues.

James Madison would be rolling over in his grave to know that Senators of either party would condone such behavior by a member of the Executive Branch. He would have seen it as a crime against the constitutional order he worked so assiduously to construct.

But welcome to America’s new world. It is defined by a cabal that has set out to undermine checks and balances.

Pam Bondi and Republican Senators showed what that looks like. Americans should not shut their eyes and imagine that the constitutional system will survive their assault on it without a large and sustained public response.

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.


Read More

A TSA employee standing in the airport, with two travelers in the foreground.

A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) worker screens passengers and airport employees at O'Hare International Airport on January 07, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. TSA employees are currently working under the threat of not receiving their next paychecks, scheduled for January 11, because of the partial government shutdown now in its third week.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

Nope. Nevermind. Some DHS agencies still shut down.

House Republicans reject clean bill to open shut-down DHS agencies (March 28 update)

House Republicans (and three Democrats) rejected the Senate's clean bill to end the shutdown late Friday night. Instead, the House passed a different bill that fully funds every agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but for only 60 days with the knowledge that this short-term continuing resolution will not pass in the Senate.

Both chambers are out until April 13 so the shutdown is expected to last until then at least. Hope that no major weather disasters occur before then because FEMA is one of the DHS agencies out of commission (though some of its employees may be working without pay). It's possible that air travel security lines won't get worse since the President signed an Executive Order authorizing DHS to pay TSA workers. New DHS Secretary Mullin says paychecks will start to go out as early as Monday. How long can this approach continue? Unknown. Leaving aside the questionable legality of repurposing funds in this way, DHS may not be willing to keep paying TSA from these other funds long-term.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs, including one that says "let the people vote."
Attendees hold signs advocating for voting rights and against the SAVE America Act at a rally to outside the U.S. Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Heather Diehl

The Senate Was Meant to Slow Us Down—Not Stop Us Cold

The Senate is once again locked in a familiar pattern: a bill with clear support on one side, firm opposition on the other—and no obvious path forward.

This time it’s the SAVE Act, framed by its supporters as a safeguard for election integrity and by its opponents as a barrier to voting access. The arguments are well-rehearsed. The positions are firm. And yet, beneath the policy debate sits a more revealing truth: in today’s Senate, the outcome of legislation is often shaped long before a final vote is ever cast.

Keep ReadingShow less
Clarity Is Power: The Three Pillars That Keep the People in Charge
man in white robe holding a book statue
Photo by Caleb Fisher on Unsplash

Clarity Is Power: The Three Pillars That Keep the People in Charge

American democracy does not weaken all at once. It falters when citizens lose clarity about how power is being used in their name. Abraham Lincoln warned that “public sentiment is everything… without it, nothing can succeed.” When people understand what their leaders are doing, they can hold them accountable.

But when confusion takes hold, power shifts quietly, and the public’s ability to act begins to erode. Clarity enables citizens to participate fully in democratic life and shape a government that responds to them. Confusion is not harmless; it erodes the safeguards, public awareness, and civic action that make self‑government possible. Clarity strengthens all three pillars at once — it protects our constitutional safeguards, sharpens public awareness, and fuels civic action.

Keep ReadingShow less
CONNECT for Health Act of 2025
person wearing lavatory gown with green stethoscope on neck using phone while standing

CONNECT for Health Act of 2025

How does a bill with no enemies fail to move? That question should trouble anyone who cares about Medicare, about rural health care, and about whether Congress can still do straightforward things.

In plain terms, the CONNECT Act would permanently end the outdated rule that limits Medicare telehealth to patients in rural areas who travel to an approved facility. It would make the patient's home a covered site of care. It would protect audio-only services, critical for seniors without broadband or smartphones, especially for behavioral health. It would ensure that Federally Qualified Health Centers can be reimbursed for telehealth, and it would lock in the pandemic-era flexibilities that Congress has been extending on a temporary basis since 2020. In short, it would turn five years of emergency workarounds into permanent, accountable policy.

Keep ReadingShow less