Pam Bondi Clashes with Sen. Alex Padilla in Fiery Confirmation Hearing: “I’m Not Here to Do Your Homework!”

Washington, D.C. — In a heated and at times tense exchange during her Senate confirmation hearing, Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi sparred with Sen. Alex Padilla (D–Calif.) over the 2020 election, constitutional interpretation, and immigration. The confrontation, marked by repeated interruptions and sharp retorts, drew national attention after Bondi told Padilla:

“I’m not here to do your homework.”

Pam Bondi Pressed By Alex Padilla About Defending 'Restrictive Abortion  Laws' As Florida AG

The remark capped a contentious back-and-forth that underscored partisan divisions over her nomination and raised questions about her readiness to lead the Department of Justice.


Setting the Stage: Questions of Independence

From the outset, Padilla made clear his doubts about Bondi’s ability to serve as an independent Attorney General under President-elect Donald Trump. Referring to her personal relationship with Trump, Padilla said he had “significant reservations” about whether she could act without favor toward “your friend, President-elect Trump.”

He signaled that his line of questioning would focus on her past public statements, her fidelity to facts and evidence, and her understanding of constitutional principles.


The 2020 Election: Revisiting Pennsylvania

Padilla’s first line of attack revisited Bondi’s appearance in Philadelphia the day after the 2020 presidential election alongside then-Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. At the time, Bondi asserted Trump had “won Pennsylvania,” despite more than a million ballots remaining to be counted.

Bondi gets into testy exchange with Padilla during questioning over 2020  election - Live Updates - POLITICO

Padilla reminded her that President Biden ultimately carried the state by over 80,000 votes and that she continued to repeat claims of fraud “without offering any actual evidence.” He pressed her directly:

Padilla: “Do you have any evidence of election fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election? Yes or no.”

Bondi did not give a direct yes-or-no answer, instead expressing condolences for recent wildfires in California and stating she was “glad you asked the question about Pennsylvania.” When Padilla repeated the question multiple times, she pivoted to describing her presence in Pennsylvania during the count.

Frustrated, Padilla moved on, noting that another attorney who made similar claims alongside Giuliani had since been disbarred for making false statements in court.


The 14th Amendment Exchange

The exchange took an even sharper turn when Padilla referenced their private meeting the previous day. He said Bondi had pointed at him and told him to “be familiar” with the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause — a comment he described as “deeply disappointing.”

He followed up in the hearing:

Padilla: “Can you tell me what the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment says?”

Bondi’s reply sparked the most viral moment of the hearing:

Bondi: “Senator, I’m here to answer your questions. I’m not here to do your homework and study for you.”

Padilla, noting she was seeking confirmation to the nation’s top law enforcement post, pressed again for a direct recitation or explanation of the clause. Bondi responded generally, saying the 14th Amendment “addresses birthright citizenship,” and emphasized her experience as a state prosecutor and attorney general.


Birthright Citizenship and the Law of the Land

Padilla then sought a commitment on policy:

“Do you believe birthright citizenship is the law of the land, and will you defend it regardless of a child’s parents’ immigration status?”

Bondi would not give an unequivocal yes, saying she would “study birthright citizenship” and was willing to meet with Padilla to discuss it further. The senator criticized her hesitation, saying it did “not help me have more confidence in your ability to do this job.”


Immigration and “Poisoning the Blood”

WATCH: Padilla questions Bondi in confirmation hearing about gun laws,  reproductive health - YouTube

 

In his final questions, Padilla referenced remarks made by political figures about immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country”:

Padilla: “Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no.”

Bondi replied that she did not say it and repeated that fact when Padilla clarified he was asking if she agreed with the sentiment. Pressed for a yes-or-no, Bondi shared her own family history, noting her great-grandparents had immigrated from Sicily, and concluded:

Bondi: “We are a nation made up of immigrants… Do I believe immigrants are poisoning our country? No, Senator.”


Key Flashpoints in the Hearing

Several moments defined the Bondi–Padilla clash:

    Evasion on 2020 election evidence: Bondi’s refusal to answer “yes or no” when asked about proof of election fraud reinforced Democratic criticisms that she has not disavowed false claims.

    The “homework” comment: Her sharp retort about not doing Padilla’s “homework” instantly trended on social media, with supporters praising her assertiveness and critics decrying it as dismissive.

    Noncommittal on birthright citizenship: Bondi’s unwillingness to affirm its current legal standing without “study” raised concerns for senators who view it as settled constitutional law.

    Rejection of anti-immigrant rhetoric: Her clear “No” to the “poisoning the blood” sentiment provided one of the few unequivocal answers in the exchange.


Partisan Reactions

Reaction to the exchange split largely along party lines:

Republican allies framed Bondi’s answers as a principled refusal to be trapped by “politically loaded” yes-or-no questions. They praised her emphasis on reviewing facts and law before making commitments.

Democratic critics argued that her evasions revealed an unwillingness to stand up to Trump or to affirm basic constitutional principles, particularly regarding the 2020 election and the 14th Amendment.

Political analysts noted that Padilla’s aggressive style mirrored his approach in past hearings, where he has used rapid-fire questioning to highlight perceived weaknesses or evasions in nominees’ records.


Why This Matters

The Attorney General of the United States serves as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, overseeing the DOJ’s vast resources and making decisions that can shape the legal and political landscape for years. Independence from the president, fidelity to the Constitution, and a commitment to evidence-based decision-making are qualities senators from both parties traditionally seek.

Bondi’s performance in this exchange may influence undecided senators who are weighing her legal credentials against concerns over her political loyalties.


What’s Next

The hearing will continue into further rounds of questioning, with other senators likely to revisit some of Padilla’s topics. Expect more probing on:

Her stance on the 2020 election and election integrity.

Her interpretation of constitutional provisions like the 14th Amendment.

How she would handle politically charged cases or directives from the president.

Whether the “I’m not here to do your homework” moment becomes a rallying cry for her supporters or a red flag for her opponents will depend on how she navigates the rest of the confirmation process.


Conclusion: A Defining Confrontation

The Bondi–Padilla clash was more than a sharp personal exchange; it was a revealing test of how the nominee handles high-pressure scrutiny on politically sensitive issues. Bondi’s deflections, tempered with occasional direct denials, showed a nominee determined not to be cornered — but also one unwilling to give the kind of direct answers her critics demand.

As the confirmation battle unfolds, this hearing moment will likely remain one of the most cited — both by those championing Bondi’s toughness and those questioning her independence and preparedness for the job.