A legal brief written by Attorney General Pam Bondi before she joined President Donald Trump’s administration is drawing new attention, as it contains language that appears to clash with the White House’s current posture on military obedience and presidential authority.
On Tuesday, MS NOW host Jonathan Lemire highlighted reporting from the New York Times that uncovered Bondi’s previous work for the America First Policy Institute. In 2024, while serving as an adviser to the conservative think tank, Bondi helped draft a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of three military officers during Trump’s legal fight over presidential immunity.
In that filing, Bondi argued that members of the armed forces are obligated to reject unlawful orders. “Military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders,” she wrote. The brief also stated that personnel would refuse “a patently unlawful order from the president to kill nonmilitary targets,” describing that expectation as part of standard military training.
The statements were aimed at offering clarity after Trump’s lawyer told the Supreme Court that even an order to assassinate a political rival could potentially fall under presidential immunity. Bondi’s filing sought to emphasize limits within the military system, regardless of how the Court ruled.
Those passages have now resurfaced as the Justice Department, under Bondi’s leadership, reviews comments made by Democratic lawmakers who recently recorded a video urging service members to reject illegal commands. Trump condemned the video, calling it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR,” and the department has requested interviews with the lawmakers involved.
So, why hasn’t President Trump fired Pam Bondi? pic.twitter.com/6IHYqtGAo3
— Ben Owen™️ (@hrkbenowen) December 8, 2025
The scrutiny arrives amid criticism over Trump’s approach to presidential authority and the role of the military. Bondi’s earlier brief was crafted long before she was nominated to lead the Justice Department, but it now sits beside her department’s current inquiry into statements that echo the principles she previously outlined for the Court.
The Times report noted that DOJ officials are examining whether the lawmakers’ remarks violated any statutes, though no formal action has been announced. The review comes as Trump and his advisers continue to push back against any suggestion that military officers may refuse directives they deem unlawful.
Bondi has not publicly addressed the reappearance of the 2024 brief. The Justice Department declined to comment when asked whether her past statements have any bearing on internal deliberations.
The matter adds another layer to ongoing questions about how the administration interprets presidential authority, the duties of military personnel, and the boundaries between lawful command and political instruction. With the December deadline approaching for the department’s interviews with lawmakers, Bondi’s earlier language is likely to remain part of the discussion.
Bondi has managed to stay in Trump’s good graces as many MAGA loyalist have called for her to be replaced over the Epstein controversy. However, she has been a strong ally for Trump, seemingly moving at his command when it comes to prosecuting his enemies and following his agenda. Whether this latest revelation affects their relationship is yet to be seen.
