SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pam bondi
'Ghoulish': Trump Expands Federal Death Penalty
The Republican president "articulated his plan to drastically increase executions, and we all know this is one promise he can't wait to keep," said one death penalty abolitionist.
Jan 21, 2025
Delivering on a promise to "vigorously pursue the death penalty," U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday night signed an executive order that reverses his predecessor's moratorium on federal capital punishment and calls for expanding it.
The widely expected order—one of several issued on Inauguration Day—was swiftly criticized on factual and moral grounds.
Attorney and death penalty expert Robert Dunham pointed out that the order "starts with a demonstrable falsehood ('Capital punishment is an essential tool for deterring and punishing those who would commit the most heinous crimes'), signaling that the administration intends not to allow the facts to affect its policy decisions."
"In fact, the death penalty does not contribute anything to public safety," said Dunham, citing a study by the Death Penalty Policy Project, which he directs. "As for 'deterring the most heinous crimes,' see my analysis of the worst of the worst mass shootings in the United States."
"It is essential, with the importance and deadly consequences of this policy, that media coverage report the truth and not just the rhetoric," he stressed. "The executive order is grounded in a false, dark fantasy about deterrence and has nothing to do with making the public safer."
Declaring that "the death penalty is unjust and cruel," the ACLU warned that Trump's order not only directs an expansion of its use at the federal level but also encourages states to do the same.
Specifically, the order says that "in addition to pursuing the death penalty where possible," the attorney general shall seek it "regardless of other factors" for federal cases involving the murder of a law enforcement officer or a capital crime committed by an undocumented immigrant—and shall "encourage state attorneys general and district attorneys to bring state capital charges for all capital crimes with special attention to" those circumstances, "regardless of whether the federal trial results in a capital sentence."
The order further directs the head of the U.S. Department of Justice to "seek the overruling of Supreme Court precedents that limit the authority of state and federal governments to impose" the death penalty and "ensure that each state that allows capital punishment has a sufficient supply of drugs needed to carry out lethal injection."
Last week, outgoing U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland "withdrew the Justice Department's protocol for federal executions that allowed for single-drug lethal injections with pentobarbital, after a government review raised concerns about the potential for 'unnecessary pain and suffering,'" The Associated Pressreported. "The protocol could be imposed by Trump's new acting Attorney General James McHenry III, or his pick to lead the Justice Department, Pam Bondi, once she's confirmed by the Senate."
Though Trump's order doesn't name Garland, it explicitly takes aim at former President Joe Biden for his moratorium as well as his attempt to prevent another GOP killing spree like the one that occurred at the end of the Republican's first term, accusing the Democrat of commuting the sentences of "37 of the 40 most vile and sadistic rapists, child molesters, and murderers on federal death row: remorseless criminals who brutalized young children, strangled and drowned their victims, and hunted strangers for sport."
Biden said last month that "in good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted." He left Charleston church gunman Dylann Roof, Pittsburgh synagogue shooter Robert Bowers, and Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on death row. The others now face life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Trump cannot reverse Biden's commutations, but he directed the attorney general to "evaluate the places of imprisonment and conditions of confinement for each" of those 37 men and "take all lawful and appropriate action to ensure that these offenders are imprisoned in conditions consistent with the monstrosity of their crimes and the threats they pose."
The president also said that the attorney general "shall further evaluate whether these offenders can be charged with state capital crimes and shall recommend appropriate action to state and local authorities."
Death Penalty Action executive director Abraham Bonowitz said in a Monday statement:
President Trump's executive order demanding capital charges for the murder of law enforcement officers or capital crimes by illegal aliens is unnecessary bluster, because the death penalty already exists for such crimes. But Trump can't help himself. Donald Trump's Agenda2025 articulated his plan to drastically increase executions, and we all know this is one promise he can't wait to keep.
We are also dismayed at President Biden's cynical compromise that commuted 37 federal death sentences while leaving seven prisoners on federal and military death rows. While expressing both his personal opposition to the death penalty and his desire to maintain the moratorium on executions he imposed in 2021, Biden has nevertheless primed the pump for Donald Trump to resume his execution spree.
Social media users also slammed Trump's order, with one saying that "this is extremely disturbing" and another calling it "one of the most ghoulish things I've ever fucking read." Many critics highlighted that the president issued the measure while pardoning over 1,500 insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, which led to the deaths of multiple police officers.
James Goodwin, policy director at the Center for Progressive Reform, noted that it "is straight out of Project 2025," the sweeping Heritage Foundation-led playbook from which Trump unsuccessfully tried to distance himself during the campaign.
Trump has a long history of supporting capital punishment. As journalist Prem Thakker
put it, "On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the man who bought [a] full-page [newspaper] ad calling for the execution of the Central Park Five—five Black and Latino teens wrongfully convicted of rape—makes one of his first acts as president to restore and prioritize the death penalty."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bondi’s Non-Answer on the 14th Amendment Speaks Volumes
What Trump's nominee to be Attorney General claims she doesn't know about birthright citizenship should frighten us all.
