{"id":145382,"date":"2026-03-04T16:08:10","date_gmt":"2026-03-05T00:08:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/03\/04\/pam-bondi-wants-sole-power-to-decide-if-doj-lawyers-including-herself-act-unethically\/"},"modified":"2026-03-04T16:08:10","modified_gmt":"2026-03-05T00:08:10","slug":"pam-bondi-wants-sole-power-to-decide-if-doj-lawyers-including-herself-act-unethically","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/03\/04\/pam-bondi-wants-sole-power-to-decide-if-doj-lawyers-including-herself-act-unethically\/","title":{"rendered":"Pam Bondi Wants Sole Power To Decide If DOJ Lawyers \u2014 Including Herself \u2014 Act Unethically"},"content":{"rendered":"

Back in January, I issued a plea to lawyers across the country to call upon whichever professional discipline authorities to embrace that they are now the last remaining accountability mechanism for Trump administration lawyers<\/a> repeatedly lying to courts, defying judicial orders, and generally treating the profession\u2019s ethical rules as suggestions. Criminal accountability is a non-starter between sovereign immunity and the inevitable blanket pardons Trump will issue. The Department has declared \u201cwar\u201d on judges invoking contempt powers. And Justice already gutted its internal disciplinary resources. All that\u2019s left to deter the rampant ethical violations committed by government lawyers is for local bar licensing authorities to impose discipline \u2014 disbarring at least<\/em> those lawyers at the top \u2014 so they don\u2019t walk away from the professional damage they\u2019ve wrought and seamlessly pick up a cushy private sector legal career.<\/p>\n

Apparently someone at the Justice Department read it.<\/p>\n

Today, the DOJ plopped a proposed regulation<\/a> on the Federal Register that would authorize Attorney General Pam Bondi to block any state bar ethics investigation into current and former DOJ lawyers while the department conducts its own internal review. If state bar authorities refuse the AG\u2019s \u201crequest\u201d to pause an investigation, the rule allows the DOJ to \u201ctake appropriate action to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the Attorney General\u2019s review of the allegations.\u201d<\/p>\n

Spoiler alert: there is no action the DOJ could possibly take against a state professional regulator that would be \u201cappropriate.\u201d Certainly not under basic principles of federalism and federal statute. But the vagueness is the point. Even within this<\/em> Department of Justice, no one is dumb enough to think this is legal. It\u2019s a threat designed to bully state regulators to stay silent rather than have to dive into a protracted fight with the deeper pockets of the federal government.<\/p>\n

Because the DOJ\u2019s internal review would be no review at all. The Trump administration already fired both the DOJ\u2019s chief ethics official and the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility<\/a>. Career officials working for the Professional Responsibility office \u2014 an entity created in the aftermath of Watergate specifically to root out DOJ misconduct \u2014 are mostly long gone. Not only is no one minding the store, the people in charge are dousing the aisles with gasoline and making plans for the insurance proceeds.<\/p>\n

To its credit, the proposed rule doesn\u2019t even really pretend to commit to self-policing:<\/p>\n

\n

If finalized as proposed, whenever a third party files a bar complaint alleging that a current or former Department attorney violated an ethics rule while engaging in that attorney\u2019s duties for the Department, or whenever bar disciplinary authorities open an investigation into
such allegations without a complaint having been filed, the Attorney General will have the right to review the complaint and the allegations in the first instance. The Attorney General or her designee will notify the applicable State bar disciplinary authorities and the affected lawyer whether she intends to exercise this right, and will request that the relevant State bar disciplinary authorities suspend any investigative steps that require information or other participation from a Department attorney in response to the allegations pending completion of her review.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Not a promise to investigate internally\u2026 a right to review<\/em>. <\/p>\n

Remember how the DOJ dragged out its \u201creview\u201d of the Epstein files until Congress forced its hand \u2014 and even then the Department released a fraction of the required materials? Expect them to bring that exact energy to any disciplinary investigation they \u201creview.\u201d If implemented, Pam Bondi will intercept every investigation for a review that dies on Bondi\u2019s desk just like the Epstein files that she said were there. <\/p>\n

Invoking the old hits, the DOJ claims it needs this new rule because of the \u201cweaponization\u201d of bar complaints.<\/p>\n

