Exclusive: Pam Bondi says she doesn't want new jet after The Independent exposes FBI plan for new airplane to shuttle her around
However, following a report on Wednesday by The Independent about the intended acquisition, a spokesman for Bondi now claims the AG is against the purchase and wants nothing to do with it.
'The FBI has an independent procurement process for the director and their agents,' Department of Justice spokesman Gates McGavick told The Independent. 'Neither the attorney general nor other DOJ leadership knew about this and see no need for its use in Main Justice.'
'Main Justice' is the colloquial name for DOJ headquarters.
A DOJ source said Bondi would like to see the FBI's request for proposals rescinded, and that she is happy with her present travel arrangements.
At the same time, an FBI spokesman told The Independent that obtaining a new jet will actually be a money-saver for taxpayers.
'The plane in question is for critical functions such as hostage rescue team deployments, international operations, SWAT ops, and other national security related purposes – but the current lease structure is unnecessarily wasteful,' the spokesman said. 'As we've done with other assets, like moving the headquarters building, the FBI is evaluating available options to better serve the American people at a much lower and more efficient cost to the taxpayer.'
The ultra-long-range business jet is meant to fly agents and other bureau personnel to far-flung global locations for counterterrorism response, 'high-risk operations,' and other 'sensitive missions,' according to procurement documents reviewed by The Independent. Alongside the government's request for proposals, a related statement of objectives says the aircraft 'will also support executive transportation requirements for the FBI Director and the U.S. Attorney General,' namely, Patel and Bondi.
The feds want a plane that flies at speeds of Mach 0.83 or higher, with Mach 0.85 listed in the RFP as 'preferred.' It must have a minimum range of 7,000 nautical miles, be able to seat at least 12 passengers, three crew, and 1,000 lbs. of cargo, the RFP states.
That means the feds need something along the lines of a Gulfstream G800, which seats 19 and can travel 7,000 nautical miles at Mach 0.90, or a Bombardier Global 8000, which seats 19 and can travel 8,000 nautical miles at Mach 0.94.
No prices are included in the solicitation paperwork, but the G800 starts at about $72.5 million, while the base model Global 8000 lists for roughly $78 million. The FBI paid $2.4 million to lease a Gulfstream V for six months in 2016, after a procurement process marked by numerous deficiencies, according to an audit the following year by the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.
In May, Patel told legislators that the FBI was spending far beyond its means and was $1 billion in the red. The 45-year-old Las Vegas resident has been pilloried in recent months for his apparently robust use of the FBI's private jet fleet to make personal trips. Government officials are required to reimburse the cost of any flights – at commercial coach fares – that are not for official business.
Patel has reportedly used government aircraft to visit Nashville, Tennessee, where his country-singer girlfriend lives, to go to hockey games in New York City, to go to Las Vegas and to attend at least one UFC fight in Miami, where he sat ringside with President Trump.
In May, Senate Democrats requested that the U.S. Government Accountability Office look into Patel's travel on government planes, which he is required to do, while at the same time making them unavailable for FBI emergencies.
'Those aircraft have been procured or leased specifically to support operational needs,' former FBI counterterrorism official Christopher O'Leary told CBS News in April. 'The concern is that the routine use of them by the director and deputy director for personal travel could take a critical resource offline when they are sometimes needed at a moment's notice.'
Craig Holman, a governmental ethics and campaign finance expert at Washington, D.C. watchdog nonprofit Public Citizen, says the expenditure shows the Trump team going against its relentless claims of 'cost-efficiency.'
'For an administration that wants to put on a veneer of cutting waste, fraud and abuse in government spending, it sure doesn't have any qualms when it comes to lavish spending on expensive new jets and other luxuries for itself,' Holman told The Independent. '... Meanwhile, the administration is slashing spending on health care, education and worker safety for the rest of us.'
Since Trump retook the White House in January, the administration has decimated school lunch programs, thrown millions off of Medicaid and enacted tax cuts that will boost incomes for the wealthy while raising taxes on working Americans, experts say.
Before he took over as head of the FBI, Patel slammed then-FBI Director Christopher Wray for using bureau aircraft for personal trips, telling his podcast audience that Wray's flights should be 'ground[ed]. (Wray said he reimbursed the government for all personal use.)
Bondi and Patel clashed earlier this year over the so-called Epstein files, the FBI documents related to its investigation of the notorious sex offender whose ties to the rich and famous, including Donald Trump, are now well-known.
'Dear Director Patel, Before you came into office, I requested the full and complete files related to Jeffrey Epstein,' Bondi wrote in a February 27 letter. '... Late yesterday; I learned from a source that the FBI Field Office in New York was in possession of thousands of pages of documents related to the investigation and indictment of Epstein. Despite my repeated requests, the FBI never disclosed the existence of these files.'
