Pam Bondi, a former Attorney General of Florida, appearing at the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC 2024, at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center on Feb 23, 2024. Bondi is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for U.S. Attorney General.
Attorney General Pam Bondi waded into one of the most fraught debates in American politics this week, drawing sharp criticism after suggesting the Justice Department would “target” people who engage in hate speech. Her comments, delivered Monday on The Katie Miller Podcast, seemed to blur the line between speech that is protected by the First Amendment and speech that crosses into criminal conduct.
What Type of Speech is Considered “Free?”
Jul 20, 2016; Cleveland, OH, USA; Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks during the 2016 Republican National Convention at Quicken Loans Arena. Mandatory Credit: Robert Deutsch-USA TODAY NETWORK
“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” Bondi said flatly, adding that the DOJ would “absolutely target” anyone engaging in it. She pointed to the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk as justification for a tougher stance, arguing “there is no place” for such rhetoric “in the world in which we live.” The declaration caught fire almost immediately. Civil libertarians and conservatives alike noted that “hate speech” is not a legal category in the United States — offensive, even vile, expression has long been treated as protected speech. And Kirk himself, before his death, had defended that principle in stark terms. “Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” he wrote last year. “All of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
Walk It Back
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi addresses a crowd at the opening of the new Trump Force 47 office in Casa Grande, Ariz., on July 2, 2024.
Within hours, Bondi was trying to walk it back. In a later appearance on Fox News, she acknowledged “we all believe in the First Amendment” but shifted focus to people making what she called “horrible” statements about Kirk’s death. “It’s free speech,” she said, “but you shouldn’t be employed anywhere if you’re going to say that.” Employers, she argued, have an obligation to act when workers glorify political violence.
No One Can Agree on Bondi’s Statement
Sep 11, 2025; Arlington, VA, USA; President Donald Trump attends a memorial event at the Pentagon on the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2025, in Arlington, VA. On Sept. 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon, killing 184 people. Mandatory Credit: Jack Gruber-USA TODAY via Imagn Images
President Donald Trump, asked about Bondi’s comments, offered his own twist. Half-joking, half-menacing, he told an ABC reporter: “We’ll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they’ll come after ABC.” The reaction from Trump’s allies was not uniformly supportive. Commentator Mike Cernovich called Bondi’s line “not ready for this moment,” while House Speaker Mike Johnson said,“In America, it’s a very important part of our tradition…we do not censor and silence disfavored viewpoints,” even as he left the door open for employers to discipline workers who celebrate acts of violence.
Say What?
August 25, 2020; Washington, D.C., USA; (Editors Note: Screen grab from Republican National Convention video stream) Former Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, speaks during the Republican National Convention at the Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C. Mandatory Credit: Republican National Convention via USA TODAY NETWORK
By Tuesday morning, Bondi tried to clarify yet again, posting on X that she was referring specifically to “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence.” Threats, she said, are crimes — not protected speech — and promised that her office would pursue them aggressively. She tied the crackdown to what she described as a broader campaign by “the radical left” to normalize threats and political violence, insisting that “every single threat will be met with the full force of the law.” That grim backdrop has made calls to police speech both more tempting and more perilous, pulling officials like Bondi into a debate that reaches back to the founding — how far can the government go in deciding what Americans are allowed to say?
