A formal complaint, a mountain of evidence – and an attorney general with her back against the wall.
There are moments in history when the law submits, bends, dissolves. Not through violence alone, but through that subtle, sticky mixture of loyalty, fear, and power that warps systems, twists institutions, and breaks people. The person in question here is Pamela Jo Bondi. Once the attorney general of Florida, she is now the Attorney General of the United States under Donald Trump, in whose second term the law has increasingly given way to one single will: his.
On May 1, 2025, Representatives Dave Min and Mike Levin, together with a coalition of civil society organizations, filed a formal complaint with the Florida Bar – the Bar Association of the state of Florida. This body is responsible for monitoring ethical and professional standards among lawyers. It can issue warnings, suspend, or in extreme cases exclude (disbar) members if they violate applicable rules of conduct. The complaint against Bondi was formulated on the basis of weeks-long, months-long journalistic investigations, lawyers, legal analyses, and publicly accessible government documents. It is the first coordinated attempt to hold Bondi professionally accountable.
The allegations are numerous, precise, and serious: Bondi is said to have systematically turned the Justice Department into a political instrument for securing Trump’s power. She is alleged to have specifically initiated investigations against political opponents, dropped proceedings against Trump supporters, and ignored judicial orders. The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia – an innocent man who was deported to El Salvador despite a court ruling – stands as a prime example of this contempt for the rule of law.
What she is accused of is a catalogue of systematic destruction. The transformation of the Justice Department into a political weapon. The establishment of a so-called "Weaponization Working Group" which, according to internal memos, set the tone: loyalty to Trump is mandatory, dissent is heresy. Prosecutors who refused to support Trump’s line were fired. Veterans who once investigated corruption, foreign regime influence, or the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, had to leave or sign: retreat or allegiance.
Paul Rosenzweig, himself a former federal prosecutor, puts it like this: "Trump is turning the Department of Justice into his personal law firm. That is a rejection of the rule of law." The outlines of this transformation are clear. Investigations into political opponents were pushed forward, including against Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor. Cases against executives who did not support Trump’s agenda were dropped. The investigation into New York Mayor Eric Adams was abruptly ended after he shifted to support Trump’s immigration course.
In April, under Bondi’s leadership, the Justice Department closed its own crypto task force, after figures in the industry who had financially supported Trump exerted pressure. At the same time, application of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – a tool against international bribery – was paused for six months. What was once the legal weapon against global cronyism is now a blunt ornament.
But it is not only omission that shocks, but active threat. Bondi declared in an interview with Fox News that they would “prosecute” judges who opposed Trump’s decrees. This is no longer polemic, but prosecution policy in the service of the president. When a judge in Milwaukee was arrested for allegedly obstructing the arrest of a migrant, it was Bondi who publicly warned further judges. Trust in the judiciary, already fragile, was pulverized in a single sentence: "They are not above the law. We will hold you accountable."
The DOJ’s civil rights division, once a symbol of equality and civil rights, is emptying out. Lawyers are resigning en masse as the focus now lies on prosecuting elite universities and leftist demonstrators. Lawsuits concerning voting rights, police violence, or discrimination: cancelled. Trump’s priorities are clear. And Bondi executes them.
Daniel Richman, professor and former federal prosecutor, calls the behavior “a systematic hollowing-out of the DOJ’s mission under the rule of law.” Barbara McQuade, former prosecutor, sees in Bondi’s memos an “instrumentalization of justice” and warns: “This destroys public confidence in government.” Even Ty Cobb, formerly in Trump’s White House, speaks of a “war against the rule of law.”
Particularly telling is Bondi’s handling of the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. A court had stopped his deportation to El Salvador. Nevertheless, he was deported. Bondi’s reaction? Silence. The courts’ reaction? Disbelief. This was not just a legal act being ignored – but a person being deprived of their freedom, perhaps their life.
In a functioning democracy, this would be the moment for dismissal. In the reality of 2025, a complaint is filed with the Bar Association instead. It is an act of hope, an attempt to save decency where force reigns. But the question remains: Is that enough? Or is it just a final cry in a system that has long since begun listening to other voices?
What happens to Bondi will not only decide her license. It is a test of whether the law can defend itself – or whether it will, like so much in this new order, simply disappear in silence.
English 
German 