The files have still not been released, with Bondi recently announcing that Epstein's hotly anticipated 'client list,' which she once said was 'on her desk' and ready for public dissemination, did not in fact exist.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump, European Union Commission prez give ‘50-50′ chance of striking trade deal after Scotland meeting: ‘Rebalancing'
President Trump and European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen both put the odds of reaching a trade deal at 50% ahead of their negotiations Sunday, but remained hopeful an agreement could be finalized. 'I think the President is right, we have a 50 to 50% chance to strike a deal. And indeed it is about rebalancing,' she told reporters in the DJT Ballroom at Trump Turnberry off the west coast of Scotland. Trump has given the EU an Aug. 1 deadline to ink a new trade deal with him or else face 30% tariffs. The EU is a block of 27 trade countries, which, taken together, traded about $1.68 trillion worth of goods with the US last year. Advertisement 3 President Donald Trump meets European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland. AP 'This is the biggest deal. People don't realize this is bigger than any other deal,' Trump stressed ahead of his talks with the EU president. The president also noted that while a deal with the EU will address most outstanding trade-related issues, 'pharmaceuticals won't be part of it, because we have to have them made in the United States.' Advertisement Trump teased that he would know after about an hour whether or not a deal with the EU is possible before the Aug. 1 deadline and revealed that there are about 3 to 4 sticking points, but didn't detail specifics of what those issues are. He also aired his general grievances with European trade practices, particularly with automobiles and agriculture, though it wasn't clear if those were among the sticking points. 'We don't sell cars into Europe. We don't sell, essentially, agriculture of any great degree. They want to have their farmers do it, and they want to have their car companies do it,' he said. 'I'm not saying anything that nobody knows. We have a rough situation. If we want to sell cars in Europe, we're not allowed to. And as you know, they sell millions and millions of cars [into the US],' he added. 'What we want to do is make everybody happy.' Advertisement 3 The president also noted that while a deal with the EU will address most outstanding trade-related issues, 'pharmaceuticals won't be part of it, because we have to have them made in the United States.' Davide Bonaldo/SOPA Images/Shutterstock Von der Leyen, who flew to Scotland during Trump's four-day trip to the United Kingdom to meet with the American president, buttered him up 'as a tough negotiator and dealmaker.' 'And fair,' Trump interjected. Trump emphasized during his gaggle with reporters that he has no intention of delaying the Aug. 1 deadline before his customized 'Liberation Day' tariffs take effect. The president previously moved that deadline twice. Advertisement Rumors have swirled that Trump is eyeing a 15% baseline tariff on the EU, which would effectively cut his 'Liberation Day' proposal in half. Many Europeans have hoped he would drop that to the 10% baseline he has imposed on virtually all US imports — which is also the same rate he gave the United Kingdom during the tariff deal announced in May. 3 Trump emphasized during his gaggle with reporters that he has no intention of delaying the Aug. 1 deadline before his customized 'Liberation Day' tariffs take effect. Getty Images 'Better meaning lower?' Trump replied when a reporter asked him if he could do better than 15%. 'No.' So far, Trump has cut tariff deals with the UK, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines. The president teased that his team recently locked down another deal, but didn't specify which country. He also has a variety of tariffs in place now, such as a 25% rate on automobiles, aluminum, and steel, as well as 25% on imports from Canada and Mexico that don't comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. He's also recently mused about jacking up tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Trump has also reached a tariff truce with China and given Beijing an Aug. 12 deadline to cut a broader deal. Earlier this month, he gave Moscow an ultimatum to cut a peace deal with neighboring Ukraine within 50 days or else face 100% secondary tariffs on Russian energy — meaning levies imposed on countries that import from Russia.
Atlantic
8 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Zelensky Went Soft on Corruption Because the U.S. Did
Volodymyr Zelensky built a mythic reputation as a lonely bulwark against global tyranny. On Tuesday, the president of Ukraine signed that reputation away, enacting a law that gutted the independence of his country's anti-corruption agencies just as they closed in on his closest political allies, reportedly including one of his longtime business partners and a former deputy prime minister. To justify the decision, he cloaked it in an invented conspiracy, insinuating that Russian moles had implanted themselves in the machinery of justice. This is a scoundrel's playbook. Despite the ongoing war, Ukrainians swamped the streets of Kyiv in protest of their president's betrayal of democracy, forcing Zelensky to introduce new legislation reversing the bill he had just signed into law. It was a concession of error—and possibly an empty gesture, because the new bill is hardly a lock to pass the legislature. That Zelensky brazenly weakened Ukraine's anti-corruption guardrails in the first place shouldn't come as a shock. They were erected only under sustained pressure from the Obama administration as part of an explicit bargain: In exchange for military and financial support, Ukraine would rein in its oligarchs and reform its public institutions. Over time, the country drifted, however unevenly, toward a system that was more transparent, less captive to hidden hands. But in the Trump era, the United States has grown proudly tolerant of global corruption. In fact, it actively encourages its proliferation. Beyond the president's own venal example, this is deliberate policy. Brick by brick, Donald Trump has dismantled the apparatus that his predecessors built to constrain global kleptocracy, and leaders around the world have absorbed the fact that the pressure for open, democratic governance is off. Anne Applebaum: Kleptocracy, Inc. Three weeks into his current term, Trump paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act—loudly declaring that the United States wasn't going to police