\n

over the past several years, political activists have weaponized the bar complaint and investigation process. For example, political activists have filed bar complaints against senior Department officials, including the Deputy Attorney General, the former Acting Deputy Attorney General, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division, and the former interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, as well as career Department of Justice attorneys. Even more troubling than the recent spate of State bar complaints is the willingness of some State bar disciplinary authorities to give credence to such complaints. Recently, for example, certain State bar disciplinary authorities have undertaken investigations of Department attorneys without notifying and coordinating with OPR.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The FBI was also \u201cweaponized\u201d against Tony Soprano. Senior DOJ officials find themselves the subject of disciplinary complaints because they keep lying to judges and publicly declaring that they\u2019re at \u201cwar\u201d with federal judges as an applause line for thirsty right-wing audiences. When career DOJ lawyers are getting fired for telling judges the truth \u2014 the thing Rule 3.3 literally requires lawyers to do \u2014 the disciplinary process is only weaponized against senior officials because they\u2019re committing the violations we built this weapon to prevent.<\/p>\n

Congress also already settled this question! The McDade Amendment \u2014 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 530B \u2014 could not be more clear that government attorneys \u201cshall be subject to State laws and rules\u2026 governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney\u2019s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.\u201d Congress passed it specifically because DOJ tried to exempt its lawyers from state ethics rules back in the 1990s, and Congress said no.<\/p>\n

Almost as if Congress saw this coming. <\/p>\n

In an effort to handwave away the McDade Amendment, the proposed rule cites established but wholly unrelated laws about the Attorney General having the authority to manage and discipline her own attorneys, and then tries to bootstrap off of this a power written in invisible ink that allows the DOJ to invent its own enforcement mechanisms to allow the Department of Justice<\/em> to be the actor enforcing the state ethics regime that Congress passed the McDade Amendment explicitly to prevent.<\/p>\n

As an exercise in throwing citations into an argument and hoping no one notices that they don\u2019t make any sense, it\u2019s not as egregious as the brief trying to save Lindsey Halligan\u2019s illegal job<\/a>, but it\u2019s close.<\/p>\n

\n

McDade establishes that a government attorney \u201cshall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney\u2019s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.\u201d That would include the state\u2019s disciplinary processes. But the law also mandates that \u201cThe Attorney General shall make and amend rules of the Department of Justice to assure compliance with this section.\u201d Those fluent with the English language would read this as requiring the Attorney General to get rid of any contrary rules purporting to handle discipline in some way other than<\/em> \u201cthe same manner as other attorneys in that State.\u201d Bondi reads this language as granting the DOJ the power to write new rules to act as its own arbiter of state ethics rules.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

The Department has concluded that section 530B permits the Attorney General to establish an enforcement mechanism for assuring that Department attorneys comply with State ethics rules.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

So Bondi is saying:<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

For its part, the Supreme Court has also weighed in on this. Leis v. Flynt<\/em> confirmed that \u201csince the founding of the Republic, licensing and regulation of lawyers has been left exclusively to the States.\u201d It\u2019s hard to write an ambiguity into McDade when it was written in the context of that case. Bondi claims Congress was \u201csilent on enforcement mechanisms,\u201d but it didn\u2019t need to speak up because everyone understood \u2014 until this morning \u2014 that \u201clicensing and regulation of lawyers has been left exclusively to the States.\u201d<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no ambiguity for executive branch rulemaking\u2026 this is all long settled. But the DOJ\u2019s mob-inspired leadership wants a rule in place to push state bar authorities to abdicate their responsibilities, even if the law isn\u2019t on the DOJ\u2019s side. It\u2019s the same playbook that convinced nine Biglaw firms to sign over millions of dollars and all their dignity to avoid a fight that they would\u2019ve absolutely won.<\/p>\n

The law doesn\u2019t provide much comfort if the other side is willing to make vindicating those rights difficult and expensive. If Paul Weiss worried about the costs of a fight with the government, what chance does some small state bar committee have?<\/p>\n

