What investigations or probes have involved Pam Bondi since leaving office and what outcomes were reached?

1. The Epstein files pivot: Bondi assigns SDNY to probe ties to Trump’s political foes

After House releases of documents tied to Jeffrey Epstein, President Trump publicly urged an inquiry into Epstein’s connections to prominent Democrats and Bondi responded by assigning Jay Clayton, the interim U.S. attorney for SDNY, to lead a review — a move widely reported as acceding to the president’s direction and as a departure from an earlier July DOJ/FBI memo that said investigators had found nothing to predicate further probes of uncharged third parties ^{[5] [6] [1]}. Reporting frames this as both a policy reversal and a politically charged step: The Guardian and Politico note the quick timing after Trump’s public direction and emphasize DOJ’s prior finding that the files “did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties” ^{[6] [3]}.

2. Political critics say the move looks like politicization; Bondi and allies deny wrongdoing

Multiple outlets and legal observers characterized Bondi’s assignment of Clayton as politically motivated and as playing into President Trump’s effort to “deflect scrutiny” of his own Epstein ties by targeting opponents; critics in Congress and legal commentators called it weaponizing the department ^{[3] [7]}. Bondi and supporters described the appointment as responsible oversight, with Bondi calling Clayton “capable and trusted,” while other reporting notes that congressional Democrats have subpoenaed files and pressed Bondi to release materials — evidencing clear partisan disagreement about motive and propriety ^{[8] [9]}.

3. Senate hearings and questions over broader probe choices and personnel

Bondi has faced intense questioning in Senate testimony about her handling of Epstein materials and other decisions at DOJ; BBC and other outlets summarized her October 2025 hearings where Democrats accused her of damaging the department’s independence and she defended previous DOJ findings denying cover-up or conspiracy ^{[2] [10]}. Reporting also documents wider concern over firings and removals of career prosecutors and whether investigations and personnel moves reflect policy or partisanship; critics and former prosecutors warned the pattern undermines public trust ^{[4] [11]}.

4. Court filings and legal challenges that question Bondi’s procedural choices

Several court filings and legal analysts have directly challenged Bondi’s legal reasoning in specific prosecutions tied to appointees and indictments — for example, filings argue her attempts to retroactively validate an appointment (Lindsey Halligan context) improperly “bend space and time,” a line of argument used by defense counsel and cited in press coverage of pending litigation ^[12]. Independent legal commentary has flagged possible Fourth Amendment and grand-jury-material issues tied to how certain transcripts and exhibits were handled in recent high-profile matters; reporting and legal blogs have raised questions about potential taint and constitutional concerns ^{[13] [12]}.

5. Threats, enforcement actions and other investigations Bondi announced or publicized

Beyond Epstein-related matters, Bondi as AG has overseen or publicized enforcement responses — including announcing the arrest of a man accused of threatening her (TikTok “bounty” case), and coordinating federal efforts after attacks or threats against prosecutors such as the Alina Habba office incident; these are law-enforcement actions rather than probes into Bondi herself but show how her tenure has become entwined with high-profile criminal matters and security responses ^{[14] [15] [16]}.

6. What outcomes have been reached so far — reporting limits and known results

Available sources document Bondi’s appointment of investigators and substantial congressional and public scrutiny, but they do not yet show completed criminal prosecutions or definitive public findings flowing from the Epstein reassignment as of the cited reports; outlets report DOJ’s prior memo finding no predicate evidence in July and note the new SDNY assignment but do not report final conclusions from Clayton’s work ^{[6] [1]}. Similarly, Senate hearings produced intense questioning and media coverage but no single conclusive adjudication of misconduct by Bondi in the sources provided ^{[2] [4]}. Where courts or filings have pushed back — e.g., on appointment legality or use of grand-jury materials — those disputes were active in filings and reporting rather than resolved outcomes ^{[13] [12]}.

Conclusion — context and caveats: reporting portrays Pam Bondi as a central, controversial actor in a series of politically charged investigations and personnel decisions since her move to the federal post; major news outlets document the Epstein-file directive, partisan backlash, congressional subpoenas, court challenges, and law-enforcement responses to threats ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Available sources do not provide a catalog of every probe of Bondi personally nor final adjudications of many of these disputes; they instead show ongoing probes, hearings and active legal fights with outcomes still unfolding in public reporting ^{[13] [12]}.