FactPAC is calling on the Florida Bar to review Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Conduct and consider her for Disbarment​ and/or other disciplinary action. We started this campaign in April of 2025. As complaints from our supporters and other organizations piled up, The Florida Bar refused to investigate, citing a policy against investigating “sitting officers” appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they remain in office. Now that Pam Bondi is no longer a “sitting officer”, it’s time for the Florida Bar to take our complaints seriously.

New Crimes Edition – Updated April 9, 2026

We have updated our comprehensive evaluation of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s professional conduct, highlighting actions that may warrant consideration for disbarment due to potential violations of legal ethics and professional responsibilities. We encourage everyone to use the complaint drafted below to force the Florida Bar to investigate Pam Bondi’s actions.​

---

TAKE ACTION NOW

1. Download the Florida Bar Complaint against Pam Bondi – 2026 Edition(PDF)
2. Fill out the form following the instructions on pages 1-2. FactPAC has filled out Parts 3 & 4.
3. Mail the complaint to the address in the PDF or email it to ACAPIntake@floridabar.org.

---

Our Original Concern Over Pam Bondi’s Conduct Included

1. Disregard for Judicial Authority and Due Process:

Attorney General Bondi’s handling of the deportation case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia raises significant concerns. Despite a federal court order prohibiting Garcia’s removal, he was deported to El Salvador. Judge Paula Xinis described the detention and deportation as “wholly lawless,” noting the absence of legal grounds for such actions. Bondi’s response, emphasizing the need to “vigorously argue on behalf of your client,” suggests a prioritization of administrative directives over judicial mandates, potentially undermining the rule of law.​ Bondi appears to believe that Donald Trump is her “client.”

2. Politicization of the Department of Justice:

Bondi’s tenure and actions prior to becoming Attorney General has been marked by actions that suggest the politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Her involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, including public assertions of voter fraud without substantiated evidence, reflects a potential misuse of legal authority for political ends. Such actions may compromise the perceived impartiality and integrity of the DOJ.​

3. Ethical Concerns Regarding Campaign Contributions:

In 2013, Bondi’s political action committee received a $25,000 donation from the Donald J. Trump Foundation while her office was considering joining a lawsuit against Trump University. Subsequently, her office declined to pursue the case. The Internal Revenue Service later determined that the donation violated laws against political contributions from nonprofit organizations. This sequence of events raises questions about potential conflicts of interest and adherence to ethical standards.​

4. Undermining Civil Rights Protections:

Bondi’s actions have also raised concerns regarding the protection of civil rights. Her directive to dismiss lawsuits related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in public safety departments suggests a departure from established civil rights enforcement practices. Such decisions may reflect a disregard for efforts to address systemic discrimination.​

Pam Bondi’s Conduct May Have Directly Violated The Florida Bar’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct

The Florida Bar’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct require some of the highest standards for practicing attorneys in the United States. Should the bar expect all attorneys to meet those high standards, they should take immediate action in regard to Attorney General Pam Bondi’s potential violations, as outlined below.

A. Conflict of Interest and Undermining Public Trust

Incident: In 2013, Pam Bondi’s political action committee accepted a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation while her office was considering joining a lawsuit against Trump University. Her office later declined to participate in the lawsuit.

Relevant Guideline: A. General Principles

“A lawyer always should strive to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession… A lawyer must not use any aspect of the litigation process… to unnecessarily prolong litigation or increase litigation expenses.”

Analysis: Accepting a donation from a party under potential investigation, then declining to prosecute erodes public confidence and fails to uphold the dignity and impartiality required by the legal profession.

---

B. Misuse of Office for Personal Gain

Incident: Bondi persuaded Gov. Rick Scott to delay an execution because it conflicted with a fundraising event she was hosting.

Relevant Guideline: A. General Principles

“A lawyer should avoid disorder and disruption in the courtroom, and maintain a respectful attitude toward the court.”

Relevant Guideline: L. Trial Conduct and Courtroom Decorum

“A lawyer should abstain from conduct calculated to detract or divert the fact finder’s attention from the relevant facts or otherwise cause the fact finder to reach a decision on an impermissible basis.”

