Dem
47
GOP
53
We have been following Kalshi's futures market for "Who will be the first/next person to be fired from the Trump Cabinet?" for months; it's been an interesting horse race. Kristi Noem was often in the lead, and those folks who invested money in her are obviously pretty happy today.
But "often in the lead" is not "always in the lead." There are, in fact, three different members of the administration who have been trading off, with the result that they've all spent roughly equal amounts of time as the frontrunner. The second one, after Noem, is Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. He often surges when there is bad economic news, since bad economic news is never, ever Trump's fault, no matter how ill-conceived his policies might be. Lutnick also surged when he was caught lying about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Truth be told, we don't quite get the bettors who found that meaningful. It is rather implausible to push Lutnick out on the basis of his Epstein connections without at least implicitly acknowledging that Epstein is a big deal and a problem. That, in turn, would make a statement about the fellow in the Oval Office, who has far more connections to Epstein than Lutnick does.
The other Cabinet member who sometimes leads the horse race (and, in fact, was in the lead for most of February) is "Attorney General" Pam Bondi. She's a very... interesting case study. On one hand, she has no apparent limits in terms of what she's willing to do to keep the Dear Leader happy. Trump loves that, because his previous AGs, Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, would sometimes say "no." On the other hand, what Trump does not understand is that Sessions and Barr generally did not say "no" because of their strong legal ethics, or their commitment to truth, justice and the American way. They said "no" because they are clever enough to know that some of the things Trump wants are not doable, and are sure to end in disaster. Bondi either doesn't know that, or doesn't care, with the result that she keeps embarrassing the administration and aggravating Republicans in Congress. This combination was fatal for Noem (see above), and it might be enough to cost Bondi her job, too, despite her unwavering sycophancy.
For example, on Monday, Bondi and the Department of Justice filed a motion to withdraw their appeal in a case won by law firms after they fought back against Trump's Executive Order to blackmail them into submission. Those law firms are Perkins Coie, Wilmer Hale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey. The ink was barely dry on that motion when, on Tuesday, the DoJ filed another motion, entitled "Motion to Withdraw Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeals." You can't make this stuff up. The once-venerated DoJ has been reduced to a bumbling outfit not worthy of an ambulance chaser. It's both sad and incredibly embarrassing. Meanwhile, if they continue the appeal, their opening brief is due on Friday.
It's really difficult to understand the thought process here... if there is one. Both filings were signed by the same Deputy Associate Attorney General under the direction of Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward. Readers may remember Woodward as the "architect" of Trump's legal strategy in the federal criminal cases against him. He has represented Kash Patel, Peter Navarro, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) and many 1/6 defendants. Woodward was then tasked with representing Walt Nauta, a potential eyewitness in the classified documents case, to ensure he did not flip. Point is, like Bondi, Woodward is certainly in the bag for Trump and for MAGA. So why would he abandon the appeal, and then make a 180-degree turn 24 hours later?
Some have speculated that the DoJ's flunkies lawyers are concerned that withdrawing the appeal could derail
deals with the law firms that folded instead of fighting. But the problem with that theory is that an adverse ruling in
the court of appeal would be precedential and would put those deals in jeopardy more than the current lower court ruling
that arguably only impacts the parties to the case. And it's worth noting that the district court's decision is final
until it's overruled, so these firms are free to represent whomever they wish without fear from Trump. So, there's really no
downside for the law firms if the appeal continues and drags out until Trump is no longer in office. In the meantime,
the DoJ has to put together some plausible, legal basis for an appeal, and apparently they were having trouble. Add it
all up—the appeal is likely to go badly, a failed appeal will do a fair bit of legal and PR damage for the
administration, and the law firms can do as they please while all this plays out, and you can see why the DoJ decided this
particular battle was hopeless, and so they decided to withdraw.
But then why change course? Well, if Trump got wind of the withdrawal and saw those negative headlines, he could very well have put the Justice Department in yet another precarious and unprincipled position and demanded they withdraw the withdrawal. As we know, when Trump says "Jump!" Bondi & Co. say, "How high, Your Eminence?" The court of appeal could yet save the DoJ by saying no take-backsies, and that the original request for withdrawal stands, but as (L)'s contracts professor was fond of saying, "The courts will not save you from your schmoeness." So, probably not.
