Attorney General Pam Bondy is certainly not known for her subtlety. As Donald Trump gears up for a state visit to the UK, Bondy seems to be busy bringing over a rather controversial idea from there: the notion that “hate speech” should be recognized as a valid category of crime. This fits within a broader agenda that has emerged since the tragic event involving Charlie Kirk, where the government appears to be using such tragedies as a pretext to restrict civil liberties.
Bondy stumbled during a recent podcast with Katie Miller, saying: “There’s freedom of speech, then hate speech. And especially now, after what happened to Charlie in our society, there’s no place for it. We’re definitely going to target you.” Later that day, she went on Fox News and mentioned that she was looking into the Justice Department’s actions regarding companies accused of not printing Kirk’s photos, warning, “We can indict you.”
In an attempt to clarify her initial comments, Bondy later tweeted, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment.” While that statement holds some accuracy, it doesn’t address her earlier point about the Justice Department possibly targeting offensive speech. She also seems to conflate protected speech with actual crimes like doxxing or attacks on Congress members.
It raises the question of whether the nation’s top law enforcement official truly understands the Constitution she’s sworn to uphold. The fact is, “hate speech” isn’t a legal category in the U.S.
The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that even the most aggressive or prejudiced speech is protected under the First Amendment, unless it incites imminent lawless action. This is a fundamental aspect of American liberty, and it appears that efforts to create an exception for “hate speech” on college campuses have largely stalled after years of attempts.
Trump, unsurprisingly, doesn’t seem troubled by these discussions. When asked about Bondy’s comments, he told an ABC reporter that “she’s probably going to chase people like you.” If you’re curious about how Trump defines “hate speech,” it seems to encompass anything that angers him. He’s taken it further, threatening legal action against outlets like The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal for articles he found offensive, claiming they represent unlawful campaign contributions.
Media organizations have the right to back candidates and publish critical coverage. Citizens are entitled to their opinions, even if they are considered offensive. These principles are key guarantees of the First Amendment. It begs the question: is it too much to expect a basic understanding of these rights from someone in Bondy’s position? It certainly shouldn’t be.
MAGA media has worked to distance itself from Bondy’s comments, labeling her as loud and foolish. Yet her statements align closely with Trump’s views. It’s unlikely Trump will part ways with an Attorney General whose stance mirrors his own. Bondy seems unlikely to retract her position, as it reflects the worldview of their administration.
There’s a growing concern that the hunt for “hate speech” will be used to justify purging individuals from their jobs—not through societal consensus, but through top-down pressure. The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel by ABC is a prime example of the administration’s readiness to penalize critics.
On Wednesday, FCC Chairman Brendan Kerr threatened ABC and Disney during a far-right podcast. He warned that if the network didn’t “take action against Kimmel” for comments about Charlie Kirk, the FCC would consider further measures.
Let’s not overlook that Kirk built his career opposing this kind of voice suppression. The looming danger is that Bondy’s remarks could set a precedent for a government-backed “hate speech” exception to free speech. If the Trump administration continues to muddle these lines, our freedoms might severely diminish, regardless of public sentiment about Kirk.