Jan 17, 2025
In her Tuesday confirmation hearing, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, Pamela Bondi, had a contentious exchange with Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) about 2020 election denialism and the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. Bondi was evasive and tried to waste time through rambling answers instead of directly answering Padilla’s questions. However, it was her non-answer to the question about the 14th Amendment that spoke loudest.
Padilla asked the following question, “Now when we met yesterday, you did not seem to be familiar with the citizenship clause [of] the 14th Amendment of the United States of America, which was deeply disappointing. And I’m hoping you are more familiar with it today after I gave an opportunity to study it overnight. So can you tell me at this committee what the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment says?”
This is an extremely straightforward question. Although I wouldn’t expect anyone to be able to recite all of the text of all of the Amendments of the Constitution verbatim from memory, Bondi gave a stonewalling non-answer that was very telling. “Senator, I’m here to answer your questions. I’m not here to do your homework and study for you. If I’m confirmed as Attorney General,” at which point the senator repeated his question and tried to press her for an answer. The only answer that she ended up giving on this topic was a pathetic, “Senator, the 14th Amendment we all know addresses birthright citizenship…. I didn’t take your homework assignment: I’m sorry I was preparing for today.”
Although Bondi’s answer made her sound like a student who is giving a book report on a book they didn’t read, I am certain that she knows exactly what the 14th Amendment says. Padilla, to his credit, did not fall for Bondi’s attempted dodge. He asked point blank, “So now on the 14th Amendment, you’ve testified repeatedly to this committee that you will uphold the laws of this country and defend the Constitution of the United States. Do you believe birthright citizenship is the law of the land and will you defend it regardless of a…child born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status?”
Again, Bondi’s lack of a direct response tells you everything you need to know. “Senator, I will study birthright citizenship. I would love to meet with you regarding birthright citizenship.” Bondi does not have the courage to own up to the fact that she and the administration that she is applying to work for will put into practice an illegal set of policies designed to contravene the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents. She does not want to say the text of the 14th Amendment out loud because it’s really quite unambiguous.
For reference, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Children who are born in the U.S. to undocumented parents are subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. Therefore, they are citizens. It couldn’t be any more straightforward. As I wrote about previously, the conservative legal “theory” that these children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and are therefore not citizens is completely ludicrous and incoherent. I also recently wrote about the dystopian nightmare that would be created if Donald Trump is allowed to bring this incoherent theory into practice. With Trump’s inauguration looming next week, it is important that we understand what Bondi’s role would be in the push to end birthright citizenship in the U.S.
As Attorney General, Bondi would be a key player in Trump’s Push to end birthright citizenship and shred the 14th Amendment
There are three key roles Bondi would play as Attorney General in Donald Trump’s plan to destroy the 14th Amendment. First, the Attorney General is the head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. The OLC is a critical part of any administration that many Americans may not be aware of. As the OLC’s website says, “The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and provides its own written opinions and other advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and other components of the Department of Justice…. All executive orders and substantive proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the President’s formal approval.” (emphasis added).
As Attorney General, Bondi will be responsible for issuing OLC legal memos and reviewing the legality (or illegality) of Trump’s executive orders. Although OLC legal memos are only advisory in nature, they can have powerful effects. We are still living under the shadow of the 1973 OLC memo that concludes that a sitting President is immune from criminal prosecution. OLC memos create legal cover and justification for agencies to take action. Further, Bondi would be theoretically responsible for signing off on the constitutionality of any Trump executive orders that contravene the 14th Amendment. Her statement that she has to “study” the 14th Amendment is hard to believe because I would not be surprised to find out that they have a legal memo and executive orders already drafted and ready to go that will start the attack on birthright citizenship as soon as Trump takes office. We can assume that behind closed doors, she has already signed off on Trump’s illegal plan to deny citizenship to children of undocumented parents.
Second, the Attorney General sits at the top of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is commonly referred to as “Immigration Court.” The EOIR is the arm of the government that carries out removal proceedings, i.e., deportation proceedings. In a previous piece for Common Dreams, I wrote about a nightmare scenario where the federal government would begin to detain and deport people born in the U.S. with undocumented parents. As Attorney General, Bondi would be instrumental in this as her office would be carrying out these proceedings under the flagrantly incorrect notion that these people born in the U.S. are not citizens.
Third, the AG controls the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The OSG is the arm of the Executive Branch that will defend Trump’s policies in court against the inevitable legal challenges that they will draw. Of course, as I previously wrote, these policies are intentionally designed to draw legal challenges and make their way to the corrupt U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court overturns birthright citizenship despite the incredibly clear language of the 14th Amendment, it will be because of the arguments put forward by Bondi’s attorneys who are part of the Office of the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice. If birthright citizenship in the U.S. is erased, it will be because of Pam Bondi.