This rule drops while Lindsey Halligan \u2014 the insurance defense attorney who cosplayed as a U.S. Attorney \u2014 faces renewed bar complaints<\/a> after multiple federal judges found she made \u201cfundamental misstatements of the law\u201d to a grand jury, served without legal authority, and had no more power to sign filings than any random person walking down the street. It comes after courts have flagged the DOJ <\/a>repeatedly<\/a> violating orders<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The proposed rule also claims authority over complaints against \u201cformer\u201d DOJ lawyers \u2014 an effort to do a solid for Jeffrey Clark, facing possible disbarment in D.C. for the whole \u201cfabricate election law violations in order to overturn the election\u201d trick. <\/p>\n

Accountability mechanisms are already<\/em> failing. State bars have been punting \u2014 Virginia initially refused to investigate Halligan, Florida invented a \u201cconstitutional officer\u201d doctrine to shield Bondi, New York referred complaints about Emil Bove to DOJ\u2019s own gutted internal office. The proposed rule would institutionalize this cowardly buck passing by making DOJ the official gatekeeper for all complaints against its own lawyers.<\/p>\n

If this rule goes into effect, it tells every government lawyer to do whatever the administration tells them, and not to worry about how many ethical rules might get broken along the way. The DOJ will run interference with the only authorities empowered to take a lawyer\u2019s license. It creates a class of lawyers who are, for all practical purposes, above professional accountability.<\/p>\n

The good news, such as it is, is that this proposed rule is subject to a public comment period before it can be finalized. The better news is that it almost certainly cannot survive legal challenge and the McDade Amendment is a statute that says the exact opposite<\/em> of what this rule proposes. The bad news is\u2026 who is going to fight that case? <\/p>\n

This should light a fire under every lawyer to do more to support local disciplinary authorities. Speak out, urge action, and \u2014 if necessary \u2014 volunteer pro bono legal services to fight back against this rule. Professional discipline is the only accountability left for Trump\u2019s lawyers. <\/p>\n

And now we know that they<\/em> understand that too.<\/p>\n

Trump DOJ Pushes to Sideline State Bar Ethics Investigations<\/a> [Bloomberg Law]
DOJ Proposed Rule \u2014 Federal Register<\/a> [Federal Register]
The Department of Justice\u2019s Broken Accountability System<\/a> [Brennan Center for Justice]
A Plan to Hold DOJ Leadership Accountable for Undermining the Rule of Law<\/a> [Justia Verdict]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Disbar Them All: The Only Accountability Left For Trump\u2019s Lawyers<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Pam Bondi Wants Sole Power To Decide If DOJ Lawyers \u2014 Including Herself \u2014 Act Unethically<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Photo by Joe Raedle\/Getty)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Back in January, I issued a plea to lawyers across the country to call upon whichever professional discipline authorities to embrace that they are now the last remaining accountability mechanism for Trump administration lawyers<\/a> repeatedly lying to courts, defying judicial orders, and generally treating the profession\u2019s ethical rules as suggestions. Criminal accountability is a non-starter between sovereign immunity and the inevitable blanket pardons Trump will issue. The Department has declared \u201cwar\u201d on judges invoking contempt powers. And Justice already gutted its internal disciplinary resources. All that\u2019s left to deter the rampant ethical violations committed by government lawyers is for local bar licensing authorities to impose discipline \u2014 disbarring at least<\/em> those lawyers at the top \u2014 so they don\u2019t walk away from the professional damage they\u2019ve wrought and seamlessly pick up a cushy private sector legal career.<\/p>\n

Apparently someone at the Justice Department read it.<\/p>\n

Today, the DOJ plopped a proposed regulation<\/a> on the Federal Register that would authorize Attorney General Pam Bondi to block any state bar ethics investigation into current and former DOJ lawyers while the department conducts its own internal review. If state bar authorities refuse the AG\u2019s \u201crequest\u201d to pause an investigation, the rule allows the DOJ to \u201ctake appropriate action to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the Attorney General\u2019s review of the allegations.\u201d<\/p>\n

Spoiler alert: there is no action the DOJ could possibly take against a state professional regulator that would be \u201cappropriate.\u201d Certainly not under basic principles of federalism and federal statute. But the vagueness is the point. Even within this<\/em> Department of Justice, no one is dumb enough to think this is legal. It\u2019s a threat designed to bully state regulators to stay silent rather than have to dive into a protracted fight with the deeper pockets of the federal government.<\/p>\n

