Have any subpoenas or preservation orders been issued to Pam Bondi or her office recently?

1. What the sources actually show — Bondi as actor, not target

Most items in the packet describe Pam Bondi issuing directives or being the subject of congressional oversight requests rather than being subpoenaed herself. For example, a report states Bondi ordered former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to preserve emails and records related to an alleged incident, with a preservation-letter confirmation attributed to Bondi’s deputy ^[1]. Other pieces cover Bondi’s policy memos and prosecutions, her announcement of inquiries (including an Epstein-related probe she ordered), and congressional letters requesting Bondi act or produce material — again, depicting Bondi as the actor or the addressee of oversight, not the recipient of subpoenas or preservation orders from another authority ^{[3] [4] [5] [2]}.

2. Congressional pressure and requests aimed at Bondi — letters and demands, not subpoenas

Senators and House committees have sent formal letters and public demands to Bondi urging action, such as the October 31, 2025, letter from Senator Rick Scott and colleagues asking Bondi to unseal grand jury materials tied to the “Arctic Frost” matter and other communications urging her to release or review documents ^{[6] [2]}. These are public political pressures and requests; the available sources show letters and demands (some linked as PDF letters) rather than judicial subpoenas or preservation orders directed at Bondi ^[2].

3. Reporting about subpoenas in related investigations — Bondi referenced but not subpoenaed

Several stories in the packet discuss grand jury subpoenas and court orders that played roles in other investigations (for example, Jack Smith’s subpoenas for phone records in the Arctic Frost inquiry). Those reports reference Bondi because of political disputes over disclosure and DOJ actions, but they do not say Bondi or the Department she heads was itself subpoenaed or placed under a preservation order in the available documents ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

4. Ongoing oversight, investigations, and legislative moves that could lead to compulsory process later

Sources show intense oversight activity — hearings, demands to release files (notably Epstein materials), and legislation requiring release within statutory timeframes — and commentators warning Bondi could face legal jeopardy if records are withheld ^{[5] [9] [10] [11]}. Those developments create a plausible pathway where subpoenas or preservation orders could be issued later, but the supplied reporting does not document that having happened to Bondi or her office yet (available sources do not mention subpoenas/preservation orders issued to Bondi).

5. Partisan framing and competing narratives in the record

Coverage is sharply divided: conservative allies call for Bondi to investigate political foes and applaud her release decisions, while some outlets and commentators view her actions as partisan or inadequate, raising the prospect of oversight or contempt proceedings ^{[3] [12] [11] [13]}. This conflict explains why readers may expect subpoenas or preservation orders to appear — but again, the current set of sources documents correspondence, legislative requirements, and oversight hearings, not court-issued subpoenas targeting Bondi ^{[3] [5] [10]}.

6. Bottom line and limitations

Based solely on the documents you provided, there is no report of subpoenas or preservation orders having been issued to Pam Bondi or her office; instead, the materials show Bondi issuing or responding to preservation demands and being the subject of congressional letters and media scrutiny ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If you want confirmation beyond these sources — for example, a court docket entry or DOJ press release showing a subpoena directed at Bondi — that is not present in the current reporting (available sources do not mention such a subpoena/preservation order).