BONDI STRIKES BACK – Press Protections ROLLED BACK!

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s revision of journalist subpoena rules sparks fierce debate as Senate Democrats challenge changes they claim threaten press freedoms, while Bondi defends her actions as necessary to combat politically-motivated leaks.

At a Glance

• Ten Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats criticized AG Bondi for easing rules on issuing subpoenas to journalists
• Bondi rescinded Biden-era regulations that limited DOJ subpoenas to cases of imminent harm or death
• The Attorney General claims the change addresses Biden officials leaking information to favored journalists
• Democrats argue the revisions threaten journalistic freedom and could deter whistleblowers
• Critics point to Democrats’ silence on similar press freedom issues during the Obama administration

Democrats Challenge Bondi’s Subpoena Policy Changes

A group of ten Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have formally challenged Attorney General Pam Bondi over her recent revisions to Department of Justice guidelines concerning journalist subpoenas. The senators expressed their concerns in a letter dated May 7, 2025, criticizing Bondi’s decision to rescind Biden-era regulations that had placed significant limitations on the DOJ’s ability to compel information from members of the press. The previous guidelines, established in 2021, allowed such subpoenas only in cases where there was imminent harm or risk of death, and only as a measure of last resort.

“When asked at your confirmation hearing to commit to ‘respect the importance of a free press,’ you said ‘absolutely.’ Yet your decision to rescind important limits on the Justice Department’s ability to compel information from the press threatens the ability of journalists to fully perform their critical jobs, as guaranteed by the First Amendment,” the senators told Bondi in a May 7, 2025, letter.

The Democrats argue that Bondi’s revisions make it substantially easier for the government to subpoena journalists, potentially compelling them to reveal confidential sources. This policy shift, they contend, could have a chilling effect on investigative reporting and whistleblowing activities that are vital to government accountability. The senators view the changes as a direct threat to press freedoms protected under the First Amendment and inconsistent with Bondi’s confirmation hearing commitments.

Bondi Defends Policy as Response to Biden-Era Leaks

Attorney General Bondi has forcefully defended her decision, citing what she describes as frequent and deliberate leaks of information by Biden administration officials to sympathetic journalists. According to Bondi, these leaks were strategically orchestrated to advance particular narratives on significant public matters. She further alleges that the previous administration employed gag orders to suppress criticism, including against former President Trump and other defendants in politically sensitive cases.

“The revision was made necessary, according to Bondi, because Biden officials weaponized their government positions by frequently and selectively leaking information to favored journalists calculated to “advance their preferred, and often erroneous, narrative about significant matters of public debate,” Bondi said in her memorandum.

In her memorandum outlining the policy changes, Bondi specifically referenced ongoing leaks of classified information even after President Trump’s second inauguration. She characterized the Biden-era protections as “overly broad” and suggested they primarily benefited media outlets aligned with the administration’s political objectives. This characterization frames her policy revision as a corrective measure against partisan exploitation of DOJ guidelines rather than an assault on legitimate press freedoms.

Historical Context and Selective Criticism

The current dispute between Senate Democrats and Attorney General Bondi is part of a longer-standing tension between the Department of Justice and the press. Similar conflicts arose during the Obama administration, which was criticized by press freedom advocates despite implementing certain transparency measures. The Committee to Protect Journalists noted that while the Obama White House made some information more accessible, it “discloses too little of the information most needed” for proper government oversight.

“The Biden administration also abused [former Attorney General Merrick] Garland’s overly broad procedural protections for media allies by engaging in selective leaks in support of failed lawfare campaigns. The leaks have not abated since President Trump’s second inauguration, including leaks of classified information,” she said.

Critics of the Senate Democrats’ position have highlighted what they perceive as selective outrage, pointing to the senators’ relative silence regarding similar press freedom concerns during Democratic administrations. This has led some observers to question whether the current objections are principally motivated by journalistic protection concerns or by partisan considerations. The final form of Bondi’s policy will be closely watched by media organizations, civil liberties groups, and political analysts for its implications on the balance between national security interests and press freedoms.