DARVO at Work and in Congress: What Pam Bondi’s Testimony Teaches Us About Workplace Abuse
Yesterday’s Senate hearing featuring Attorney General Pam Bondi was a masterclass in deflection and blame-shifting. And it should have looked familiar to anyone who has experienced similar abuse at work.
You know how it goes: you call out someone’s bad behavior, and before you finish your sentence, they’re gaslighting you, attacking your motives, and insisting they’re the one being hurt. That’s not just random drama, that’s DARVO in action.
DARVO — Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender — is a classic manipulation tactic coined by psychologist Jennifer Freyd to describe how perpetrators of wrongdoing evade accountability. It’s been studied in contexts of interpersonal abuse, institutional betrayal, and power dynamics. Once you see the sequence, you’ll spot it from the White House to your office.
Pam Bondi’s Senate testimony offers a striking, real-time example of DARVO, even down to her carrying a “playbook” of prewritten insults and notes for each Democratic senator. Media-captured photos of her folder revealed bullet-point clapbacks and targeted attack prompts, evidence she came prepared with a script.
Let’s break her performance down and compare these tactics at work.
1. Deny
Bondi’s version: She deflected direct questions from Dems. She claimed ignorance, “lack of knowledge,” or that the premise of the question was wrong. She often refused to accept the framing of allegations, instead dismissing responsibility. Here is how Senator Richard Blumenthal characterized it:
“Her apparent strategy is to attack and conceal. Frankly, I’ve been through close to 15 of these attorney general accountability hearings, and I have never seen anything close to it in terms of the combativeness, the evasiveness and sometimes deceptiveness,” Blumenthal told reporters after leaving the hearing. “I think it is possibly a new low for attorneys general testifying before the United States Congress.”
At work: A manager might say, “I never said that,” “That’s not what happened,” or “You misheard.” When confronted with evidence (emails, messages), they might reduce its impact or blame you: “Those were offhand comments,” “You’re taking it too seriously,” or “You’re reading into things.” The denial doesn’t need absolute falsehood, it just needs enough wiggle room to muddy your certainty.
2. Attack
Bondi’s version: After dodging questions, she aggressively pivoted to attacking the senators, calling them partisan, hypocrites, or politically motivated. She even accused some Democrats of “slander” and used aggressive rhetorical framing to discredit them. Senator Chris Coons described it this way:
“She was fully prepared, with specific and personal comebacks, accusing various of my colleagues, of challenging their integrity or challenging their basis for their questions in a way I’ve not ever seen.”
Sound familiar?
At work: Once you challenge behavior, the abuser flips: “You’re too emotional / dramatic,” “You don’t understand business,” or “You’re hurting team morale.” Sometimes they’ll bring up past performance errors, character judgments, or question your motives. The aim: neutralize your legitimacy and sow doubt in observers.
3. Reverse Victim & Offender
Bondi’s version: She framed herself (and DOJ) as the ones under unfair scrutiny or attack. She implied that critics weren’t holding her accountable, they were attacking the institution and democracy itself! She cast herself as victim battling forces trying to destroy her agenda.
Here is how PBS described Bondi’s response to Senator Adam Schiff (who led the Congressional hearings into how Trump instigated January 6):
Bondi refused to directly answer Schiff’s questions. At one point, arms crossed, Bondi asked Schiff if he’d “apologize to Donald Trump” for his role in pursuing impeachments against the president. She also called him “a failed lawyer.”
Classic DARVO tactic.
At work: This looks like “I’m the one being harassed here,” “This is a campaign against me.” They might twist your complaint: “Because you accused me, now I’m facing harassment from HR / leadership.” The truth becomes inverted: you are the aggressor.
Why DARVO Works
It disorients you: by constantly shifting narratives, the target becomes uncertain about what really happened. It’s gaslighting on steroids.
Observers get confused: third parties (HR, colleagues) may see both parties as flawed, or think the accuser is overreacting.
Power dynamics amplify it: those in higher status (bosses, executives) have credibility, institutional backing, or control over careers.
It’s emotional: the attacker frames things as existential or moral, not legitimate workplace disputes.
Bondi’s prepared folder of insults shows she wasn’t improvising — she thoroughly planned out the DENY → ATTACK → REVERSE script. That same script shows up in workplace abuse stories: the manager who typed up rebuttals in advance or the head of HR who’s memorized every corporate line to discredit employees. These are rehearsed power plays.
How to Respond to DARVO at Work
Name the pattern — internally or to allies: “I’m being DARVOed.”
Document relentlessly — emails, voice memos, dates, witnesses.
Stay anchored in facts — avoid getting sucked into their drama.
Call out the tactic — “You’re attacking me rather than addressing the issue.”
Bring witnesses & allies — which prevents narrative control.
If you’ve experienced this at work or watched it play out, you weren’t imagining it. You were being gaslit and psychologically abused. Naming DARVO doesn’t always end the harm, but it can help you keep your sanity.