Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled that the Justice Department would prosecute “hate speech” after the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, drawing swift criticism from prominent conservative voices who said her remarks misstate First Amendment law.
Bondi made the comments on a podcast hosted by conservative commentator Katie Miller, saying, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. And there’s no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie [Kirk]. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” Her remarks came amid a broader response from the Trump administration promising a crackdown on what it called the "radical left" following Kirk’s death.
Conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures pushed back almost immediately, arguing that "hate speech" is not a legally recognized category separate from protected speech under the First Amendment. Matt Walsh, a commentator associated with the Daily Wire, said there should be social consequences for celebrating a murder but that "there obviously shouldn’t be any legal repercussions for ‘hate speech,’ which is not even a valid or coherent concept." Former Fox News analyst Brit Hume said Bondi should understand that "so-called ‘hate speech,’ repulsive though it may be, is protected by the First Amendment." Radio host Erick Erickson posted on X that Bondi was "a moron," writing, "No ma’am. That is not the law."
Critics also noted that Kirk himself had previously said he did not believe "hate speech" was a legal concept and argued that virtually all speech is protected by the First Amendment. The American Library Association, which tracks debates over the term, says there is no single legal definition of hate speech; it is generally used to describe language intended to vilify or incite hatred against a group defined by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or national origin.
Facing the backlash, Bondi appeared to narrow her position the following morning, saying on X that "Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It's a crime." She added that the administration had seen what she described as the normalization of threats and calls for political violence and vowed it would end.
Legal experts note that the constitutional threshold for criminalizing speech is narrow. The Supreme Court has long held that advocacy is protected unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action, and that specific threats of violence are not protected speech. The ALA notes that speech rises to criminal conduct when it "incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group."
President Donald Trump publicly backed Bondi when asked about her remarks, telling a reporter, "[We’ll] probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly, it’s hate. You have a lotta hate in your heart." Vice President J.D. Vance, speaking on Kirk’s online show to pay tribute to the late activist, encouraged people to call out those who celebrated the murder and suggested reporting them to employers, but stopped short of calling for prosecutions for speech alone.
The exchange highlights a broader tension within conservative politics over how to respond to online and public language that many find abhorrent but which often remains constitutionally protected. The debate intensified after Kirk’s death, with administration officials framing a response to political violence while some allies cautioned against expanding criminal enforcement in ways they say would conflict with established First Amendment protections.
Prosecutors who pursue speech-related cases must still demonstrate that conduct crossed the legal line into threats or incitement. As the controversy over Bondi’s remarks continues, legal scholars and civil liberties groups say any move to criminalize speech will be judged against long-standing constitutional standards and likely face court scrutiny if pursued.