Analysis: Rescheduling a state-sanctioned execution for a political fundraiser constitutes an abuse of office, prioritizing personal political interests over the solemnity and gravity of the justice process.

---

C. Disregard for Judicial Orders

Incident: As U.S. Attorney General, Bondi defended a deportation that directly violated a federal judge’s order. She also has shown disregard for the rulings of the federal judiciary and is defending the Trump administration’s attacks on law firms that represent the President’s political adversaries.

Relevant Guideline: Preamble

“To the judiciary, a lawyer owes candor, diligence, and utmost respect.”

Relevant Guideline: A. General Principles

“A lawyer is both an officer of the court and an advocate… and maintain a respectful attitude toward the court.”

Analysis: Acting contrary to a federal court’s order undermines the integrity of the judicial system and violates a lawyer’s fundamental obligation to show respect for court authority.

---

D. Partisan Manipulation of Legal System

Incident: Bondi publicly supported efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election results, amplifying unverified claims of fraud and sowing public distrust.

Relevant Guideline: Preamble

“To the administration of justice, a lawyer unquestionably owes the fundamental duties of personal dignity and professional integrity.”

Relevant Guideline: L. Trial Conduct and Courtroom Decorum

“A lawyer should not knowingly misstate, distort, or improperly exaggerate any fact or opinion nor permit the lawyer’s silence or inaction to mislead anyone.”

Analysis: Publicly advancing unfounded legal theories without factual or evidentiary support directly violates the duty of candor and integrity expected from legal professionals.

---

E. Failure to Disclose Foreign Influence and Lobbying Work

Incident: Bondi failed to fully disclose lobbying work on behalf of foreign interests such as Qatar during her tenure on Trump’s legal team.

Relevant Guideline: A. General Principles

“A lawyer’s word (whether orally or in writing) should be his or her bond.”

Relevant Guideline: Preamble

“Coupled with those duties is a lawyer’s duty of courtesy and cooperation with fellow professionals for the efficient administration of our system of justice and the respect of the public it serves.”

Analysis: Concealing material information regarding foreign lobbying creates the appearance of impropriety and damages the transparency and integrity required by the legal profession.

F. Making False Statements to Congress and the Public Regarding the Epstein Files

Incident: In a February 2025 interview on Fox News, Bondi stated that an Epstein “client list” was “sitting on my desk right now to review.” In July 2025, the DOJ and FBI released a memo stating that their systematic review revealed no such client list existed and that no further disclosure would be appropriate. Bondi never corrected her original public statement. When senators questioned Bondi during a fiery February 2026 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she refused to answer questions about Trump’s involvement with Epstein, declined to acknowledge Epstein’s victims, and responded by attacking the lawmakers questioning her. Her February 2025 appearance before the House Oversight Committee was described as “an unmitigated disaster,” with Bondi unable to answer basic questions about the handling of the files.

Additionally, on February 14, 2026, Bondi publicly stated that all materials required to be released under the Epstein Transparency Act had been released. Independent estimates indicate that only approximately 2% of total relevant data—including seized materials from Epstein’s estate and internal government documents—had actually been made public, with roughly 2.5 million pages remaining sealed.

Relevant Guideline: L. Trial Conduct and Courtroom Decorum, §5

“A lawyer should not knowingly misstate, distort, or improperly exaggerate any fact or opinion nor permit the lawyer’s silence or inaction to mislead anyone.”

Relevant Guideline: Preamble

“To the judiciary, a lawyer owes candor, diligence, and utmost respect… fundamental duties of personal dignity and professional integrity.”