Further, in addition to the gross incompetence and corruption of the people currently running the DoJ, Bondi now wants to neutralize one of the few avenues to address misconduct by government lawyers—state bar disciplinary proceedings. An attorney must be licensed in order to practice law and that license is issued by the state bar where the attorney took and passed the bar exam. That license requires attorneys to adhere to professional standards and ethics, and they can be disciplined, up to and including losing their license to practice, if they violate those standards and ethics. For example, Lindsey Halligan was accused of lying to a federal grand jury. That violates federal law, but don't hold your breath waiting for this DoJ to hold her accountable. However, the state bar where she has her license, in this case Florida, can open disciplinary proceedings and she can be disbarred because of that conduct. Readers may recall that Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman were disbarred because of their involvement in trying to overturn the 2020 election results.
Well, Bondi does not want her attorneys constrained by any notions of ethics or professional standards, and those state bar proceedings are seriously cramping her style and interfering with her suppliancancy to Trump. She has proposed a new federal regulation that would authorize the department to conduct a "review" of any state bar complaint or investigation involving a DoJ attorney. During this review, the AG would request that the state bar "suspend any investigative steps that require information or other participation from a Department attorney in response to the allegations pending completion of her review." Not surprisingly, there is no timeline on the so-called review, so if the state bar goes along with this, that essentially kills the investigation and any appropriate accountability. And if the state bar authorities refuse the AG's request, "the Department shall take appropriate action to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the Attorney General's review of the allegations."
In other words, "nice licensing authority you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it." This is an absolute power grab and an effort to intimidate state bar authorities to drop any efforts to hold federal prosecutors to account and deter unlawful behavior. These investigations are arguably especially critical now, since the current DoJ has largely abdicated its responsibility to enforce ethics rules and is encouraging its line attorneys to violate court orders, lie to judges and submit baseless claims and arguments. Not surprisingly, the proposed regulation brings up this administration's favorite chestnut as a justification—that the state bar complaint process has been "weaponized" by "political activists" who are filing complaints against DoJ officials. Gee, could it be that the complaints have merit and these attorneys should be disciplined for their unlawful behavior? Nah, the answer is clearly to shut those investigations down because the process is "chilling the zealous advocacy" of Pam's lawyers. In other words, they are reluctant to do Trump's bidding and lie to the courts and violate court orders, because they don't want to lose their licenses. As such, Bondi can't "manage and supervise" them as effectively. Really, that's the argument she makes.
The DoJ has no control over state disciplinary proceedings. But it's no doubt true that there is usually cooperation between the DoJ and a state bar because, in normal times, both agencies are trying to uphold the law and rein in attorneys who behaved unethically. But now you have a DoJ who is demanding unethical behavior in its lawyers and does not want them to refuse based on a fear that they are putting their professional lives at risk. So, if this intimidation effort is successful, any state bar investigation against a federal prosecutor will be indefinitely delayed and yet one more guardrail will fall in our legal system.
There is also another problem here, namely that state bar complaints are confidential. If an investigation is opened, the attorney is informed but does not necessarily know who filed the complaint. If the initial investigation shows the complaint may have a basis, then the attorney will be told the complainant's identity in order to defend themselves, but the complaint is not shared with other parties, much less the attorney's employer. This is to protect the complaining party. If state bar authorities agree to turn over all complaints of federal prosecutors to Pam Bondi, this would put those complainants at risk and would have an immediate chilling effect on efforts to bring unethical conduct to light.
And to add to this toxic stew, we can throw in a healthy dose of hypocrisy because Bondi is issuing this regulation while she, herself, is "weaponizing" the state bar complaint process against a former senior antitrust lawyer, Roger Alford. Bondi is trying to have him disbarred for having the temerity to call out the corruption of senior Justice Department officials during a merger settlement. Alford was forced out of his position for raising those concerns and now Bondi is retaliating against him by filing a state bar complaint. The comment period for this proposed regulation is still open. Comments can be submitted at www.regulations.gov. The agency is DOJ and the docket no. is DOJ-AOG-2026-0001. As of today, it's also listed under "What's Trending" on the main page. (L & Z)