John Kennedy Clashes With Pam Bondi in Fiery Senate Hearing Over DOJ Spying Allegations

In a tense and fiery hearing before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on October 7, 2025, Senator John Kennedy confronted Attorney General Pam Bondi over allegations that the Department of Justice (DOJ) under her leadership had engaged in improper surveillance — including claims that the DOJ, or its agencies, tapped the phones of sitting U.S. Senators. The exchange quickly escalated, capturing national attention.

Kennedy pressed Bondi directly: he demanded to know who ordered the alleged phone surveillance, why it was carried out, and whether senior DOJ officials — or even the White House — had signed off on the decision. According to the transcript, Kennedy said plainly, “We need to know exactly who approved the wiretaps on United States Senators.”

Bondi, however, responded with deflection. She said the DOJ was reviewing “all aspects” of the matter, and insisted that she had spoken with top officials about it. But when asked for specifics — who ordered what, when, and why — she refused to provide answers. Instead, Bondi accused her questioners of political bias and alleged that prior DOJ investigations had been over-politicized.

The hearing did not only focus on alleged spying. Bondi faced intense scrutiny over several controversial issues, including the handling of the long-delayed release of documents related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the decision not to pursue certain previous investigations, and the broader question of whether the DOJ under her leadership had become a tool for political retribution rather than impartial justice. Critics argued that Bondi’s refusal to transparently address these issues amounted to a systemic erosion of trust in law-enforcement institutions.

Supporters of Bondi, largely from her own party, countered that she was working to root out what they described as the “weaponization” of the DOJ under previous administrations — focusing instead on violent crime and shifting away from what they claimed were politically charged prosecutions. Bondi maintained that her priority was restoring the DOJ’s core mission.

But for many observers, the hearing exposed a deeper problem: a lack of clarity and accountability around the use of powerful federal law-enforcement tools. Senator Kennedy’s accusations, combined with Bondi’s evasive answers, fueled fears that democratic safeguards may be weakening. As one commentator noted following the hearing: “This isn’t hypothetical… tapping the phones of United States Senators happened.”

By the end of the session, the divide was stark. For Kennedy and his allies, Bondi’s refusal to provide concrete answers signaled complicity or, at the very least, a failure of leadership. For Bondi and her supporters, the hearing demonstrated the difficulty of navigating politically charged investigations while pledging to restore trust in the DOJ. Regardless, the confrontation underscored once again how highly charged and partisan oversight of the justice system has become — and how essential transparency remains to preserving public faith in American institutions.