Attorney General Pam Bondi is facing a growing legal and political firestorm after a longtime Justice Department official filed a federal lawsuit Monday accusing her of abusing her authority when she fired him in the wake of a covertly recorded Epstein-related video.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi looks on during a press conference to discuss the progress of the Memphis Safe Task Force at the Shelby County Office of Preparedness in Memphis, Tenn., on November 24, 2025.
Joseph Schnitt’s complaint places Bondi squarely at the center of the controversy, arguing that her rapid move to terminate him — just one day after a conservative sting operation published the footage — amounted to an unconstitutional crackdown on protected speech.
Bondi removed Schnitt from his post as acting deputy chief of the DOJ’s Witness Security Program in September, citing his recorded comments about how the department might handle public requests for Epstein-related files and his criticism of Ghislaine Maxwell’s prison transfer. The video was captured without Schnitt’s knowledge by a woman posing as a date he met on the app Hinge.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks during a press conference to discuss the progress of the Memphis Safe Task Force at the Shelby County Office of Preparedness in Memphis, Tenn., on November 24, 2025.
In his lawsuit, Schnitt claims Bondi rushed to fire him despite his repeated insistence that he had no operational knowledge of the Epstein or Maxwell cases and was merely sharing personal views based on news reports. His attorneys argue Bondi’s action trampled long-standing First Amendment protections, punished off-duty personal speech, and turned a political sting into grounds for dismissal.
The complaint also criticizes Bondi’s decision to publicly circulate portions of Schnitt’s internal email — a move his legal team says violated the Privacy Act. According to the lawsuit, key context from the sting, including Schnitt’s disclaimers that he had no insider information, was omitted from the video clips Bondi relied on to justify the firing.
Bondi has not publicly responded to the lawsuit, but the Justice Department has previously argued that federal courts lack jurisdiction over personnel actions taken under the president’s authority — a position that would broadly insulate Bondi’s decision from judicial review. Schnitt’s team counters that the alternative appeals process is overwhelmed and structurally incapable of providing relief.
