Acquaintances of mine railed against President Biden’s attempts to get social media to take down posts of misinformation and disinformation. They maintained that this was government coercion, in effect, telling citizens what could be published. Free speech was under a dangerous assault, they said. Where are these conservatives now when free speech is being assaulted regularly on many, many fronts?
Examples are legion. The administration has been trying to dictate to universities the viewpoints faculty hires should have and what they should teach. They want them disciplined for disapproved teachings. Law firms have been punished because of the people whom lawyers have represented. Negative comments about Charlie Kirk are apparently not allowed. Speaking in favor of diversity can lead to the end of a government career or the withdrawal of a research grant. Lawful residents are locked up–even deported–for their views. The government seeks to punish congressional representatives for repeating a basic legal principle. And this is only a fraction of the actions that have subverted free speech. But my supposed free speech-loving companions remain silent. I expect that their silence will continue even in the face of a memo to all federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies dropped by Attorney General Pam Bondi on December 4, 2025, which came to light weeks later.
In the memo Bondi says she is outlining federal law enforcement priorities to support President Trump’s call to root out domestic terrorism. The AG maintains that “many of these domestic terrorists and domestic terrorist organizations are united by an anti-fascist platform. . . . This ideology that paints legitimate government authority and traditional conservative viewpoints as ‘fascist’ connects a recent string of political violence.” (If the left is using the “fascist” label, it is only following the right. In 2023, Time wrote, “Among Trump and his allies, the ‘fascist’ label has been growing in popularity.”)
Bondi’s claim is, putting it charitably, weakly sourced. For example, a claim that “anti-fascists violently rioted on UC Berkeley’s campus in 2017” [emphasis added] footnotes a 2019 news report headlined “Scattered Violence Erupts at Large, Left-Wing Berkley (sic) Rally.” Besides getting the date wrong, she equates “scattered violence” at a large rally with terrorism. Trump and his appointee maintain that lefties are the problem for mass, terroristic violence in this country even though study after study, including one posted on the FBI website (but now archived) have concluded that disproportionately right wingers have been the cause of such violence in this century.
Bondi continues, “Particularly dangerous are those acts committed by violent extremist groups that threaten both citizens’ safety and our country’s ability to self-govern. These domestic terrorists use violence or the threat of violence to advance political and social agendas, including opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility toward traditional views on family, religion, and morality; and an elevation of violence to achieve policy outcomes, such as political assassinations. [Federal law enforcement] shall prioritize the investigation of such conduct.” Law enforcement, Bondi said, should identify not only those who participate in such events but also “those who organize or financially sponsor those participants.”
There are some–shall we say–definitional problems. Define, e.g., “radical gender ideology.” What is an “extreme” view of mass migration? Does a traditional view on family oppose divorce? Why is anti-Christianity included but not antisemitism? If I don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah, am I anti-Christian? If I think CEOs get paid too much, am I anti-capitalist? I can argue that traditional moral values both favor and oppose the death penalty. Can it be both? A traditional view of religion is that churches are greedy. May I hold that opinion and start an anti-clerical movement? The January 6 protestors tried to prevent the legal transfer of power through violence. Wasn’t that anti-Americanism deserving prioritization?
She seems to have overlooked a salient fact: “Political and social agendas” and “views,” whether extreme or not, are expressions protected under the First Amendment. Yet this concern got a mere footnote in the memo: “The United States Government does not investigate, collect, or maintain information on U.S. persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment. No investigation may be opened based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of rights secured by the Constitution.” Notice, however, the qualifier “solely,” which eviscerates the apparent qualifications of the footnote. No government official will claim an investigation or collection of information is based “solely” on monitoring constitutionally protected activities. Some other justification will always be conjured up. Thus, the First Amendment will be trampled.
Shouldn’t anyone who uses illegal violence or threat of violence be prosecuted? Why “prioritize” those who hold such views and not everyone who uses illegal violence and threats of violence? Surely it is designed to suppress dissent so that those in power can stay in power.
And not for the first time I wonder where the principled conservatives are. Those who complained when the Biden administration tried to get social media companies to remove misinformation should be screaming now. The Trumpian actions impeding free speech are dangerously far-reaching. The Bondi directive is another clear example. And yet, my conservative acquaintances are silent.
