Early in the first Trump administration, legal journalist Benjamin Wittes coined a phrase that perfectly captured President Donald Trump's governing style: "malevolence tempered by incompetence." This description, as Wittes originally noted, referred to Trump's habit of issuing executive orders without proper legal or policy vetting, making them vulnerable to lawsuits and often rendering them ineffective. This pattern of bold actions that crumble under real-world scrutiny has persisted throughout both of Trump's terms in office.
The Embodiment of Incompetent Malice
No one exemplified Trump's brand of incompetent malice more than outgoing Attorney General Pam Bondi. Trump announced on Thursday that Bondi "will be transitioning" to a "new job in the private sector," ending her 15-month tenure as the nation's top legal official. During her time in office, Bondi repeatedly flouted norms established since the Nixon era, which were designed to insulate federal prosecutors from political interference by the White House.
However, her attempts to weaponize the Department of Justice against Trump's perceived enemies frequently faltered due to poor legal strategy and execution. One of Bondi's most notorious moments came in a February 2025 interview with Fox News, where she claimed that a list of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's clients was "sitting on my desk right now." Months later, the DOJ contradicted her by stating that no such list existed. When questioned about her mishandling of the Epstein files during a congressional hearing, Bondi bizarrely deflected by remarking, "the Dow is over 50,000 right now," despite the Dow Jones Industrial Average actually standing at 46,371.57 at the time.
Failed Prosecutions and Legal Blunders
The Trump DOJ's efforts to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—both targets of Trump's ire for investigating alleged presidential misconduct—ended in dismissal by a federal court. A judge ruled that Lindsey Halligan, an insurance lawyer the administration attempted to install as a top federal prosecutor in Virginia, was never lawfully appointed, undermining the cases.
Similarly, when the administration deployed thousands of federal law enforcement officers to occupy Minneapolis and arrest immigrants en masse, a competent attorney general would have anticipated the legal fallout and assigned additional lawyers to handle the expected caseload. Instead, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota was severely understaffed and unprepared, leading to court orders that forced the release of many detainees. Federal judges harshly criticized the DOJ's incompetence, with one noting that the administration sent agents to detain immigrants "without making any provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result."
Endangering Political Power
Bondi's ineptitude even threatened the Republican Party's political advantages. In November, a federal court in Texas struck down a GOP gerrymander that would have secured five additional U.S. House seats after the 2026 midterms. The ruling, by a Trump-appointed judge, cited a letter from one of Bondi's top deputies that unconstitutionally urged Texas to redraw maps based on racial considerations. Although the Supreme Court later reinstated the gerrymander, the lower court's decision was grounded in precedent, and the controversy could have been avoided if Bondi's DOJ had not issued the error-ridden letter.
This list of blunders is just the tip of the iceberg. Not every Republican attorney general loyal to Trump would have made such fundamental mistakes in executing his agenda. There is no guarantee that Bondi's successor will share her ineptitude, so Trump's opponents should exercise caution before celebrating her departure.
The Potential for a Competent Loyalist
Bondi's ouster presents Trump with an opportunity to appoint a competent loyalist to lead the DOJ. Her bumbling management might have had greater consequences if Republicans did not control the federal judiciary. For instance, lawsuits challenging the Minneapolis detentions are currently on hold due to a decision by Republican appellate judges, and the Texas gerrymander ruling was blocked by the Republican-majority Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, Bondi's legacy of incompetence may haunt the DOJ for years. Federal judges, who historically deferred to the department's reputation for candor and skilled lawyering, are now openly questioning its actions in their opinions. This skepticism forces rank-and-file DOJ lawyers to expend excessive time defending claims that would have been accepted without scrutiny in the past.
The worst-case scenario for Trump's political enemies—and anyone else targeted by the DOJ for political reasons—is that Bondi could be replaced by a capable advocate. Early reports suggest EPA administrator Lee Zeldin is among the candidates under consideration. A competent attorney general would ensure lawful prosecutions against figures like Comey and James, strategically leak Epstein documents to implicate Democrats rather than prompting congressional disclosure, and optimize DOJ resources to advance Trump's agenda efficiently.
It remains unclear who Trump will choose to succeed the maladroit Bondi, but there is no shortage of highly partisan Republican lawyers who excel at their jobs. Trump could select someone akin to his first-term Attorney General Bill Barr, a formidable advocate for the MAGA agenda. If that happens, those on Trump's enemies list may find themselves longing for the days of Pam Bondi's incompetence.