Analysis: Making a verifiably false public claim about evidence in her possession, allowing that claim to stand for months while it was used to deflect bipartisan congressional scrutiny, and then claiming full compliance with a transparency law while releasing only a fraction of the relevant materials constitutes a sustained pattern of misleading statements. Bondi’s combative refusal to answer senators’ questions further violated the duty of candor expected of any attorney, let alone the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

---

G. Weaponizing the Department of Justice to Prosecute Political Opponents

Incident: During her January 2025 confirmation hearing, Bondi stated under oath that she would not prosecute Trump’s political opponents. She then did exactly that. In September 2025, after Trump posted on Truth Social demanding prosecutions—writing “We can’t delay any longer… JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”—the DOJ secured indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James in Virginia. A federal judge dismissed both cases weeks later after finding that the prosecutor who filed them, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally serving in her position. Grand juries subsequently refused to bring new mortgage fraud charges against James, and the Comey case became mired in evidentiary disputes and statute of limitations concerns.

Under Bondi’s leadership, the DOJ also opened investigations into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, and former Obama-era intelligence officials James Clapper and John Brennan. A federal grand jury in Washington refused to return an indictment against Democratic lawmakers in connection with a video in which they urged U.S. military members to resist “illegal orders.” A federal judge quashed DOJ subpoenas issued to the Federal Reserve as part of the Powell investigation.

House Majority Leader Hakeem Jeffries described Bondi’s tenure as that of “the most corrupt Attorney General in modern American history,” stating that she “repeatedly weaponized the Department of Justice and taxpayer dollars to target political opponents of Donald Trump.”

Relevant Guideline: A. General Principles, §7

“A lawyer must not use any aspect of the litigation process, including discovery and motion practice, as a means of harassment or to unnecessarily prolong litigation or increase litigation expenses.”

Relevant Guideline: Preamble

“To the administration of justice, a lawyer unquestionably owes the fundamental duties of personal dignity and professional integrity.”

Analysis: Initiating criminal prosecutions at the direct, public command of the President against his named political enemies—using an improperly appointed prosecutor whose cases were immediately thrown out—represents the legal process being used as a tool of harassment and political retaliation rather than the pursuit of justice. That Bondi had promised under oath during her confirmation not to do this compounds the violation. When grand juries and federal judges repeatedly reject the DOJ’s cases, it suggests that the legal threshold for prosecution was never met, and that the actions were taken for impermissible purposes.

---

H. Retaliatory Targeting of Law Firms for Representing Disfavored Clients

Incident: Under Bondi’s leadership, the DOJ defended and enforced executive orders targeting six major law firms: Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. The firms were targeted for representing clients the President disliked, including former Special Counsel Jack Smith and former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The executive orders suspended the firms’ security clearances, restricted employee access to federal buildings, directed agencies to terminate contracts with the firms, and barred the government from hiring their attorneys.

Four of the six firms sued, and all four won. In May 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell permanently blocked the Perkins Coie order, ruling it was “an unprecedented attack” on the legal system that violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. More than 500 law firms signed an amicus brief in support. Over 4,300 lawyers from across the political spectrum sent a letter to Bondi urging her to defend the legal system rather than attack it. Bondi did not respond to these pleas.

When Judge Howell issued a temporary restraining order, Bondi’s office issued a compliance memorandum that included gratuitous language asserting the executive order was “permissible” and the court’s ruling “was erroneous”—language the judge found unnecessary and provocative. The DOJ also signed a presidential memo authorizing Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to sanction law firms and lawyers who take “frivolous” legal actions against the United States, creating a chilling effect on lawful challenges to government overreach.

In a related development, Bradley Bondi—Pam Bondi’s brother—ran for president of the D.C. Bar, the organization that oversees disciplinary actions for lawyers barred in Washington, D.C. This occurred while the Attorney General’s office was actively threatening disciplinary referrals against lawyers challenging administration policies.

Relevant Guideline: Preamble

“Coupled with those duties is a lawyer’s duty of courtesy and cooperation with fellow professionals for the efficient administration of our system of justice and the respect of the public it serves.”

Relevant Guideline: A. General Principles, §1

“A lawyer is both an officer of the court and an advocate. As such, the lawyer always should strive to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession.”

Analysis: Punishing law firms for representing their clients strikes at the foundational right to counsel that undergirds the entire American legal system. Multiple federal judges found these actions unconstitutional. An attorney who uses the power of her office to intimidate fellow attorneys out of representing disfavored clients is not upholding the honor and dignity of the profession—she is actively dismantling it. The simultaneous positioning of her brother to lead the D.C. Bar’s disciplinary apparatus creates an unmistakable appearance of impropriety.

