But her initial comments, made Monday in light of the Charlie Kirk assassination, set off a bipartisan backlash and calls for her resignation.

“I would fire her for this or I’d give her a few hours to fix it and then go take a remedial course in the First Amendment,” David Keating, the president of the Institute for Free Speech, told the Washington Examiner.

“I’m speechless that the chief law enforcement officer of the United States would get the First Amendment so badly wrong,” Keating added. “I understand her anger, but I don’t excuse this kind of statement.”

Those criticisms were especially pronounced among conservatives, who have previously questioned Bondi’s competence after she moved to end the investigation into disgraced financier Epstein. Her Justice Department released a memo in July denying the existence of a “client list,” which seemed to contradict her earlier statements.

She faced further blowback over the release of a tape meant to put to bed speculation that Epstein was killed in his prison cell, rather than died by suicide. Her explanation of a “missing minute” in the footage was later contradicted by the release of a more complete tape afterward.

“Between this ‘hate speech’ nonsense and Epstein, Pam Bondi has committed two of the most egregious errors we’ve ever seen from an Attorney General,” conservative commentator Matt Walsh wrote on social media. “How many seismic f— ups will Trump permit her before he cuts her loose?”

The Epstein criticism died down during August as Democrats, who seized on the MAGA-fueled scrutiny, returned to their districts for a monthlong recess and Trump’s National Guard takeover of Washington took the national spotlight.

But her comments on hate speech invited a rare break between Republicans on Capitol Hill and the administration and fresh questions about her tenure at the Justice Department.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), a libertarian, criticized “Hate speech” as a “term used by those in power to describe thoughts they don’t want spoken,” calling it “antithetical to the First Amendment.”

“‘Hate’ speech – as even a concept – is a tool of leftists and tyrants… certainly not conservatives,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) also wrote on social media.

Trump appeared to defend Bondi on Tuesday morning as he departed the White House for his second state visit to the United Kingdom.

When an ABC reporter asked about her remarks, Trump said, “Probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly with hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart.”

“ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech, right? Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech, so maybe they’ll have to go after you,” he added.

Republicans on Capitol Hill also backed Bondi’s qualified statement that speech inciting violence should be prosecuted.

“There’s no constitutional protected right to incite people to violence,” he said. “I don’t care who it is, whether it’s people on the right or people on the left,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said.

This is not the first time the Trump administration has caused upset on the Right. Before Kirk’s death, the White House had been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for an executive order aimed at punishing flag burning. With that order, the administration narrowed the scope of prosecution to those who incite violence or “lawless action” while burning a flag.

Jacob Mchangama, executive director of the Future of Free Speech, told the Washington Examiner he “completely” understood why “people are repulsed” by those celebrating Kirk’s death, but underscored that “there’s a difference between moral condemnation and criminal persecution.” 

“What I think is particularly ironic is that this administration has been, and I think rightfully so, critical of European democracies for going after hate speech,” Mchangama said. “That speaks to the incoherence of this and inherent danger in a polarized America that free speech becomes this political prop that each side can use whenever it suits its agenda and then disregard when it doesn’t.”

Mchangama noted that, shortly after his inauguration, Trump signed an order to “restore free speech and ensure that no federal government official would violate the First Amendment.”

“A lot of people on the Right voted for Trump because he promised to sort of do away with at least the cancel culture part of it,” he said. “It unfortunately mirrors cancel culture from the left. We all remember the days when James Bennett had to leave The New York Times for publishing an op-ed by Tom Cotton, and you basically couldn’t say much that questioned the prevailing narrative around racial justice in the country without facing consequences, and lots of people lost their jobs.”

In terms of Bondi’s remarks, Alex Morey, a specialist at Freedom Forum First Amendment, said that the First Amendment has “well-defined” exceptions, including true threats and incitement, that “balance free speech rights with the harm some types of speech can cause by regulating conduct rather than unpopular content.”

“Any hate speech regulation focuses solely on content and by default, requires politicians to make personal value judgements about which views are good or bad,” Morey told the Washington Examiner. “No one person or political party can do this in a principled way.”

Aaron Terr, public advocacy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, agreed, reiterating that “the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy and a violent rejection of the values of free speech and open debate.”

“Unfortunately, instead of reaffirming those values, the Trump administration is threatening to undermine them by cracking down on so-called ‘hate speech’ about Kirk or his death,” Terr told the Washington Examiner. “But one of the First Amendment’s most basic principles is that the government cannot censor speech simply because officials or the majority find it hateful or offensive. History and other countries’ experience show why: ‘hate speech’ is a vague concept that officials predictably exploit to suppress dissent.”

He continued: “That’s why everyone should be deeply wary of the administration’s next steps.”

Bondi’s comments, made on the Katie Miller Podcast, reflect the more aggressive tone the Trump administration is taking after Kirk was killed at an event in Utah, in particular toward left-wing groups that Trump and his advisers have claimed have fomented violence.

PATEL TO BE GRILLED OVER HANDLING OF CHARLIE KIRK CASE AFTER RUMBLINGS OF DISCONTENT

“Focused anger, righteous anger directed for a just cause, is one of the most important agents of change in human history,” White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told Vice President JD Vance during a tribute taping of The Charlie Kirk Show podcast. “We are going to channel all of the anger that we have to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks.”

“With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the[[Department of Justice],[[Department of Homeland Security], and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks,” Miller said. “It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”

David Sivak contributed to this report.