Skip to content

RCFP reviews Pam Bondi’s record on newsgathering, First Amendment issues

Post categories

  1. First Amendment
President Donald Trump has nominated the former Florida attorney general to serve as the next U.S. attorney general.
Pam Bondi, President-elect Donald Trump's choice to lead the Justice Department as attorney general, appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Pam Bondi, President-elect Donald Trump's choice to lead the Justice Department as attorney general, appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Update: On Feb. 4, 2025, the U.S. Senate confirmed Pam Bondi as U.S. attorney general.

After President Donald Trump tapped Pam Bondi to serve as the next U.S. attorney general, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press surveyed Bondi’s prior work and positions that implicate the First Amendment and press freedom. 

While we do not grade nominees or make recommendations for or against their confirmation by the U.S. Senate, we summarize the records of certain nominees to offer information relevant to newsgathering and the legal rights of journalists. Bondi appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 15 and 16, and a vote on her confirmation is expected in the near future. 

Bondi previously served as the attorney general of Florida from 2011 to 2019. She also served as a defense lawyer during Trump’s first impeachment trial, and more recently, as chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for Litigation.  

During her time as Florida attorney general, Bondi’s office litigated thousands of cases. Among other things, in her capacity as attorney general, Bondi spoke on the importance of allowing public access to records involving criminal allegations without ultimate conviction. She defended the constitutionality of a law that restricted the ability of medical providers to ask patients questions about gun ownership. And Bondi was a defendant in a public records dispute that resulted in the payment of a settlement by the state of Florida.

Bondi has also made comments in her role at the America First Policy Institute on First Amendment issues. She defended, for instance, Trump’s lawsuit against large social media companies for moves to restrict or suspend his accounts.  

Below, we highlight the instances we have been able to find where Bondi or the Florida attorney general’s office opined on or was involved in matters related to newsgathering or the First Amendment.

Public Records

In 2017, then-Gov. Rick Scott signed a law forcing websites to remove mugshots upon the request of individuals that were not ultimately convicted of a crime. The law also stated that the websites could no longer charge a fee for the removal of mugshots. The governor declined to sign into law a provision that would have automatically sealed nearly 3 million other records of individuals who were arrested and not convicted. Bondi agreed with public records advocates and First Amendment groups that the public has a right to know who has been arrested, especially in the context of potential sex offenses. “We all know how difficult it is to convict a sex offender,” she said.

Bondi’s office has provided training to help ensure that public officials remain in compliance with Florida public records laws, including by properly retaining and disclosing text messages.

In 2015, Scott and Bondi agreed to a $700,000 settlement in connection with seven lawsuits alleging violations of Florida public records law. Among other claims, the governor and his staff allegedly violated the law when they created email accounts to shield communications from disclosure, and Bondi was alleged to have improperly withheld meeting notes she kept on her iPad. It is reportedly the first case where a sitting governor and attorney general have been sued and agreed to settle a Florida public records case.

Bondi’s office represented the Florida State Attorney’s Office against claims of improperly withholding audio recordings of a prominent criminal defendant until receipt of a deposit to cover the costs of reviewing and redacting the recording. This suit was brought by a coalition of media organizations, which argued that charging a fee for the recordings violated Florida’s public records laws. 

Bondi’s office defended the constitutionality of a law allowing elected officials to use blind trusts to shield their financial assets. The suit, brought by former governor’s aide Jim Apthorp, argued that the use of blind trusts violated the Florida Sunshine Amendment’s “full and public” disclosure requirements. Apthorp’s suit was supported by media and First Amendment groups, including the Florida Press Association and the First Amendment Foundation. In support of the law, Bondi argued that “blind trusts have been widely accepted as promoting the very purpose of the Sunshine Amendment: to avoid conflicts of interest.” The suit was ultimately dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Bondi’s office was also responsible for releasing advisory opinions regarding Florida’s Sunshine Law and Public Records Act. Some notable opinions published during her tenure as attorney general include:

  • A 2016 opinion declining to determine if tweets posted by a public official — or a list of social media users blocked by a public official — constitute public records.
  • A 2015 opinion concluding that the names of undercover police officers, even if included on a general roster without indication that they were serving in an undercover role, fell under a public records law exemption.
  • A 2015 opinion concluding that the sound of an individual’s voice captured during a 911 call did not constitute information “which may identify” that person as contemplated by a public records law exemption.
  • A 2013 opinion concluding that an exemption to Florida’s Sunshine Law could not be broadly interpreted to allow a city commission and its attorney to meet in private to discuss settlement negotiations connected to mandatory and binding arbitration.
  • A 2013 opinion finding that an agency can charge the “actual costs” of duplicating a record via electronic means but cannot charge a service fee for electronic records.
  • A 2012 opinion finding that a public entity could not enter into a closed session to discuss a whistleblower complaint absent an applicable exemption in the Sunshine Law.
  • A 2011 opinion interpreting a public records exemption to apply to information submitted to the government in order to participate in Florida’s sexual offender alert system.
  • A 2011 opinion finding that the imposition of certain requirements on a requester, including requiring a physical address or demonstration of a proper purpose for accessing a record, were inconsistent with Florida’s public records law.
  • A 2011 opinion finding that a private fundraising organization created by a public entity was subject to the state’s public records and open meetings laws.