---

I. Destroying DOJ Independence and Gutting Public Integrity and Civil Rights Enforcement

Incident: Under Bondi’s leadership, the DOJ fired prosecutors and FBI officials who worked on January 6th Capitol riot cases or who participated in investigations of Trump. The Public Integrity Section—the elite unit dedicated to fighting corruption by federal officials—was reduced from 36 employees to two, a 94% reduction. The Civil Rights Division, which protects the constitutional rights of all Americans, experienced a mass exodus of career attorneys who stated the division was being turned into an enforcement arm of the White House. In October 2025, 282 former DOJ employees signed a public letter stating that each of them left the department “either voluntarily or involuntarily, because of actions taken by this administration.”

Former DOJ attorney Stacey Young, now the head of Justice Connection, stated that Bondi “took a sledgehammer to the Justice Department and its workforce” and that “DOJ’s independence, integrity, and workforce have degraded more under her leadership than at any other time during the department’s 155-year history.” She added: “What she destroyed in a year could take decades to rebuild.”

Relevant Guideline: A. General Principles, §1

“A lawyer is both an officer of the court and an advocate… the lawyer always should strive to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession.”

Relevant Guideline: Preamble

“To the administration of justice, a lawyer unquestionably owes the fundamental duties of personal dignity and professional integrity.”

Analysis: Systematically dismantling the government divisions specifically tasked with holding powerful officials accountable and protecting citizens’ constitutional rights—in order to shield political allies from scrutiny and redirect enforcement against political opponents—represents a fundamental betrayal of an attorney’s duty to uphold the administration of justice. Reducing the Public Integrity Section by 94% effectively immunizes government corruption. Gutting the Civil Rights Division removes protections for the most vulnerable Americans. A lawyer who uses her authority to destroy oversight mechanisms rather than strengthen them has abandoned the profession’s core mission.

---

J. Defiance of Court Orders and Bad Faith in the Abrego Garcia Deportation Case (Expanded)

Incident: The original complaint documented Bondi’s role in the unlawful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Subsequent developments between May 2025 and April 2026 significantly expanded the scope of her misconduct.

After the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in April 2025 that the district court properly required the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, the DOJ engaged in what Judge Paula Xinis found to be a “pattern of deliberate delay and bad faith.” The court found that the government’s interrogatory responses were frivolous, that the government failed to properly produce documents, and that the government obstructed depositions.

A federal appeals court characterized the government’s position as “asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order.”

When the administration finally returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June 2025, it did so only after indicting him on human smuggling charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop that had resulted in no arrest at the time. Unsealed court records revealed that DOJ officials in Washington called the prosecution a “top priority” for the Deputy Attorney General’s office after Abrego Garcia challenged his deportation, with internal communications showing the DAG wanted him “charged sooner rather than later.” A federal judge found sufficient evidence to create a presumption of vindictive prosecution, placing the burden on the government to prove otherwise.

In October 2025, a federal judge slammed Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Noem for making inflammatory public comments about Abrego Garcia that could jeopardize his right to a fair trial, ordering all DOJ and DHS employees to cease making prejudicial extrajudicial statements. The administration subsequently attempted to deport Abrego Garcia to Liberia and then Uganda—countries he has no connection to—in apparent efforts to circumvent court orders.

Relevant Guideline: Preamble

“To the judiciary, a lawyer owes candor, diligence, and utmost respect.”

Relevant Guideline: A. General Principles, §2

“A lawyer’s word (whether orally or in writing) should be his or her bond.”

Relevant Guideline: A. General Principles, §7

“A lawyer must not use any aspect of the litigation process… as a means of harassment.”

Relevant Guideline: L. Trial Conduct and Courtroom Decorum, §5

“A lawyer should not knowingly misstate, distort, or improperly exaggerate any fact or opinion.”