Because the DOJ\u2019s internal review would be no review at all. The Trump administration already fired both the DOJ\u2019s chief ethics official and the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility<\/a>. Career officials working for the Professional Responsibility office \u2014 an entity created in the aftermath of Watergate specifically to root out DOJ misconduct \u2014 are mostly long gone. Not only is no one minding the store, the people in charge are dousing the aisles with gasoline and making plans for the insurance proceeds.<\/p>\n

To its credit, the proposed rule doesn\u2019t even really pretend to commit to self-policing:<\/p>\n

\n

If finalized as proposed, whenever a third party files a bar complaint alleging that a current or former Department attorney violated an ethics rule while engaging in that attorney\u2019s duties for the Department, or whenever bar disciplinary authorities open an investigation into
such allegations without a complaint having been filed, the Attorney General will have the right to review the complaint and the allegations in the first instance. The Attorney General or her designee will notify the applicable State bar disciplinary authorities and the affected lawyer whether she intends to exercise this right, and will request that the relevant State bar disciplinary authorities suspend any investigative steps that require information or other participation from a Department attorney in response to the allegations pending completion of her review.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Not a promise to investigate internally\u2026 a right to review<\/em>. <\/p>\n

Remember how the DOJ dragged out its \u201creview\u201d of the Epstein files until Congress forced its hand \u2014 and even then the Department released a fraction of the required materials? Expect them to bring that exact energy to any disciplinary investigation they \u201creview.\u201d If implemented, Pam Bondi will intercept every investigation for a review that dies on Bondi\u2019s desk just like the Epstein files that she said were there. <\/p>\n

Invoking the old hits, the DOJ claims it needs this new rule because of the \u201cweaponization\u201d of bar complaints.<\/p>\n

\n

over the past several years, political activists have weaponized the bar complaint and investigation process. For example, political activists have filed bar complaints against senior Department officials, including the Deputy Attorney General, the former Acting Deputy Attorney General, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division, and the former interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, as well as career Department of Justice attorneys. Even more troubling than the recent spate of State bar complaints is the willingness of some State bar disciplinary authorities to give credence to such complaints. Recently, for example, certain State bar disciplinary authorities have undertaken investigations of Department attorneys without notifying and coordinating with OPR.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The FBI was also \u201cweaponized\u201d against Tony Soprano. Senior DOJ officials find themselves the subject of disciplinary complaints because they keep lying to judges and publicly declaring that they\u2019re at \u201cwar\u201d with federal judges as an applause line for thirsty right-wing audiences. When career DOJ lawyers are getting fired for telling judges the truth \u2014 the thing Rule 3.3 literally requires lawyers to do \u2014 the disciplinary process is only weaponized against senior officials because they\u2019re committing the violations we built this weapon to prevent.<\/p>\n

Congress also already settled this question! The McDade Amendment \u2014 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 530B \u2014 could not be more clear that government attorneys \u201cshall be subject to State laws and rules\u2026 governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney\u2019s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.\u201d Congress passed it specifically because DOJ tried to exempt its lawyers from state ethics rules back in the 1990s, and Congress said no.<\/p>\n

Almost as if Congress saw this coming. <\/p>\n

In an effort to handwave away the McDade Amendment, the proposed rule cites established but wholly unrelated laws about the Attorney General having the authority to manage and discipline her own attorneys, and then tries to bootstrap off of this a power written in invisible ink that allows the DOJ to invent its own enforcement mechanisms to allow the Department of Justice<\/em> to be the actor enforcing the state ethics regime that Congress passed the McDade Amendment explicitly to prevent.<\/p>\n

As an exercise in throwing citations into an argument and hoping no one notices that they don\u2019t make any sense, it\u2019s not as egregious as the brief trying to save Lindsey Halligan\u2019s illegal job<\/a>, but it\u2019s close.<\/p>\n

\n

McDade establishes that a government attorney \u201cshall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney\u2019s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.\u201d That would include the state\u2019s disciplinary processes. But the law also mandates that \u201cThe Attorney General shall make and amend rules of the Department of Justice to assure compliance with this section.\u201d Those fluent with the English language would read this as requiring the Attorney General to get rid of any contrary rules purporting to handle discipline in some way other than<\/em> \u201cthe same manner as other attorneys in that State.\u201d Bondi reads this language as granting the DOJ the power to write new rules to act as its own arbiter of state ethics rules.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