Bondi’s response that she would have to “study” the 14th Amendment is a lie. She is lying to cover up the fact that she will be a key player in Trump’s plans to shred the 14th Amendment and abrogate his oath of office. Just let that sink in. She is lying at her confirmation hearing because she knows that she will be a major part of the incoming administration’s effort to break the law by ignoring the plain text of the U.S. Constitution. Her nomination should be opposed unanimously, but of course, we cannot count on any Republicans in the Senate to do the right thing, ever. We need to keep a clear moral perspective and never let them forget what they have done if they are successful in confirming Bondi and destroying the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship in the U.S.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Pick For AG Perfectly Exemplifies His MO—Cronyism and Corruption
Pam Bondi has a worrying history of receiving support from corporate actors before seemingly using her power to shield them from legal action.
Jan 16, 2025
In late November, President-elect Donald Trump announced Pam Bondi—former Florida attorney general, current partner at Ballard Partners, and long-time Trump-world regular—as his nominee for attorney general. Bondi perfectly exemplifies Trump’s approach to staffing the executive branch: prioritizing loyalists with a history of defending him personally and actively creating opportunities for revolver-induced corruption.
Going into the second Trump administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) faces a broad array of issues, from counter-intelligence to civil rights enforcement. But in many respects the Justice Department is most central and critical as the enforcer of laws that limit corporate misbehavior. From monopolistic collusion and tax evasion to wage theft and polluting the air, the DOJ is constantly deciding whether to pursue potential civil and criminal actions against a wide array of corporations.
Is someone whose (virtual) rolodex is full of contacts at large tech companies likely to be enthusiastic about supporting antitrust enforcement against the very tech executives she has a warm working relationship with?
If confirmed, Bondi will be a classic corporate revolver. While at Ballard, she’s worked with a slate of corporate clients, prominently including Amazon, which has pending cases before the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission. As attorney general, Bondi would stand to oversee cases against a number of her former clients and their ilk, creating at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Bondi would also have the power to influence resource allocation decisions, determining how much effort the federal government puts toward enforcing the law against corporate actors and individuals alike. With many of Bondi and her Ballard peers’ clients and former clients number among those who stand to face federal enforcement, there are clear reasons to worry she might de-emphasize corporate misconduct and prioritize Trump’s political enemies.
Is someone whose (virtual) rolodex is full of contacts at large tech companies likely to be enthusiastic about supporting antitrust enforcement against the very tech executives she has a warm working relationship with? Questions like this seem to answer themselves, and the outlook isn’t good for those of us who see the role of government as protecting most of us from the greed and abuses of wealthy and powerful corporations and executives.
Beyond concerns about corporate revolver dynamics that could undercut DOJ’s efficacy in cracking down on corporate wrongdoing, Bondi herself has a worrying history of receiving support from corporate actors before seemingly using her power to shield them from legal action.
In 2011, newly inaugurated Florida Attorney General Bondi led the charge to fire two attorneys who had been investigating Lender Processing Services (LPS)—a mortgage services company that later pled guilty to having forged documents to illegally repossess borrowers’ homes—after Bondi received substantial campaign contributions from LPS. In 2013, Bondi directly solicited a reelection campaign donation from the Donald J. Trump Foundation. Shortly after Bondi received the $25,000 donation, her office declined to continue investigating complaints against Trump University. Also during Bondi’s first term as Florida attorney general, she had an extended relationship with lawyers from firm Dickstein Shapiro who met with Bondi to represent an array of corporate clients. In several documented cases, Bondi declined to use her AG powers to pursue action against these companies, as The New York Times reported in a Pulitzer-winning 2014 series. (As the Miami Herald reports, a brochure from the firm even boasts that “we persuaded AGs not to sue Accretive Health.”)
These corruption concerns don’t even scratch the surface of Bondi’s broad network of financial and personal relationships with conservative interest groups and influential corporate actors, not to mention her lobbying work for the nation of Qatar. As such, Bondi's confirmation would likely become quite difficult, as every issue from how to deal with Foreign Agents Registration Act enforcement to antitrust policy is implicated by her time at Ballard.
These blatant concerns with Bondi’s fitness for the role were drawn out to some extent in her first confirmation hearing on Wednesday. Bondi repeatedly took a combative tone in response to questions. She dodged or evaded numerous questions about how her loyalty to Trump might influence her decision-making as attorney general, even making the blanket statement, “I’ll never speak on a hypothetical, especially one saying that the president would do something illegal”—a concerning hard line for her to take, given Trump's multiple, non-hypothetical, criminal convictions.
Bondi’s second hearing, scheduled for on Thursday, promises to produce more eventful and contentious testimony, as hearings for Trump nominees continue this week.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular