Attorney General Pam Bondi is facing a furious backlash from MAGA fanatics after she vowed to “target hate speech” in the wake of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk’s killing.
“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,” Bondi said on The Katie Miller Podcast, adding: “We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
That was enough to light a fuse. The same movement that once championed Bondi as a MAGA loyalist turned on her like a traitor, accusing her of spitting on the very principles Kirk stood for—and possibly died defending.
Kirk himself couldn’t have been clearer on the issue before his death. “Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” he wrote on X last year. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.”
In a video posted by Decensored News, Bondi’s call for crackdowns was spliced side-by-side with Kirk’s full-throated defense of even the most abhorrent speech.
“My position is that even hate speech should be completely and totally allowed in our country,” Kirk said to a cheering crowd. “The most disgusting speech should absolutely be protected.”
He warned of exactly what Bondi is now proposing: “As soon as you use the word ‘hate,’ that’s a very subjective term. All of a sudden, it is in the implementation of whoever has the power.”
Now that power is in Bondi’s hands—and the backlash has been brutal.
“Our Attorney General is apparently a moron,” conservative radio host Erick Erickson posted bluntly on X.
Attorney General Pam Bondi: "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." pic.twitter.com/Bqj6TQOGwP
— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) September 16, 2025
Rogan O’Handley (aka DC Draino) followed up: “We don’t need gov’t crackdowns on ‘hate speech.’ Let private citizens on X call out abhorrent speech and ask people’s employers if they agree with their statements.”
The massive End Wokeness account, with nearly 4 million followers, posted: “What we need is a massive crackdown on trans terror cells, not some ‘hate speech’ police. AG Bondi… yikes.”
Later, they reposted Kirk’s famous “Hate speech does not exist legally in America” quote, calling it a message directly for Bondi.
Matt Walsh also piled on: “There is no law against saying hateful things, and there shouldn’t be.”
The blowback hit Bondi hard, especially coming from the same conservative influencers who have long railed against the left for condemning “hate speech.”
And the irony? She made the comments while chatting with Katie Miller—wife of Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s toughest immigration and speech policies.
The backlash didn’t stop Bondi from doubling down. In a follow-up post on X, she tried to reframe her stance—linking “hate speech” directly to threats and violence.
“Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime,” she wrote. “For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.”
She added: “You cannot call for someone’s murder. You cannot swat a Member of Congress. You cannot dox a conservative family and think it will be brushed off as ‘free speech.’”
Yet for MAGA, hate speech is apparently part of their world—and they’re quick to defend it.
Meanwhile, the broader free-speech debate continues to rage. Charlie Kirk’s murder on September 10 at Utah Valley University sent shockwaves through the right, with some in Trump’s orbit calling it an act of left-wing terror, even as authorities have yet to release a motive.
Since the killing, universities and public employees have faced probes or firings over posts mocking Kirk, raising alarms among civil liberties groups who fear a chilling effect on political speech.
