Senate Dems Critical of Bondi’s Easing of Journalist Subpoena Rules Were Mum on Obama, Biden Actions

Ten Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee—including former Chairman Dick Durbin of Illinois—have accused Attorney General Pam Bondi of attacking constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press by making it easier for the federal government to issue subpoenas to journalists for their testimony and sources.

“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 senators were responding to the attorney general’s April 25 Department of Justice internal memorandum declaring regulations adopted by President Joe Biden’s administration in 2021 are being rescinded and new ones are being drafted. The Biden regulation barred the DOJ from issuing subpoenas to journalists unless there was a threat of imminent bodily harm or death, and then only as a “last resort.”

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.

Such weaponization “included prosecutors trying to muzzle protected First Amendment speech criticizing the Biden administration, including through gag orders targeting not only President [Donald] Trump, but also other criminal defendants,” Bondi continued.

“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.

But the Senate Democrats contend the Bondi revisions represent a serious threat to the ability of journalists to cover government because officials “can take the extraordinary step of subpoenaing journalists merely to investigate ‘unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies,’ extending far beyond disclosures of classified information. In other words, under this new guidance, there is little protection for journalists, who publish any story critical of the administration from being threatened with a subpoena and litigation to enforce the subpoena.”

In addition, the Democrats contend that “these factors make it far too easy for the attorney general to compel journalists to reveal sources. This change will also deter whistleblowers from coming forward with information to the news media, depriving the public of valuable information about its government.”

Bondi’s memorandum and the Democrats’ response are the latest salvos in an increasingly intense struggle between DOJ and journalists that began under then-President Barack Obama nearly two decades ago.

There were multiple examples of the Obama administration’s DOJ withholding information that had previously been routinely available to journalists. As a result, in 2013, the Committee to Protect Journalists said that “with some exceptions, such as putting the White House visitors’ logs on the whitehouse.gov website and selected declassified documents on the new U.S. Intelligence Community website, it discloses too little of the information most needed by the press and public to hold the administration accountable for its policies and actions.”

And in 2014, the Obama administration’s DOJ threatened New York Times journalist James Risen with substantial fines and imprisonment for protecting a source. Similar abuse was aimed by the DOJ against then-Fox News White House reporter James Rosen, and at least two months’ worth of telephone records of multiple Associated Press reporters were secretly obtained by the government.

The Washington Stand repeatedly asked spokesmen for each of the 10 Senate Democrats whether they had expressed concerns similar to their present criticism of Bondi during the Obama administration. None of the 10 responded. Seven of the 10 Democrats were senators during either all of Obama’s tenure or during his second term.

Two of the 10, Sens. Peter Welch of Vermont and Adam Schiff of California, were members of the House of Representatives throughout the Obama era. Sen. Alex Padilla of California was first elected to the Senate in 2020 and held multiple local and state offices during the Obama presidency.

The Washington Stand also asked each of the 14 GOP members of the Senate Judiciary panel for comment on the Democrats’ letter to Bondi, but none responded.

Institute for Free Speech President David Keating told the Washington Stand that the actual content of the Bondi revisions cannot be judged until they are published.

“Government ‘policies’ are barely worth the paper they are written on. They don’t give citizens or journalists any rights, and employees are rarely punished for violations. Bondi can change the policy, with no public input or recourse,” Keating said, adding: “We don’t know Bondi’s new policy because she hasn’t written it yet. We’ll have to wait and see how the current policy will change and if the department will follow it.”

Originally published by The Washington Stand

The post Senate Dems Critical of Bondi’s Easing of Journalist Subpoena Rules Were Mum on Obama, Biden Actions appeared first on The Daily Signal.