Pam Bondi Admits Her Office Sent Controversial Email to FBI: “I Didn’t Realize It Went”

A routine congressional hearing on cybersecurity and public safety took an unexpected turn this week when former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi admitted that a controversial email originated from her office and was sent to FBI agents—without her knowledge.

The admission came during a tense exchange with Congressman Frank Mrvan (D-IN), who was questioning Department of Justice officials about the agency’s cybersecurity posture in the face of increasing threats from foreign actors like Iran and China. The hearing was initially focused on securing public safety grants and bolstering critical infrastructure, but shifted when Rep. Mrvan raised concerns about internal communications involving FBI personnel.

In an exchange that has since drawn significant attention, Bondi acknowledged that her office was responsible for an email that asked FBI agents to list five reasons why they “did” something at the end of the week—seemingly requesting a justification of their work. According to Rep. Mrvan, the email initially appeared to come from the Department of Justice and was interpreted as a directive to the agents. Bondi said she ordered the email withdrawn as soon as she learned it had been sent to the FBI.

“I didn’t realize it went to the FBI,” Bondi admitted, drawing a swift follow-up from lawmakers who demanded to know how such a communication could go out without the Attorney General’s direct awareness.

Bondi attempted to explain the email’s purpose as a check-in mechanism, describing it as an informal way to confirm agents were present and working. “It could have been, ‘I got up and got a cup of coffee,’” she said, suggesting the directive was not intended to micromanage sensitive operations or collect confidential information.

But Rep. Mrvan didn’t let the issue go. “So the people who did answer it—where did that data go?” he asked. Bondi replied, “I will find out. I will get you that information,” acknowledging the potential implications for national security.

The revelation has prompted broader concerns about internal oversight and data handling within the Department of Justice, especially at a time when cybersecurity and intelligence protection are under increasing scrutiny. During the same hearing, officials discussed the Biden administration’s proposed $50 million investment in cybersecurity, noting that threats from Iran and China are only escalating.

“We want to protect Haida,” a DOJ official assured, referencing the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program in Gary, Indiana, and surrounding regions, which Rep. Mrvan represents. The official affirmed that federal support for public safety infrastructure—including license plate readers and community policing grants—would remain intact despite budget challenges.

Still, Bondi’s remarks drew concern not just because of the email itself, but because of the gaps it exposed in communication and accountability.

Analysts say her statement—“The email came from my office, but I didn’t know it went to the FBI”—illustrates a potentially dangerous disconnect in a department tasked with handling matters of national security, intelligence gathering, and law enforcement coordination.

“This kind of lapse, even if unintentional, speaks to the need for much tighter control over internal directives—especially those touching the FBI,” said one former DOJ official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Adding to the tension, Bondi’s office has yet to provide a full accounting of who sent the email, what data was gathered in response, and how that information has been secured. Critics argue that in an age of increasingly sophisticated cyber warfare and disinformation, even routine administrative errors can be weaponized or exploited.

Rep. Mrvan, who has long advocated for increased funding and transparency in public safety programs, closed his remarks by reiterating the seriousness of the matter.

“As they are working on sensitive issues, I only ask as a national security issue,” he said. “Where did the data go?”

Bondi offered no final answers before time expired, only promising to follow up.

As Washington braces for more hearings on internal communications and cybersecurity safeguards, Bondi’s candid statement may become a cautionary tale for government leaders: In a digital world, even small missteps can have major consequences.