Overview:
Attorney General Pam Bondi faced rare bipartisan fire during her testimony before Congress on the Justice Department’s $34 billion 2026 budget request—a $3 billion drop from last year. Lawmakers from both sides slammed her for deep program cuts, alleged political favoritism, and vague justifications tied to national security. The hearing turned tense as concerns mounted over how the DOJ is operating under Bondi’s watch in the wake of U.S. strikes on Iran.
Speaking:
Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before a House Appropriations subcommittee this week. She was there to defend President Donald Trump’s $34 billion budget request for the Department of Justice—a sharp $3 billion reduction from the previous year. However, the session quickly turned into a political crossfire. Lawmakers from both parties unleashed frustration over what they saw as dangerous priorities, missing accountability, and political gamesmanship.
Bondi entered the hearing under a cloud of controversy. At the center of the storm were serious allegations. These included the politicization of the Justice Department during her tenure, budget cuts to vital legal and community programs, and a lack of clear answers on how DOJ resources are being allocated. This was in the wake of President Trump’s military strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Budgets:
She testified that over 1,000 Iranian nationals had entered the U.S. illegally in recent years. This raised eyebrows from several committee members. They pressed for proof and concrete connections between that figure and the recent budget shifts. Many viewed the statement as political theater designed to justify cuts elsewhere.
The backlash was swift and bipartisan:
- Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) demanded answers on why programs tied to civil rights enforcement, community policing, and domestic violence prevention were on the chopping block. She accused Bondi of trying to hollow out DOJ priorities that “protect the most vulnerable.”
- Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX), typically aligned with Trump’s policies, challenged Bondi on the budget’s weak response to cross-border crime and cartel enforcement. He expressed concern that the new budget didn’t match the rhetoric coming from the administration about national security and law enforcement at the southern border.
- Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) criticized the lack of transparency in how funds were being reallocated. He hinted that some resources might be funneled to politically motivated investigations or high-profile prosecutions. “The people want justice, not politics,” he warned.
- Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) took direct aim at what she described as a DOJ “in crisis.” She called out Bondi for “using fear as a funding tool,” referencing the mention of Iranian nationals and the department’s vague national security justifications.
Throughout the hearing, Bondi stood firm, defending the budget as a necessary “streamlining” of priorities. She emphasized that the DOJ would remain “focused on core law enforcement efforts and national security.” However, she declined to go into detail on exactly which programs would see reductions and which would remain intact.
High tensions:
The clash revealed a deeper anxiety in Congress: that the Justice Department is becoming more of a political weapon than a neutral agency of the law. With election season heating up and international tensions rising, many fear the DOJ’s shrinking budget could mean less oversight, fewer protections for civil liberties, and more room for political manipulation.
For Bondi, this hearing wasn’t just about defending a budget. It was about defending her leadership—and facing mounting skepticism from both parties.
The message from lawmakers was clear: cut the politics, restore the priorities, and tell the truth about where America’s justice system is really heading.
More at Presence:
