Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
Rep. Dave Min (D-CA): “I don’t think my voters want me to be moderate or cautious in defending democracy or the Constitution.”
At least historically, the expectation has been that the attorney general of the United States is wholly independent of political influences and ethically uncompromised. Given that the AG is entrusted with leading the entire criminal prosecution authority of the U.S., upholding the rule of law is a job requirement.
And yet Attorney General Pam Bondi has appeared to approach her job in the first hundred days of her term as the personal attorney for the president, rather than someone dispassionately upholding the law. To some extent, that is to be expected. Every AG is handpicked by the president and confirmed by the Senate with the understanding that they are aligned with the administration’s policy goals. The AG serves as a member of the president’s cabinet, and the Justice Department provides legal advice to the president and represents the government in legal matters. AGs can even be removed if the president determines them to be disloyal or unfit to serve.
Yet despite the AG’s allegiance to the president, cabinet membership does not preclude the highest lawyer in the land from facing the music when they fail to uphold the rule of law or engage in ethical misconduct. The trick is how to actually force that accountability to happen.
On May 1, Reps. Dave Min (D-CA) and Mike Levin (D-CA) submitted a letter to the Florida Bar Association, alerting its Attorney Consumer Assistance Program Office of Disciplinary Counsel to Bondi’s alleged misconduct. The California congressmen, citing allegations from media reports, asserted their belief that “there are numerous and substantial grounds” to warrant an investigation into the attorney general’s professional conduct.
The letter suggests that Bondi’s involvement in dismissing the Department of Justice’s corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams in possible exchange for his support of President Trump’s deportation plan constituted potential violations of federal law and ethical rules. It also condemned her for allegedly expediting the deportation of Venezuelan nationals to a prison in El Salvador after a federal court blocked the move, and referenced allegations that her public statements on the decision to restore due process jeopardized the judiciary’s authority to determine whether the government’s actions were lawful.
The Florida Bar Association did not respond to a request for comment on whether they are moving forward on the information in the letter.
“The more you allow for violation—gross and brazen violations of the rule of law, of defying the Constitution, of defying the courts—to go unchecked, the harder it is to walk that back,” Rep. Min told the Prospect in an interview.
Min succeeded former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter in the 2024 election. The race for the Orange County, California, district was a toss-up, with Min narrowly defeating Republican challenger Scott Baugh. Since then, the freshman representative and former UC Irvine contract law professor has been unusually vocal for a frontline member in a swing seat.
When asked why his aggressive stance toward the Trump administration is good politics for someone representing a purple district, Min, sleep-deprived and squeezing in a quick conversation over a working lunch, said the stakes could not be higher. “I don’t think my voters want me to be moderate or cautious in defending democracy or the Constitution,” he told the Prospect. “These are things that we should all be defending with everything we have.”
The recent letter to the Florida Bar is one of many actions Min has taken in an attempt to put a check on the forces in power. Notably, in April, Min issued a series of letters to law firms inquiring about their pro bono agreements with President Trump. More recently, he proposed four amendments to the House Natural Resources Committee section of the reconciliation package, which, in his view, is “rife with conflicts of interest” and “a huge giveaway to Big Oil.” Then, on Wednesday, Min also held a Special Order hour of House floor speeches highlighting what he described as “blatant violations of the Hatch Act” by the federal government, which prohibits cabinet members from certain political activities.
The odds are stacked against Democrats, but they have more tools at their disposal than they may realize, Min said. An example of this was when Min introduced the BAD DOGE Act earlier this year. “When I introduced the BAD DOGE Act … to eliminate DOGE and kick Elon Musk out of the federal government, we knew that bill didn’t have a high probability of going through, but we were trying to start a conversation.” In the ensuing months, Musk’s involvement with DOGE became extremely unpopular, and Musk recently announced he was stepping back from government work.
For Min, good politics at this crucial juncture is regularly drawing attention to important issues through messaging and legislation, supporting litigation in the courts through amicus briefs and other efforts, urging outside groups (like the Florida Bar) to weigh in on potential misconduct, and hosting town halls, whether that be on the steps of Capitol Hill or in House Democratic—or even Republican—districts.
House Democrats have worked to highlight the GOP mega-bill, a critical piece of Trump’s political agenda. But since Republicans can pass that on a party-line vote, their options are limited to messaging.
The supposed savings generated from taking a chain saw to the federal government, and by default the social safety net, will not benefit the average American taxpayer, Min said. “It’s never been about waste, fraud, and abuse. The efforts to try to come up with as many cuts as possible to social services and programs are meant to partially pay for the Trump tax cuts … and that is so immoral and wrong.”
When it comes to ensuring that the rule of law is upheld, Min thinks less about the precarity of his position as a swing-seat Democrat and more about defending democracy, he said. “If … I lose my seat because I’ve been fighting hard for the Constitution and for the rule of law, that’s a trade-off I’ll take.”
Perhaps congressional Democrats whose incumbencies are less precarious will take note.
