Was any arrest warrant issued for former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi over evidence removal?

1. No reporting shows Bondi herself faced an arrest warrant over evidence removal

None of the provided articles claims an arrest warrant was issued for Pam Bondi related to removal of evidence; the documents and news items in the search results instead concern other incidents that involve Bondi as a public figure or as a target of threats, not as a defendant (not found in current reporting). Where allegations about misconduct or legal disputes involving seizures, grand jury materials, or review of seized materials appear, they come from commentary or legal analysis pieces (for example, EmptyWheel’s analysis of seized materials and grand jury review) rather than mainstream news announcing an arrest warrant for Bondi ^[8].

2. Arrest warrant language in the files generally refers to suspects or magistrate actions, not Bondi

Press accounts about the Minnesota suspect who posted a murder‑for‑hire style TikTok describe how investigators and a local magistrate moved to obtain an arrest warrant for that suspect before federal arrest, and then federal charges were filed ^{[3] [2]}. Similarly, reporting of the suspect in the attack on Alina Habba’s office describes an arrest announced by Bondi, not an arrest warrant for Bondi herself ^{[6] [7]}. The available sources repeatedly frame warrants and arrests as actions taken against alleged perpetrators, not against Bondi ^{[4] [9]}.

3. Context: two distinct law‑enforcement threads in the coverage

First thread—threatened violence: multiple outlets report that a Minnesota man allegedly posted a TikTok offering a $45,000 bounty on Bondi’s life; investigators traced the post, a magistrate issued an arrest warrant, and federal authorities arrested the suspect and brought charges ^{[2] [4] [3]}. Second thread—attack on a U.S. attorney’s office: Bondi publicly announced that a suspect in the attack on Acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s office had been arrested, with law‑enforcement agencies credited for the arrest ^{[6] [7] [10]}. These are the operative law‑enforcement stories in the set of results relating to Bondi.

4. Where the evidence‑removal allegation appears in the results

A legal commentary piece cited in the results (EmptyWheel) discusses court orders restraining government review of materials seized under certain warrants and raises Fourth Amendment and attorney‑client privilege questions tied to the review of grand jury materials; that piece mentions Pam Bondi in the context of having reviewed grand jury materials and suggests legal controversy but does not report an arrest warrant for her ^[8]. That is analysis and accusation, not a news report of criminal process against Bondi.

5. Competing perspectives and limitations of the dataset

Conservative outlets and mainstream outlets in these search results focus on the criminal threats against Bondi and Bondi’s own announcements about arrests ^{[2] [9] [6]}. Progressive/pro‑legal‑analysis outlets discuss potential constitutional and evidentiary issues involving seized materials and reviews by various actors, sometimes naming Bondi in legal critique ^[8]. The available set of sources is limited and does not include court dockets, direct DOJ press releases on evidence‑removal prosecutions, or a comprehensive investigative timeline; therefore, if a warrant or indictment were issued outside the time or scope of these pieces, those documents are not in the provided reporting (not found in current reporting).

6. Bottom line and how to verify further

Based on the provided reporting, there is no indication that Pam Bondi was the subject of an arrest warrant over removal of evidence; coverage instead documents arrests of suspects who threatened or attacked offices associated with federal prosecutors, and legal commentary raising questions about seized‑material review that mentions Bondi but does not announce criminal charges against her ^{[2] [4] [6] [8]}. To verify beyond these sources, consult primary court records (federal and local magistrate dockets), official DOJ statements, or follow‑up reporting from major national outlets; those documents are not included among the current search results (not found in current reporting).