Analysis: The Abrego Garcia case represents a cascade of ethical violations. Defying a court order. Engaging in discovery obstruction. Initiating what a federal judge found may be a vindictive prosecution. Making public statements so prejudicial that a judge had to order the Attorney General to stop speaking publicly about the defendant. Attempting to circumvent court orders by deporting a man to countries he has no connection to. Each of these would independently warrant disciplinary review. Together, they represent the most systematic contempt for judicial authority ever demonstrated by a sitting Attorney General.

---

K. Obstruction of Congressional Oversight and Evasion of Subpoena

Incident: The DOJ under Bondi failed to meet the 30-day deadline established by the Epstein Files Transparency Act for releasing materials, and when documents were eventually released, they were heavily redacted, offering what one commentator described as “a lot of redacted nothing.” Bondi distributed binders labeled “Epstein Files” to MAGA influencers at the White House that contained largely already-public documents, staging what critics described as a political stunt rather than a genuine effort at transparency.

In July 2025, the DOJ quietly closed any ongoing investigations into Epstein co-conspirators, per an internal memo—a decision Bondi concealed from Congress and the public. During her October 2025 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, Bondi refused to disclose this fact.

After being fired in April 2026, Bondi attempted to evade a House Oversight Committee subpoena compelling her to testify about the Epstein files. The DOJ argued the subpoena “no longer obligates her to appear” because she no longer held office. Bipartisan lawmakers including Representatives Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) rejected this argument, writing that “Congress’s oversight authority does not end when an official leaves office” and calling for contempt charges if Bondi refuses to comply. Trump White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said publicly that Bondi “whiffed” at the task. Reports indicate that Trump himself did not want the files released because they contained his name—meaning Bondi may have obstructed transparency to protect her client (the President) at the expense of her obligations to the public and to Congress.

Relevant Guideline: A. General Principles, §2

“A lawyer’s word (whether orally or in writing) should be his or her bond.”

Relevant Guideline: L. Trial Conduct and Courtroom Decorum, §5

“A lawyer should not knowingly misstate, distort, or improperly exaggerate any fact or opinion nor permit the lawyer’s silence or inaction to mislead anyone.”

Analysis: Promising transparency, delivering theater, quietly shutting down investigations, concealing that fact from Congress, and then attempting to dodge a subpoena by exploiting the timing of her own firing is a sustained pattern of deception. A lawyer whose word is supposed to be her bond cannot promise the public and Congress one thing while doing the opposite behind closed doors. If reports are accurate that Bondi suppressed transparency at Trump’s direction to protect the President, this constitutes the most serious conflict of interest documented in this complaint—prioritizing the personal interests of one individual over her oath to the Constitution and the public.

---

L. Demanding State Voter Rolls Without Legal Basis

Incident: Under Bondi’s direction, the DOJ demanded voter data from 40 U.S. states, claiming the requests were necessary to review state compliance with election laws. Federal judges dismissed the resulting lawsuits in California, Georgia, Oregon, and Michigan, finding in each case that the DOJ lacked evidence or legal support for its demands.

In January 2026, Bondi sent a letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz demanding the state’s voter rolls, including information on individuals who receive public assistance, claiming the data would be beneficial for ICE to perform immigration enforcement—conflating election integrity with immigration enforcement in a manner multiple legal experts found pretextual.

In early February 2026, after a judge had already dismissed the federal government’s request for Georgia voter rolls as unsubstantiated, the FBI conducted a raid on a Fulton County election office to seize records. The raid occurred after the legal basis for the demand had been explicitly rejected by the judiciary.

Relevant Guideline: A. General Principles, §7

“A lawyer must not use any aspect of the litigation process, including discovery and motion practice, as a means of harassment or to unnecessarily prolong litigation or increase litigation expenses.”

Relevant Guideline: L. Trial Conduct and Courtroom Decorum, §5

“A lawyer should not knowingly misstate, distort, or improperly exaggerate any fact or opinion.”

