MEMO: Civil Rights Are at Stake with Pam Bondi's Nomination

To: Interested PersonsFrom: The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human RightsRe: Pam Bondi’s Confirmation Hearing and Civil Rights

On January 15, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its consideration of the nomination of Pam Bondi to serve as attorney general of the United States. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights coalition, submitted a statement to the committee raising profoundly troubling aspects of her record on civil rights and urging the Senate to reject her nomination.

At a time when multiracial democracy is in jeopardy, it is critical that the U.S. Department of Justice, the nation’s signature agency for the enforcement of federal civil rights laws, is led by an attorney general who is committed to defending the civil and human rights of all people. Ranking Member Dick Durbin emphasized this critical role during his opening statement, stating that “The importance of the attorney general to our justice system cannot be overstated. As our nation’s chief law enforcement officer, the attorney general oversees the Department of Justice, which is responsible for protecting the civil rights of Americans, economic freedom and opportunity, public safety, and of course, national security. In short, the attorney general has a real impact on Americans’ everyday lives. It is critical that any nominee for this position be committed first and foremost to the Constitution and the American people — not any president or political agenda.”

Throughout today’s hearing, Ms. Bondi did nothing to assure the civil rights community that she would fairly and robustly enforce the nation’s civil rights laws or be independent. Rather, we are more deeply concerned. Her record and many of her troubling responses to questions related to civil rights and democracy disqualify her from serving as attorney general of the United States.

Pam Bondi repeatedly refused to say that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.

When asked by Ranking Member Durbin whether Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, Ms. Bondi would only say that “President Biden is the president of the United States” and that Trump was “overwhelmingly elected in 2024.”

During his questioning, Senator Blumenthal said he was “really troubled” and “deeply disturbed” by some of her previous nonresponses, including her refusal to say that Trump lost the 2020 election: “You dodged that question when you were asked directly by Senator Durbin.”

Senator Hirono followed up on this question, and Ms. Bondi once again would not answer, simply saying that “Joe Biden is the president of the United States.” As Senator Hirono said of Trump’s election loss, “it’s disturbing that you can’t give voice to that fact.”

Ms. Bondi also falsely claimed there was a “peaceful transition of power” in 2020. An attorney general nominee who considers armed violence against Congress and the disruption of our democracy as “peaceful” has no place at the Department of Justice. She also said that “What I can tell you is what I saw firsthand when I went to Pennsylvania as an advocate for the campaign…I saw many things there.” These remarks harken back to her role as a chief lawyer for Trump in the 2020 election, as described in our statement for the record, when Ms. Bondi fueled unfounded and dangerous lies about voting conspiracies and election fraud.

Pam Bondi would not protect the voting rights of all Americans.

Senator Padilla noted that Ms. Bondi traveled to Philadelphia the day after the 2020 election to appear beside Rudy Guiliani to falsely assert that Trump won Pennsylvania — assertions that she continued to repeat. Senator Padilla asked Ms. Bondi: “Do you have any evidence of election fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election?” After he repeatedly asked, yes or no, whether she had evidence, she would not answer. When asked whether she would retract her previous statements about Trump winning Pennsylvania in 2020, she would not answer, only offering to share what she saw in Pennsylvania. Senator Padilla noted that Rudy Giuliani, who made similar statements and false claims, has since been disbarred. As Senator Padilla importantly noted, “Your job will be to protect voters and election workers, not to undermine and dox them.”

Pam Bondi wouldn’t say whether January 6 insurrectionists should be pardoned.

When Ranking Member Durbin asked whether January 6 insurrectionists convicted of violent assaults on police officers should be pardoned, she noted that if asked to look at the cases, she would advise on a case by case basis. She refused to say that those who assaulted police officers should not be pardoned. Again, Senator Blumenthal decried her nonresponse, saying “you have to be able to say that January 6 insurrectionists who committed violence shouldn’t be pardoned.”

Senator Hirono asked Ms. Bondi about whether she agreed with Trump and believed the insurrectionists are “hostages or patriots.” She only said, twice, that she wasn’t familiar with that statement, but she would not say whether she agreed. It shouldn’t matter if Ms. Bondi is familiar with Trump’s characterization — she should have said no.

Pam Bondi’s responses on access to health care were not reassuring.

When Senator Klobuchar asked Ms. Bondi whether she would commit to defending the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE Act), which protects patients, providers, and facilities that provide reproductive health services, she deflected and said that the statute “also protects pregnancy centers and people going for counseling.” While she said she would uphold the enforcement of the law, her pivot is troubling given her record on reproductive rights.

Senator Klobuchar also asked Ms. Bondi about the Supreme Court’s upcoming case about the Affordable Care Act’s coverage of preventive services, which includes mammograms, cancer screenings, vaccinations, and a range of other preventive care. She only said this case was “very different” and that it was pending litigation. This non-response is troubling given her history of seeking to declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. While Ms. Bondi served as Florida’s attorney general, the state led a lawsuit with 26 other states that sought to declare the ACA unconstitutional, which would have upended major health insurance reforms for millions of people who had previously been unable to obtain coverage. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rejected this argument in 2012. In 2018, Ms. Bondi signed Florida on to another constitutional challenge to the ACA, reportedly without the direction of then-Governor Rick Scott. This case was ultimately thrown out by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds with the Court ruling that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case.

Later, when Senator Booker asked Ms. Bondi about access to mifepristone and whether she would commit to continuing the DOJ’s efforts to defend the FDA’s judgment in lawsuits challenging access to mifepristone, she said she had not been aware of this before she and Senator Booker previously spoke. She said “I will look at that policy. I am personally pro-life. I have always been pro-life.” While she said she would not let her personal beliefs affect her work, her record on reproductive rights, as referenced in our statement, is serious cause for concern.

Additionally, Senator Padilla asked Ms. Bondi whether she would advocate for federal abortion restrictions given her defense of mandatory waiting periods and parental consent requirements during her time as Florida attorney general. She did not answer that question and only said “I will follow the law of the United States of America.”

Pam Bondi would not denounce Trump’s dangerous, anti-immigrant rhetoric.

When Senator Hirono asked about whether she agrees with Trump’s statement that “illegal immigration is poisoning the blood” of our nation, Ms. Bondi said “I am not familiar with that statement,” only saying that she went to the border and it was “horrific.” Trump’s repeated use of this rhetoric was criticized for repeating language used by Adolph Hitler, and it is unacceptable that Ms. Bondi would not condemn it.

Senator Padilla followed up on this question, asking her, yes or no, whether she agrees with this statement. After saying that her great grandparents came here from Sicily, she again did not address Trump’s comments or disavow the statement at face value.

Pam Bondi’s responses about birthright citizenship were troubling.

Senator Padilla noted that Ms. Bondi, during their previous one-on-one meeting, didn’t seem to be familiar with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. When asked during the hearing what the clause says, Ms. Bondi stated that “I’m here to answer your questions, I’m not here to do your homework and study for you.” She then acknowledged that the 14th Amendment addresses birthright citizenship. When asked whether she believes birthright citizenship is the law of the land and whether she will enforce it, she said that “I will study birthright citizenship.” Senator Padilla responded: “That is not helping me have more confidence in your ability to do this job.” It is unacceptable that the attorney general nominee is both unfamiliar with birthright citizenship and unwilling to say whether she believes it’s the law.

Pam Bondi would not be independent and threatens to politicize the DOJ.

In her written statement, Ms. Bondi stated: “Lastly, and most importantly, if confirmed, I will work to restore confidence and integrity to the Department of Justice — and each of its components. Under my watch, the partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice will end.” Her perpetuation of the notion that the Biden DOJ was politicized and weaponized suggests that she believes that the Biden DOJ’s independence and enforcement of federal civil rights laws is political rather than carrying out the critical and historical role of the DOJ to ensure equal justice and equal protection under the law.

As Senators Schiff and Welch underscored, the extremist majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has given the president far-reaching immunity that jeopardizes the integrity and independence of the DOJ and our democracy. Ms. Bondi’s comments throughout the hearing provided no assurance that she would be able to stand up against the unethical and unlawful actions of the president, including the termination of career lawyers just for disagreeing with the Trump administration’s policies.

Before he began his questioning, Senator Schmitt, a newly elected Republican senator from Missouri, stated that “Trump derangement syndrome is alive and well,” adding that Democrats are obsessed with Trump and that it didn’t bode well for them electorally. Ms. Bondi then stated, unprovoked: “312 electoral votes, senator.” “A landslide,” Senator Schmitt responded. The ways in which Ms. Bondi repeatedly uplifted political messaging and slogans is further reason she does not possess the independence to serve in this critical role at this time.

Given Ms. Bondi’s longtime fidelity to Trump and her work to further his political agenda through her work at America First Policy Institute, there is significant cause for concern that if she is confirmed to this position she would not possess the necessary independence to defend our Constitution and the rights of all people.

Pam Bondi strongly disagrees with President Biden’s critically important use of clemency.

Senator Coons asked whether Ms. Bondi would be willing to work on a more institutionalized clemency process rather than issuing clemency mostly toward the end of administrations. Ms. Bondi responded that “The commutations that Joe Biden just made were abhorrent to me, absolutely abhorrent, taking people off death row.” The civil rights community contends that the death penalty does not advance public safety and that it is discriminatory and cruel. State-sanctioned killing as a form of criminal punishment is, in all cases, both inhumane and in conflict with our country’s most fundamental principles.

Her response is particularly troubling given the Trump administration’s previous actions on the death penalty. In July 2019, then-AG William Barr announced that the federal government would reverse a nearly two-decade moratorium to resume the federal death penalty. The Trump administration proceeded to carry out 13 federal executions before the end of Trump’s first term — including six executions following the 2020 election.

For more on the first Trump administration’s across-the-board assault on civil and human rights, many which occurred through the Department of Justice, read The Leadership Conference’s timeline of rollbacks here.

—

If you have any questions or need more information, please contact Patrick McNeil at [email protected].