Newsgathering Rights

During the first day of Bondi’s nomination hearing on Jan. 15, she was asked by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), “Under what circumstances will you prosecute journalists for what they write?” She replied, “I believe in the freedom of speech” and continued that “only if anyone commits a crime. It’s pretty basic, senator, with anything, with any victim. And this goes back to my entire career for 18 years as a prosecutor and then eight years as Florida’s attorney general. You find the facts of the case, you apply the law in good faith, and you treat everyone fairly.” 

Bondi’s office represented the state of Florida in filing a petition to prevent the disclosure of information that it had redacted from search warrants and warrant applications related to a pending prosecution. A newspaper had filed a motion to intervene in the case, seeking public access to the unredacted documents, and the district court ultimately ordered that unredacted records must be produced. 

Bondi’s office represented the city of Miami and the Miami South Beach Police Department in a Section 1983 action brought pro se by a self-described “freelance photojournalist.” The plaintiff alleged that he was wrongfully arrested and his equipment seized after photographing an arrest. The plaintiff’s case was dismissed by the district court, and the ruling was largely upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of excessive force claims and the claims against the city, superintendent, and unnamed officers. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded on the remaining Fourth Amendment and First Amendment claims against the arresting officers.  

Other First Amendment Issues

While serving as America First Policy Institute’s chairperson for constitutional litigation, Bondi supported Trump’s lawsuits against Facebook, Twitter, and Google after his social media accounts were suspended from their platforms. Bondi stated that Trump’s removal from these platforms violated the First Amendment and opened the door to widespread censorship. The America First Policy Institute released a case update in response to YouTube’s motion to dismiss the case, stating that the case could allow the “United States Supreme Court [to] decid[e] the constitutionality of Section 230, the protection that enables Big Tech to violate American’s freedom of speech with zero accountability.” 

As attorney general, Bondi opposed a petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider if a magazine, Prison Legal News, was improperly banned from distribution to prison inmates in Florida. The magazine argued that its First Amendment rights were being violated by this “blanket ban.” Bondi’s office claimed that there was no ban, and that the Florida Department of Corrections was separately reviewing each issue to determine if Prison Legal News was running ads for prohibited services in prison, such as three-way calls.

As attorney general, Bondi opposed an effort to halt the Florida Constitution Revision Commission’s proposal of multiple amendments on the November 2018 ballot. Challengers to this proposal argued that it violated the First Amendment rights of voters by improperly bundling issues that should be considered separately. For example, “Amendment 9” tied together an offshore oil drilling ban and a ban on electronic cigarette usage in the workplace. Bondi’s office claimed that the First Amendment argument was a “novel constitutional theory” that lacked legal precedents. 

As attorney general, Bondi defended the University of Florida’s president, Kent Fuchs, after he blocked Richard Spencer from speaking on campus, citing safety concerns. “Of course, we all believe in the First Amendment,” Bondi said, “but his priority as president of the University of Florida is to protect the students that go to that school.” This decision came soon after the “Unite the Right” rally, which took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, with Bondi stating that she intended to “make her opinions clear” on the event when talking to President Trump.

As attorney general, Bondi’s office filed an appeal backing the “docs v. glocks” law, which restricted doctors from asking questions and recording information about patients’ gun ownership. She argued that the statute passed First Amendment scrutiny, and that “the act narrowly advance[d] the state’s compelling interests in protecting the fundamental right to keep and bear arms from private encumbrances, safeguarding patient privacy, eliminating barriers to health care, and preventing discrimination and harassment in the provision of health care services.” The Eleventh Circuit ultimately struck down several provisions of the law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Bondi’s office defended the legality of certain Florida election laws requiring groups that spend money to influence elections to form “political committees” subject to certain disclosure requirements. Plaintiffs sought to purchase radio advertisements opposing a proposed Florida constitutional amendment, but their constitutional challenges were ultimately unsuccessful

The America First Policy Institute, of which Bondi serves as a chair for their Center for Litigation, has been involved in several matters implicating the First Amendment and access rights. While Bondi was not named on the papers in these matters, they occurred during her tenure at the organization.

  • The America First Policy Institute sued Meta for damages and injunctive relief in a Texas small claims court after its Instagram account was suspended after posting about Hunter Biden.
  • The America First Policy Institute filed a lawsuit in 2023 against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeking communications between the agency and prominent technology companies, including Facebook, Google, and Twitter. The suit sought to uncover records demonstrating that “the Biden Administration colluded with Big Tech to censor Americans with views contrary to its preferred official state narrative.” The underlying Freedom of Information Act requests sought any records containing certain terms, including “misinformation,” “fake news,” and “narrative.”
  • The America First Policy Institute represented Donald Trump in filing a friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in NetChoice v. Moody. In Trump’s brief, he argued that the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis was flawed in reaching the “sweeping and incorrect conclusion that when platforms deliver a user’s content, the platforms are themselves engaged in speech rather than acting like telephone or telegraph operators. … Platforms hosting third-party content act like airlines carrying passengers, telegraph companies transmitting messages, or railroads carrying freight. Like these traditional common carriers, the largest platforms offer their services to one and all on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without any bespoke modification.” The America First Policy Institute itself submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Eleventh Circuit below, arguing that Section 230 “only protects social media platforms from publisher or speaker liability for distributing content posted by third-party users … [and] good-faith decisions to take down certain types of content listed in the statute, such as obscenity.”

Stay informed by signing up for our mailing list

Keep up with our work by signing up to receive our monthly newsletter. We'll send you updates about the cases we're doing with journalists, news organizations, and documentary filmmakers working to keep you informed.