The Department of Justice under Donald Trump dropped a federal fraud and bribery case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani after he hired a legal team led by Robert Giuffra Jr and offered to invest $10bn in the United States. A federal judge in New York agreed to dismiss the case in August despite noting "irregularities" in the "highly unusual" decision — adding it to a growing list of criminal cases where judges have flagged Trump-era prosecutorial conduct. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal have now sent a second letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche demanding answers. Their first letter, sent in June, went unanswered. The new letter, prompted by fresh reporting from the New York Times, asks whether people close to Donald Trump were involved in the decision to abandon the prosecution. The underlying facts are stark. Adani was indicted in 2024 in New York for allegedly participating in a bribery and fraud scheme involving payments to Indian officials to secure a contract for one of his companies. He denied the allegations. Prosecutors moved to dismiss the case in May 2025 after Adani's new legal team made the $10bn investment offer. The federal judge determined the investment "played no role" in the DoJ's decision, but the sequence of events speaks for itself. The cast of Trump-adjacent figures compounds the concern. Boris Epshteyn, a member of Trump's personal legal team and informal adviser, allegedly helped Adani — though a spokesperson denied involvement. Donald Trump Jr reportedly met Adani in November 2025, before the case was dropped. A Trump Jr spokesperson said the conversation "had zero to do with DoJ's actions in this case." Each denial is narrow and lawyerly. Warren and Blumenthal are requesting specifics: a list of DoJ employees present when Adani's investment offer was made, the terms and timing of the offer, whether DoJ employees knew of Epshteyn's alleged involvement, and whether Trump Jr or anyone acting on his behalf contacted the department about Adani. The deadline for responses is 5 October. The structural problem is not whether this particular case involved a quid pro quo — the judge said it did not. The structural problem is that the DoJ has created a visible pathway: hire the president's lawyers, offer a large enough investment, and a federal indictment can evaporate. Whether or not the mechanism operated corruptly here, its existence degrades the credibility of federal prosecution for every case that follows. The DoJ's silence on the first letter is itself a signal. Ignoring congressional oversight on a case involving a foreign billionaire, the president's son, and the president's personal lawyer is not the behavior of an institution confident in its own process.
