Two Democratic lawmakers have asked the watchdog inside the U.S. Department of Justice to examine whether Attorney General Pam Bondi properly stepped away from matters connected to clients represented by her brother, raising new questions about potential conflicts inside the department.
Senator Adam Schiff and Representative Dave Min sent a letter to Deputy Inspector General William Blier requesting a review of whether sufficient safeguards were in place when cases intersected with the legal work of Bondi’s brother, Brad Bondi. He is a partner at the international law firm Paul Hastings, where he co-leads its investigations and white-collar defense practice.
The lawmakers said they had previously written to Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, in December seeking details on how the department was handling cases where Brad Bondi’s involvement could create a conflict for the attorney general. According to the letter, they never received a response.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department said decisions involving Brad Bondi’s clients were handled through the appropriate internal processes and that the attorney general played no role in them. The inspector general’s office declined to comment on whether it would open a review.
The renewed request also pointed to a post Brad Bondi shared on LinkedIn earlier this year highlighting legal victories his team secured in 2025. Among the cases mentioned was work for Trevor Milton, the founder of Nikola Corporation, who had been convicted of fraud in 2022 before receiving a pardon from Donald Trump the following year.
Schiff and Min argued that several defendants represented by Brad Bondi experienced unusual delays in their cases or saw charges dropped altogether. They said the pattern raises concerns about whether the department maintained adequate independence in matters linked to the attorney general’s family.
In their letter, the lawmakers warned that repeated interventions or dismissals in cases tied to Brad Bondi’s clients could signal deeper problems with the Justice Department’s internal guardrails. They urged the inspector general to determine whether proper recusals and oversight procedures were actually followed.
