Trump’s AG Pam Bondi Is Feuding With Ethics Officials

President Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi has clashed with ethics officials over her openness to accepting gifts and favors—something her boss also struggles with mightily.

The New Yorker has reported that Bondi argued with ethics folks over keeping a FIFA soccer ball, sitting in President Trump’s box at the FIFA Club World Cup at MetLife Stadium, and holding onto a box of cigars that MMA fighter and convicted rapist Conor McGregor had initially given to Trump. Bondi ended up sitting in the box seats.

“Every new Administration needs time to adjust to ethics rules that might seem trivial,” one source told The New Yorker. “What wasn’t normal was the amount of pushback that we got.”

A DOJ official told The New Republic that “whenever the AG receives any item, DOJ staff consults with ethics officials as required and fully complies with their guidance—this isn’t newsworthy or controversial.”

DOJ protocol, though, only allows employees to accept “gifts of $20 or less per occasion, not to exceed $50 in a year from one source.”

The woman in charge of the DOJ has already eclipsed that with just one gift, as those FIFA Club World Cup box seats with Trump ran anywhere between from $5,300 to $73,000.

But this kind of blatant corruption seems to be par for the course from the administration. Bondi has yet to comment on The New Yorker’s reporting.

This story has been updated.

California Republicans have filed a lawsuit in hopes of halting Governor Gavin Newsom’s plan to fight the Texas GOP’s Trump-ordered gerrymandering with retaliatory redistricting in the Golden State.

As Texas Republicans make a Machiavellian move between censuses to rejigger congressional maps in their party’s favor ahead of the 2026 midterms, Newsom has unveiled a tit-for-tat legislative package dubbed the “Election Rigging Response Act,” or ERRA. Newsom’s plan would redraw California’s maps to offset GOP gerrymandering in Texas or other red states.

In hopes of putting the new maps before California voters in a November 4 special election, state Democrats have expedited the process using a common legislative tactic known as “gut and amend”—in which the content of an existing, unrelated bill was replaced with the redistricting proposal.

Floor votes on the ERRA are expected to take place later this week. But not if California Republicans legislators can help it.

On Tuesday, four Republican legislators in California filed an emergency petition with the state’s Supreme Court, claiming that Newsom’s effort violates the state’s requirement that pieces of legislation undergo a 30-day review period after being introduced.

The lawmakers’ 411-page petition asks that the Supreme Court stay any legislative action on the ERRA for 30 days. Their case will hinge on whether California Democrats’ use of “gut and amend” lawfully bypassed the 30-day hold.

Notably, the Republican lawmakers do not challenge “the use of gut and amend for all purposes,” their petition states; their concern “is confined to the narrow case where the Legislature blatantly and intentionally uses it to circumvent a constitutional right of the people to adequate time to review proposed legislation.”

One of the Republican litigant-legislators, State Assemblyman Tri Ta, accused California Democrats of having “effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process.”

Responding to the lawsuit, a Newsom spokesperson has told the press: “Republicans are filing a deeply unserious (and truly laughable) lawsuit to stop Americans from voting? We’re neither surprised, nor worried.”

Of course, if California Republicans are looking for a surefire way to stop retaliatory redistricting in their home state, they could also call on GOPers in other states to stand down. As the governor’s office has noted, the new congressional maps would only take effect “if other states engage in mid-cycle partisan gerrymanders.”

Oklahoma’s Education Department has approved plans to force teachers from California or New York to pass an ideology test to ensure that they aren’t too “woke” before they hire them.

The test was created by right-wing think-tank Prager University, which has made headlines recently for developing education material that minimizes American slavery. It features 50 questions about the government, gender, and religion. The Education Department posted five sample questions from the exam, including, “What are the first three words of the Constitution?” and a question about the biological differences between men and women. 

Teaching applicants from California and New York were notified that they will not be accepted without completing the test.  

“We’re not bringing in woke indoctrinators into the classroom,” said Oklahoma’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters. “It’s a very America-first approach.”

Walters hopes to release the exam “soon.” He has also blocked Board of Education members from viewing the exam before potential teachers receive it. 

Oklahoma Education Association president Cari Elledge told USA Today that she believes the move will only exacerbate Oklahoma’s public school teacher shortage. The state teachers union wrote in a letter that Walters “has no legal authority to vet certified teachers based on political ideology.” 