Analysis: Filing lawsuits that four separate federal judges found lacked evidentiary support, then authorizing a law enforcement raid on an election office after a judge had already rejected the underlying legal demand, constitutes misuse of legal process. Using voter roll demands as a pretext for immigration enforcement raises additional concerns about misrepresenting the purpose of legal actions to courts and the public. Repeatedly bringing the same type of baseless claim across multiple jurisdictions suggests a campaign of legal harassment against state election officials rather than a good-faith pursuit of election integrity.

---

M. Threats Against the American Bar Association

Incident: Shortly after joining the DOJ, Bondi threatened the American Bar Association’s law school accreditation powers over the ABA’s diversity mandates for law schools. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a ban preventing DOJ employees from participating in their official capacities at ABA events. Texas and Florida subsequently moved to limit the ABA’s accreditation authority—actions that followed directly from Bondi’s public threats.

The ABA subsequently filed suit against the Trump administration, arguing that the executive orders against law firms created “a chill over the whole of the legal profession” and constituted “a deliberate policy designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers.”

Relevant Guideline: Preamble

“Coupled with those duties is a lawyer’s duty of courtesy and cooperation with fellow professionals for the efficient administration of our system of justice and the respect of the public it serves.”

Relevant Guideline: A. General Principles, §1

“A lawyer is both an officer of the court and an advocate. As such, the lawyer always should strive to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession.”

Analysis: Using the power of the Attorney General’s office to threaten the primary professional organization responsible for maintaining legal education standards—because its policies conflict with the administration’s political preferences—represents a direct attack on the self-governing structure of the legal profession. The legal profession’s ability to set its own standards, including standards for legal education, is a cornerstone of its independence from government interference.

---

Legal Precedent for Disbarment or Disciplinary Action

With regards to Bondi’s involvement in Donald Trump’s 2020 efforts to overthrow a fair election, other attorneys faced disciplinary actions and or disbarment.

Rudy Giuliani

• Disbarment in New York and Washington, D.C.: Giuliani was disbarred in New York in July 2024 and in Washington, D.C., in September 2024. The disbarments were due to his false and misleading statements regarding the 2020 election, which courts found undermined the integrity of the legal profession and the U.S. Constitution.

Kenneth Chesebro

• License Suspension in New York: Chesebro’s law license was indefinitely suspended in New York in October 2024 after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to file false documents in Georgia’s election interference case.

Jenna Ellis

• License Suspension in Colorado: Ellis’s law license was suspended for three years in May 2024 after she pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting false statements in Georgia’s election interference case.

John Eastman

• Disbarment Recommendation in California: In March 2024, a California judge recommended Eastman’s disbarment for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including promoting the theory that Vice President Pence could reject electoral votes. ​

A Year or Potentially More Ethical Infractions

Between May 2025 and April 2026, Pam Bondi’s conduct as United States Attorney General generated at least eight additional categories of potential Florida Bar violations beyond those documented in FactPAC’s original May 2025 complaint. The pattern across all categories is consistent and unmistakable:

• False statements to the public and Congress about the Epstein files
• Retaliatory prosecutions of the President’s named political enemies, brought by an illegally appointed prosecutor and rejected by grand juries and judges
• Unconstitutional attacks on law firms for representing disfavored clients, struck down by multiple federal courts
• Destruction of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section and Civil Rights Division
• Sustained defiance of court orders, obstruction of discovery, and vindictive prosecution in the Abrego Garcia case
• Obstruction of congressional oversight and evasion of a subpoena
• Baseless voter fraud litigation rejected by judges in four states, followed by an FBI raid after judicial rejection
• Threats against the American Bar Association’s independence

These actions were not isolated incidents. They represent a systematic pattern of using the nation’s highest law enforcement office to serve one individual’s political interests at the expense of the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the rights of fellow attorneys, and the constitutional protections of American citizens.

The Florida Bar’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct exist precisely to prevent this kind of conduct. If these standards mean anything, they must be enforced—especially against the attorneys who hold the greatest power.

---

This update covers events from May 10, 2025 through April 8, 2026. Sources include reporting from NPR, PBS, CNN, The Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, Al Jazeera, Axios, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, CNBC, The Washington Times, Lawfare, and federal court records including Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, Abrego Garcia v. Noem, and congressional testimony transcripts.