The Department has concluded that section 530B permits the Attorney General to establish an enforcement mechanism for assuring that Department attorneys comply with State ethics rules.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

So Bondi is saying:<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

For its part, the Supreme Court has also weighed in on this. Leis v. Flynt<\/em> confirmed that \u201csince the founding of the Republic, licensing and regulation of lawyers has been left exclusively to the States.\u201d It\u2019s hard to write an ambiguity into McDade when it was written in the context of that case. Bondi claims Congress was \u201csilent on enforcement mechanisms,\u201d but it didn\u2019t need to speak up because everyone understood \u2014 until this morning \u2014 that \u201clicensing and regulation of lawyers has been left exclusively to the States.\u201d<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no ambiguity for executive branch rulemaking\u2026 this is all long settled. But the DOJ\u2019s mob-inspired leadership wants a rule in place to push state bar authorities to abdicate their responsibilities, even if the law isn\u2019t on the DOJ\u2019s side. It\u2019s the same playbook that convinced nine Biglaw firms to sign over millions of dollars and all their dignity to avoid a fight that they would\u2019ve absolutely won.<\/p>\n

The law doesn\u2019t provide much comfort if the other side is willing to make vindicating those rights difficult and expensive. If Paul Weiss worried about the costs of a fight with the government, what chance does some small state bar committee have?<\/p>\n

This rule drops while Lindsey Halligan \u2014 the insurance defense attorney who cosplayed as a U.S. Attorney \u2014 faces renewed bar complaints<\/a> after multiple federal judges found she made \u201cfundamental misstatements of the law\u201d to a grand jury, served without legal authority, and had no more power to sign filings than any random person walking down the street. It comes after courts have flagged the DOJ <\/a>repeatedly<\/a> violating orders<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The proposed rule also claims authority over complaints against \u201cformer\u201d DOJ lawyers \u2014 an effort to do a solid for Jeffrey Clark, facing possible disbarment in D.C. for the whole \u201cfabricate election law violations in order to overturn the election\u201d trick. <\/p>\n

Accountability mechanisms are already<\/em> failing. State bars have been punting \u2014 Virginia initially refused to investigate Halligan, Florida invented a \u201cconstitutional officer\u201d doctrine to shield Bondi, New York referred complaints about Emil Bove to DOJ\u2019s own gutted internal office. The proposed rule would institutionalize this cowardly buck passing by making DOJ the official gatekeeper for all complaints against its own lawyers.<\/p>\n

If this rule goes into effect, it tells every government lawyer to do whatever the administration tells them, and not to worry about how many ethical rules might get broken along the way. The DOJ will run interference with the only authorities empowered to take a lawyer\u2019s license. It creates a class of lawyers who are, for all practical purposes, above professional accountability.<\/p>\n

The good news, such as it is, is that this proposed rule is subject to a public comment period before it can be finalized. The better news is that it almost certainly cannot survive legal challenge and the McDade Amendment is a statute that says the exact opposite<\/em> of what this rule proposes. The bad news is\u2026 who is going to fight that case? <\/p>\n

This should light a fire under every lawyer to do more to support local disciplinary authorities. Speak out, urge action, and \u2014 if necessary \u2014 volunteer pro bono legal services to fight back against this rule. Professional discipline is the only accountability left for Trump\u2019s lawyers. <\/p>\n

And now we know that they<\/em> understand that too.<\/p>\n

Trump DOJ Pushes to Sideline State Bar Ethics Investigations<\/a> [Bloomberg Law]
DOJ Proposed Rule \u2014 Federal Register<\/a> [Federal Register]
The Department of Justice\u2019s Broken Accountability System<\/a> [Brennan Center for Justice]
A Plan to Hold DOJ Leadership Accountable for Undermining the Rule of Law<\/a> [Justia Verdict]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Disbar Them All: The Only Accountability Left For Trump\u2019s Lawyers<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Back in January, I issued a plea to lawyers across the country to call upon whichever professional discipline authorities to embrace that they are now the last remaining accountability mechanism for Trump administration lawyers repeatedly lying to courts, defying judicial orders, and generally treating the profession\u2019s ethical rules as suggestions. Criminal accountability is a non-starter […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":145383,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-145382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Headshot-300x200-uPyFL1.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145382","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145382\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/145383"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}