Bondi is out at the DOJ. Will that alone restore trust?

Pam Bondi is out as U.S. attorney general. President Donald Trump announced her removal after months of controversy, including scrutiny surrounding the handling of the Epstein files and a recent congressional subpoena. Her departure may close one chapter of scandal, but it does not resolve the broader challenge that has been looming for some time: restoring confidence in an institution that many Americans, across the political spectrum, are increasingly skeptical of.

While her departure was not a shock to most, as the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under its purview, have taken repeated hits to their credibility over her short tenure, it is important to recognize that skepticism of these institutions did not begin with Bondi, and will not end with her exit. The DOJ, at least on paper, is meant to operate with a degree of independence that sets it apart from other executive branch agencies, but over time, that reality has been tested time and time again.

History offers familiar examples. The Teapot Dome scandal exposed corruption at the highest levels of our federal government during the administration of President Warren G. Harding in the 1920s. Decades later, the Watergate scandal in the 1970s ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Now, we have seen the Epstein files debacle play out in real time, and are watching as President Trump attempts to navigate his way around yet another instance of high-profile, sensational scandal within our federal justice system.

Each of these examples reinforces one major theme, which is that when the justice system is perceived as serving political ends rather than neutral and sustained core principles, public trust is difficult to sustain. Unfortunately, we are reaping the seeds of distrust that the decades of more-and-more-frequent scandals and questionable decision-making have sown. Concerns about politicization of justice are also not confined to one party or ideology. Rather, they reflect a broader unease about whether the authority of governmental entities is being exercised consistently, appropriately, and with the best interests of communities in mind, or if they are being used as a means to an end for political expediency.

Put simply, trust in our justice system needs to be restored. Doing this, though, requires looking at why, when, where, and how trust in the legitimacy of justice systems at all levels of government has been lost.

At the local level, prosecutors have taken a hit. Some lost trust as they saw progressive prosecutors ignoring the rule of law and decline to enforce entire categories of offenses. That left many Americans with the impression that the justice system had stopped taking public safety seriously. At the federal level, others lost trust when the U.S. Supreme Court held President Trump was privy to absolute immunity and could evade ordinary criminal accountability. Americans also saw federal prosecutors unable to secure even the lowest evidentiary bar of a grand jury indictment, indicating that the DOJ may be pursuing cases that lack credibility.

Increasingly, these reactions from the public point to a broader idea, that the loudest and most extreme voices in political discourse—who are often most successful at capturing institutional power—do not necessarily reflect the views of most Americans, but still shape how the system is perceived.

Taken together, these concerns have contributed to the perception that the justice system is not operating as an impartial arbiter, but as an institution vulnerable to political influence. Whether this perception is fully accurate or not, it carries real consequences. When confidence in the justice system erodes, it becomes harder to secure cooperation from witnesses, to ensure compliance with the law, and to maintain legitimacy of outcomes.

The experiences of law enforcement in recent years provides a useful parallel to the current experiences of prosecutors. Law enforcement faced public backlash after several high-profile use-of-force incidents. Some of the scrutiny was well deserved, but the loss of trust also produced unexpected consequences, including recruitment and retention challenges and increasingly strained relationships with communities critical to solving and preventing crime. Rebuilding that trust—slowly and unevenly at times—has required sustained efforts, transparency, and candid confrontation of difficult questions.

The ousting of Bondi—the most prominent prosecutor in the nation—may just be the fresh start the profession needs, as the DOJ and our country’s prosecutors now face a similar challenge. However, the answer is not simply replacing one leader with another. It will require far more difficult conversations, as well as a renewed commitment—across parties and institutions—to the idea that justice must be applied consistently, transparently, and without regard to political advantage.

Fortunately, we have been here before as a nation. In the wake of past scandals, policymakers came together to build stronger guardrails, reinforce oversight, and reassert the principle that nobody is above the law, regardless of position or political ties. That same kind of effort is needed again now, to ensure that the systems we rely on are worthy of public trust moving forward.

Restoring confidence will not happen overnight, but it can happen if leaders are willing to prioritize institutional integrity over short-term political wins, and if we commit to sustaining and leaning into the checks, balances, and norms that make equal justice under law more than just words on a page.