foreign bribery. Weeks later, America skipped a meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's anti-bribery working group for the first time since its founding 30 years ago. As the head of the anti-corruption group Transparency International warned, Trump was sending 'a dangerous signal that bribery is back on the table.' For decades, the more than prosecute bribery cases; it tried to cultivate civil-society organizations that helped emerging democracies combat corruption themselves. But upon returning to the presidency, Trump destroyed USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the U.S. Institute of Peace, dismantling the constellation of government agencies that had quietly tutored investigative journalists, trained judges, and funded watchdogs. These groups weren't incidental casualties in DOGE's seemingly scattershot demolition of the American state. Trump long loathed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which he described as a 'horrible law,' an animus stoked by the fact that some of his closest associates have been accused of murky dealings abroad. Crushing programs and organizations that fight kleptocracy meshed with the 'America First' instincts of his base; the likes of Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon abhor the export of liberal values to the world. From the wreckage of these institutions, a Trump Doctrine has taken shape, one that uses American economic and political power to shield corrupt autocrats from accountability. Benjamin Netanyahu, on trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, has been a prime beneficiary. Just as he was preparing to testify under oath, Trump denounced the prosecution as a 'political witch hunt' and threatened to withhold U.S. aid if the trial moved forward. Given Israel's reliance on American support, the threat had bite. Not long after Trump's outburst, the court postponed Netanyahu's testimony, citing national-security concerns. Trump acts as if justice for strongmen is a moral imperative. No retaliatory measure is apparently off limits. To defend his populist ally in Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, who faces charges related to an attempted coup, Trump revoked the visa of Alexandre de Moraes, the Supreme Court justice overseeing the case. Last month, Trump threatened to impose 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian steel, aluminum, and agricultural exports to punish the country for Bolsonaro's prosecution. This is hard-nosed realism, not just ideological kinship. To protect himself, Trump must defend the rights of populist kleptocrats everywhere. He must discredit the sort of prosecution that he might someday face. That requires recasting malfeasance as perfectly acceptable statesmanship. Listen: The kleptocracy club By stripping anti-corruption from the moral vocabulary of American foreign policy, Trump is reengineering the global order. He's laying the foundation for a new world in which kleptocracy flourishes unfettered, because there's no longer a superpower that, even rhetorically, aspires to purge the world of corruption. Of course, the United States has never pushed as hard as it could, and ill-gotten gains have been smuggled into its bank accounts, cloaked in shell companies. Still, oligarchs were forced to disguise their thievery, because there was at least the threat of legal consequence. In the world that Trump is building, there's no need for disguise—corruption is a credential, not a liability. Zelensky is evidence of the new paradigm. Although his initial campaign for president in 2019 was backed by an oligarch, he could never be confused for Bolsonaro or Netanyahu. He didn't enrich himself by plundering the state. But now that Trump has given the world permission to turn away from the ideals of good governance, even the sainted Zelensky has seized the opportunity to protect the illicit profiteering of his friends and allies. Yet there's a legacy of the old system that Trump hasn't wholly eliminated: the institutions and civil societies that the United States spent a generation helping build. In Ukraine, those organizations and activists have refused to accept a retreat into oligarchy, and they might still preserve their governmental guardians against corruption. For now, they are all that remain between the world and a new golden age of impunity.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mike Johnson pans discharge petition from Massie and Khanna
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday panned a discharge petition from Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) that is designed to force the release of more files on Jeffrey Epstein. The duo's bill is "reckless," Johnson told NBC's Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press." And it would force the DOJ and FBI to release information "that was not even credible enough to be entered into the court proceedings," he said. "I agree with President Trump, with the Department of Justice, with the FBI that you need all credible evidence and information out there," Johnson said. "That word 'credible' is important. And why? Because you have to protect innocent people's names and reputations whose names might be, as you noted at the outset of the program, intertwined into all these files." Another red flag: Johnson told Welker the bill doesn't include "adequate protections" for Epstein's victims. "These are minors in many cases who were subjected to unspeakable crimes, abject evil," Johnson said. "They've already suffered great harm. We do not need their names being unmasked. The Massie and the Khanna discharge petition does not have adequate protections." Congressional Republicans have spent the last few weeks grappling with the fallout of the Trump administration's handling of its Epstein investigation. Many of their core supporters are in uproar. And recent pronouncements from the president that the controversy is a hoax perpetrated by "Radical Left Democrats" have only increased the din. But Johnson insisted the legislative effort from the two lawmakers was not why he adjourned the House a day earlier than planned. Instead, he said the maneuver was necessary because of Democrats seeking to force Epstein votes in the House Rules Committee. "So what we did do this week is end the chaos in the rules committee because the Democrats are trying to use this in a shameless manner for political purposes, quite obviously," Johnson said. "They hijacked the rules committee. And they tried to turn it into an Epstein hearing. That's not what the rules committee is about. So that's why the floor vote ended on Wednesday instead of Thursday."
