Attorney General Pam Bondi found herself at the center of a fierce national debate this week, after her remarks on prosecuting “hate speech” in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s murder ignited a firestorm across the political spectrum. Bondi’s initial comments, made less than a day after Kirk’s death, suggested that the Department of Justice would pursue legal action against individuals whose online posts were deemed hateful—a stance that quickly drew sharp criticism from both allies and opponents alike.
According to reports from Politico and Axios, Bondi’s Monday appearance on the Katie Miller podcast set off the controversy when she declared, “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” This came as many critics of Kirk posted on social media, with some expressing delight at his death or making rude remarks about him and his family. While such comments were widely condemned as offensive and reprehensible by Kirk’s supporters and many others, Bondi’s suggested remedy—criminal prosecution—struck a nerve with defenders of free speech across the ideological divide.
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas didn’t mince words, telling Politico that no matter how “evil and bigoted and wrong” words may be, they cannot be criminalized under the First Amendment. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson echoed this sentiment, telling the press, “In America...we do not censor and silence disfavored viewpoints.” Johnson added, “That said, if I’m an employer or I’m a government agency and I have someone in my employ who is online celebrating the heinous murder of an innocent person...I can make the decision that...” (as reported by CSPAN). The message was clear: while private consequences may exist for distasteful speech, government prosecution is a different matter entirely.
The backlash wasn’t limited to elected officials. Far-right media figures such as Megyn Kelly and Matt Walsh also weighed in. Kelly publicly expressed bafflement that Bondi would even consider cracking down on speech, let alone reinforce her stance in a social media post and podcast hours later. Matt Walsh, a personality with The Daily Wire, dismissed the notion of “hate speech” as a “valid or coherent concept.” According to the Mises Institute, Walsh even called for Bondi to be fired over her remarks, reflecting the depth of outrage among some in the MAGA movement.
Bondi’s comments were not isolated to the Kirk case. On the Katie Miller podcast, she connected her stance to broader concerns about anti-Semitism on college campuses, stating, “the anti-Semitism—what’s been happening at college campuses around this country—it’s disgusting, it’s despicable and we’ve been fighting that, we’ve been fighting these universities left and right and that’s not going to stop. 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.” She went on to pledge that her department would “go after” those engaging in hate speech, a statement she doubled down on when Miller asked whether law enforcement should be more aggressive against such groups.
Critics, particularly from libertarian and right-leaning circles, saw Bondi’s stance as a dangerous flirtation with state-enforced censorship. The Mises Institute, in a sharply worded article by Ryan McMaken, argued that “hate speech” is a concept invented to justify censorship and that Bondi’s willingness to embrace it is “extremely problematic, to say the least.” McMaken wrote, “Any politician who promotes the concept of ‘hate speech’ should be considered an enemy of our most fundamental natural rights, and his or her political career deserves to be ended permanently.” He further contended that Bondi’s position ignores the American Bill of Rights and centuries of classical-liberal thought on free expression.
McMaken’s critique went further, noting that Bondi’s comments appeared to justify prosecution not only of those who made cruel remarks about Kirk, but also of critics of Israel. He cited the case of Rümeysa Öztürk, who was allegedly arrested for writing an op-ed critical of Israel—an action he described as legal persecution for “alleged hate speech against the Israeli state.” The article argued that such use of hate speech laws is open to broad abuse, with the potential to criminalize dissenting or unpopular opinions.
The legal standard for restricting speech in the United States is, of course, a high one. As the Mises Institute reminded readers, the Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio established that speech can only be curtailed when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” By that measure, expressions of satisfaction over Kirk’s death or criticisms of foreign armies do not meet the threshold for criminalization. “Saying ‘I’m glad Charlie Kirk is dead’ doesn’t even come close to that standard,” McMaken wrote. “Neither does saying ‘I hope members of the IDF get killed.’ Vague attacks on foreign armies are a form of free speech, pure and simple.”
Even as Bondi attempted to clarify her remarks by Tuesday evening, telling Axios, “Freedom of speech is sacred in our country, and we will never impede upon that right. My intention was to speak about threats of violence that individuals incite against others,” the damage had been done. Many viewed her walk-back as little more than damage control. According to the Mises Institute, Bondi later stated, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.” Yet, for many critics, this was not enough to undo the perception that she had threatened the core principles of free expression.
The controversy quickly spilled beyond the halls of government and into the digital public square. While Bondi’s critics on the right were able to pressure her into denouncing her earlier directive, the fervor over Kirk’s death led to a different kind of silencing. Numerous individuals who criticized Kirk or his politics online reportedly lost their jobs, while others found themselves targeted by large-scale doxxing campaigns orchestrated by conservative activists. As one observer noted, “those same free-speech crusaders had zero problem personally targeting anyone who dared to disrespect Kirk’s memory.”
Underlying the entire episode is a deep and unresolved tension in American public life: the boundary between speech that is merely offensive and speech that is truly dangerous. While Bondi’s initial comments appeared to blur that line, the swift and bipartisan backlash underscored just how central the First Amendment remains in the country’s political culture. As the dust settles, the debate over the limits of free speech—and the risks of government overreach—shows no sign of fading away.
For now, Bondi’s reversal has temporarily quelled the uproar, but the episode stands as a reminder of the perils facing politicians who appear to threaten constitutional rights, even in moments of national grief and anger. The events surrounding Kirk’s death, and the reaction to Bondi’s remarks, highlight the complexities and passions that define America’s ongoing struggle over free expression.
