What Pam Bondi Said That Brings Him This Much Hatred Today? Pam Bondi is the U.S. Attorney General under President Donald Trump.
Bondi is facing widespread backlash and accusations of authoritarianism as of September 17, 2025, primarily due to comments she made on September 15, 2025, during an interview on the “Katie Miller Podcast.”
These remarks were made in the context of responding to the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, and the ensuing online rhetoric celebrating or criticizing Kirk’s death.
Bondi’s statements appeared to advocate for the federal government to prosecute or “target” individuals engaging in “hate speech,” which critics across the political spectrum argue misinterprets or undermines the First Amendment protections for free speech in the United States.What Pam Bondi SaidIn the podcast interview, Bondi explicitly differentiated between protected speech and what she called “hate speech,” stating:
“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society…We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
She made similar comments during a separate appearance on Fox News’ Hannity that same evening, suggesting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) could investigate or prosecute businesses refusing to print posters honoring Kirk for vigils, framing such refusals as potential civil rights violations. Bondi tied these statements to a broader push by the Trump administration to deter “political violence” and punish those who expressed glee or lack of sympathy over Kirk’s killing, which she attributed to “radical left” influences without evidence at the time.
See More:
- Who Is Jessica Tarlov and Why Is She Receiving This Much Hatred Today?
- Greg Gutfeld and Jessica Tarlov’s Explosive Debate on Fox News Ignites Controversy
- Who is Greg Gutfeld and Why People Clapping for Him Today?
Why This Is Generating Hatred Today
Bondi’s remarks ignited immediate and bipartisan fury, amplified by social media, conservative influencers, legal experts, and even Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, because they seemingly endorse a crackdown on protected speech under the guise of combating “hate.” Key reasons for the intense backlash include:
- Conflict with First Amendment Protections: Under U.S. law, there is no broad legal category of “hate speech” that can be criminally prosecuted simply for being offensive or hateful. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that even repugnant speech is shielded unless it constitutes a “true threat,” incitement to imminent violence (per Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969), or falls into narrow exceptions like defamation or fighting words. Critics, including conservative commentators like Erick Erickson (who called Bondi a “moron”) and Brit Hume of Fox News, argued her position could lead to selective prosecutions, such as targeting preachers opposing gay marriage or bakers refusing service based on religious beliefs—a direct reversal of conservative victories in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018). Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire called it “insane” and urged Trump to fire her, warning it would “roll back” decades of conservative free speech advocacy.
- Hypocrisy Relative to Charlie Kirk’s Views: Kirk himself was a staunch defender of expansive free speech. In a 2024 post, he wrote: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.” Right-wing influencers like Hans Mahncke highlighted this irony, stating, “Charlie Kirk literally died defending the principle that Pam Bondi is trashing.” This perceived betrayal of Kirk’s legacy fueled outrage among MAGA supporters and Turning Point USA affiliates.
- Bipartisan and Widespread Condemnation: The hatred isn’t confined to one side. Liberals and civil liberties groups, such as the American Library Association, decried it as an authoritarian overreach, with MSNBC’s legal analysts questioning if Bondi misunderstands the law or is misleading the public. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor indirectly rebuked the comments during a September 16 panel, warning against efforts to “criminalize free speech.” Even Trump allies like Mike Cernovich posted on X: “We don’t need DOJ to prosecute ‘hate speech.’ Pam Bondi really isn’t ready for this moment.” On X (formerly Twitter), posts criticizing Bondi trended under hashtags like #FireBondi and #HateSpeechHoax, with over 50,000 mentions in the last 24 hours as of September 17.
- Timing and Broader Context of Political Violence: The comments came amid heightened tensions following Kirk’s assassination, which the administration blamed on “left-wing radicals” (later linked to a trans activist motivated by opposition to Kirk’s politics). Bondi’s rhetoric was seen as exploiting the tragedy to justify a “new cancel culture,” including doxxing critics or firing employees for unsympathetic posts. This echoed earlier Trump-era controversies but alienated free-speech absolutists on the right. Additionally, a separate scandal emerged on September 16 alleging the DOJ under Bondi deleted a 2024 study showing right-wing extremism as the dominant domestic threat—further eroding trust and amplifying accusations of politicizing the Justice Department.
Bondi’s Response and Walk-Back
By September 16, facing mounting pressure, Bondi issued a clarification on X and in statements to outlets like Axios, insisting she meant only “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence,” which is already prosecutable under laws like 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (interstate threats). She wrote:
“Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime… Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence.”
Critics dismissed this as damage control, noting it contradicted her original broad phrasing. Legal experts like those at Reason magazine argued the walk-back was insufficient, as her initial words could still chill speech. As of September 17, calls for her resignation persist, with some X users and pundits labeling her “over her head” in the role.This controversy substantiates claims of “hatred” toward Bondi, as her comments have united unlikely allies in defense of free speech principles, potentially damaging her standing within the administration and among Trump’s base. For a deeper dive into the podcast audio or related X threads, the full context reveals a pattern of inflammatory rhetoric post-Kirk’s death that prioritized political retaliation over legal nuance.