Walters has made headlines previously for trying to force Trump Bibles and prayer into classrooms, reportedly watching pornography during a school board meeting, and inviting ICE to perform raids on the children of his state while they were at school.  

In short, he appears to be a loyal MAGA soldier who happens to have an alarming amount of power over the teachers and students of Oklahoma, and this test only reaffirms that. 

Summer recess is turning out to be a crude wake-up call for Republican lawmakers, who appear to be learning just how much their constituents hate the Trumpian policies they’ve voted for.

Wyoming Representative Harriet Hageman had her own rude awakening at a Natrona County town hall on Monday when she was pressed to explain her ongoing support for Donald Trump’s “liberation day” tariff plan.

“Who is responsible for establishing tariffs in our country?” asked a male attendee.

“Well right now, the president has taken that authority,” Hageman said, cut off by a loud “boo” from the audience.

“Why did he take that authority? You guys gave it to him. The House of Representatives are responsible for establishing tariffs. You gave that to him,” the attendee continued, urged on by cheers and applause from the crowd.

“The next thing I’d like to ask you, when you look at the bigger picture—” he continued, before Hageman cut him off to claim that the tariffs had “raised over $150 billion.” But that only further incensed the crowd, who began to shout at their elected lawmaker.

“Who pays for them? Who pays for them? We pay for them,” the attendee on the microphone retorted.

“Inflation has not gone up,” Hageman said.

It was the third event in a matter of weeks that Hageman had bombed onstage in front of her constituents. In a heated exchange with a female attendee at a Casper town hall earlier Monday, the 62-year-old’s stated belief that mail-in ballots are not “foundational tools” of democratic elections was practically met with screams from the irate crowd.

The Wyoming Republican was also practically roasted in the rural town of Pinedale on July 29  when she justified the planned repeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s landmark “endangerment finding,” which required corporations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. 

“The endangerment finding is absolutely based upon false science,” Hageman told the crowd, who jeered back at her. “Lie, lie!” they chanted over her.

“CO2 is not a pollutant,” Hageman shouted. “As far as the validity and the science that was the foundation for that, they cooked the books.”

Hageman isn’t the only MAGA legislator who has gotten scorched during the last few weeks for voting against the interests of her constituents. New York Representative Elise Stefanik was roundly booed by a feisty crowd when she emerged in Plattsburg Monday to rename a county building, and Nebraska Representative Mike Flood was excoriated during a town hall earlier this month for failing to protect SNAP benefits, veterans’ programs, and health care access, combined with voters’ simmering resentment for the GOP’s lagging on the release of the Epstein files.

In response to a perfectly reasonable query from a New York Times reporter, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday lashed out at the paper while dodging the question.

Earlier, President Trump—who, in recent days, has conducted a bilateral summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a multilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and other European leaders, and a one-on-one phone call with Putin—told Fox News that he’d stepped away from his meeting with the European leaders to speak with the Russian president.

“I didn’t [call Putin] in front of them. I thought that would be disrespectful to President Putin,” Trump said. “You know, I wouldn’t do that because they have not had the warmest relations.”

At a press conference later Tuesday, the Times’ Shawn McCreesh asked an obvious question: If the current objective of ongoing Russia-Ukraine peace efforts is to “get everybody on the same page,” then, “why wouldn’t Trump just take the call from Putin while the other leaders were in the room? He said it would be ‘disrespectful’ to do that. Why is it disrespectful?”

In response, Leavitt said, “With all due respect, only a reporter from The New York Times would ask a question like that, Shawn.”

Trump’s 27-year-old press secretary, who recently claimed that a Nobel Peace Prize for the president is “well past time,” went on to tout Trump’s diplomacy with Putin and the European leaders. (McCreesh’s question—however vapid Leavitt considered it to be—was left glaringly unanswered.)

Leavitt has a habit of verbally assailing reporters and condescending to them rather than answering their questions.

In March, Andrew Feinberg of The Independent asked about the government haphazardly classifying people as members of the gang Tren de Aragua based on their tattoos and clothing. “Shame on you,” she replied, “and shame on the mainstream media for trying to cover for these individuals who have—this is a vicious gang, Andrew!”

In June, Jasmine Wright of NOTUS asked Leavitt whether Trump would tolerate peaceful protest during his then-upcoming military parade, in light of the president warning that “any protester [who] wants to come out … will be met with very big force.”

“Of course the president supports peaceful protests. What a stupid question,” Leavitt said.