Did federal or state authorities open formal probes into Pam Bondi’s document practices or records retention?

1. What the record shows: subpoenas, congressional letters and oversight pressure

Congressional committees have actively sought documents from Attorney General Bondi and have issued subpoenas and letters demanding additional files and explanations about the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein materials; for example, House oversight and other panels have pressed Bondi to turn over files and comply with subpoenas connected to the Epstein matter ^{[1] [2]}. Republican lawmakers also wrote to Bondi urging her to unseal grand jury materials and to investigate alleged “Arctic Frost” surveillance matters, signaling strong legislative scrutiny rather than necessarily a separate criminal probe into Bondi’s records practices ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Court and grand-jury materials: litigation that touches on how materials were handled

Public reporting and legal commentary indicate litigation over grand jury materials and whether prosecutors reviewed or relied on certain seized materials; commentary alleges the government produced grand jury materials for in camera review and raises questions about review and use of possibly unlawfully obtained materials — matters that relate to document handling but are framed in the context of prosecutions and judicial review, not a stand‑alone state or federal probe specifically targeting Bondi’s retention practices ^{[3] [6]}.

3. Allegations and political pressure to investigate — two different species of action

Several sources describe political actors demanding investigations or action from Bondi (or by Bondi) — for instance Republican senators urged Bondi to unseal grand jury documents and to probe what they called weaponization by prior DOJ actions, while Democrats demanded Bondi turn over more Epstein-related files ^{[4] [5] [1]}. These are oversight and political demands: the reporting does not equate those demands with formal, independent inquiries by state attorneys general or internal DOJ inspector general probes targeting Bondi’s own records practices ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Reporting that implies procedural mistakes but not an explicit formal probe of Bondi

Legal and investigative commentary accuses Bondi’s DOJ of procedural missteps in high‑profile indictments and in access to materials — for example, analyses list alleged “f—ups” in prosecutorial choices and question whether proper warrants or safeguards were obtained before using materials in new investigations ^[6]. Such critiques point to potential malpractice or legal vulnerability, and they have prompted judicial scrutiny, but the sources stop short of saying a federal or state investigation was opened specifically into Bondi’s document-retention policies ^{[6] [3]}.

5. Where the sources explicitly say something different or raise limits

The Guardian account about Bondi assigning an investigator to probe Epstein ties to political figures documents Bondi’s own investigative actions and the politicized environment around the files; it does not report that a separate investigation into Bondi’s recordkeeping was opened by another authority ^[7]. Likewise, congressional letters and committee subpoenas demand production from Bondi but are oversight tools; available sources do not say those actions transformed into a criminal or administrative probe of Bondi’s document practices by state prosecutors or by the DOJ inspector general ^{[2] [1]}.

6. What’s missing and how to read the gap

Available sources do not mention a named federal inspector‑general investigation, a criminal referral against Bondi to a state attorney general, or a formal state‑level probe launched to examine her document retention or records practices (not found in current reporting). The absence in these pieces could mean no such probe exists, or it could mean reporting has not yet surfaced — given the heavy political pressure and ongoing litigation described, further developments (formal inquiries or referrals) remain plausible but are not documented in the texts provided ^{[1] [3] [6]}.

7. Bottom line for readers

There is clear, bipartisan congressional scrutiny, judicial litigation over grand jury and seized materials, and critical legal commentary about Bondi’s DOJ choices ^{[1] [2] [6]}. However, the materials you provided do not establish that federal or state authorities opened a distinct, formal probe exclusively into Pam Bondi’s document practices or records retention — that specific fact is not present in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).