AG Pam Bondi reverses Biden-era media protections in leak investigations
As last week came to an end, Attorney General Pam Bondi raised eyebrows with some highly provocative rhetoric on Fox News, where the Republican appeared to threaten judges with prosecutions.
But that's not all she did on Friday afternoon. NBC News reported:
Attorney General Pam Bondi has revoked protections issued by former Attorney General Merrick Garland that offered procedural protections for members of the media from having their records seized or being forced to testify in the course of leak investigations, according to the memo seen by NBC News.
As a New York Times report added, the attorney general's internal Justice Department memo 'said that the change was necessary to safeguard 'classified, privileged and other sensitive information' — a far broader set of government secrets than is protected by the criminal code, which focuses primarily on making it illegal to share classified information.'
It's striking to see just how far the pendulum has swung in a short period of time on this issue.
Around this time four years ago, then-Attorney General Merrick Garland created a policy that prohibited federal prosecutors from going after reporters' private information or forcing them to testify about their confidential sources.
Even at the time, this wasn't especially controversial. In fact, there was bipartisan legislation in the last Congress — called the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act (also known as the PRESS Act) — that would've codified Garland's policy into federal law. In early 2024, House Republican agreed to bring bill to the floor, it passed without objection.
Any one member from the left, right or center could've balked, but no one did. Even in a sharply divided House, this was seen as a consensus issue.
Though there was a companion bill in the Senate, which was co-authored by two conservative Republicans, and which enjoyed the backing of far-right media figures such as Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump told GOP senators to reject the legislation, and it died soon after.
Now, instead of having a bipartisan measure in place to protect journalists, Bondi has decided to turn back the clock and undo the Biden-era policy — adding new dimensions to the Trump administration's broader offensive against the free press.
It's worth emphasizing that Bondi's memo added that there will be procedures in place before members of the media are compelled to testify or their records are seized, but that doesn't change the fact that the Justice Department is prepared to compel journalists to testify and their records will be subject to seizure.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
44 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Elon Musk's feud with Trump likely won't blow up Tesla's robotaxi push, analysts say
Elon Musk 's public sparring with President Donald Trump last week may have briefly put a dent in Tesla's value, but analysts say they can't see any reason the feud would have a long-term impact on the company's business, including its robotaxi ambitions. The feud between Musk and Trump began with the Tesla CEO's criticism of the GOP's spending bill, which slashes EV tax credits and is estimated to add more than $2.4 trillion to the national deficit. The clash then escalated with threats coming from both sides: Trump threatened to cancel government contracts with Musk's companies, and the CEO fired back by saying he'd shut down SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft before reneging. During Musk's fight with Trump on Thursday, Tesla's stock dipped 14%, wiping out $138 billion from the company's market cap. The company recovered some of the losses the following day. Yet the CEO saw one of his biggest single-day hits to his net worth with an estimated $34 billion loss. Still, some analysts say this storm will pass. "Musk's and Trump's relationship has an impact on the stock and maybe investor sentiment, but as far as the actual business impact for Tesla, I never thought Trump getting elected was positive or that negative for Tesla," Seth Goldstein, Morningstar analyst, told Business Insider. "So with the feud that started between Trump and Musk, I never really viewed that as that positive or negative for Tesla either." While it may not be helpful to no longer be in Trump's good graces, Goldstein said the president has already made clear that he would cut EV subsidies, which the analyst viewed as having the most negative impact not just on Tesla but on all EV makers. Gene Munster, Tesla investor and managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, estimated in a Friday report that the elimination of the tax credits could reduce 2025 deliveries by 15%. Trump wishes Tesla well As far as Tesla's June robotaxi launch in Austin goes, which Musk says will unlock trillions of dollars of market value for his company, analysts say there's little reason to believe the administration would want to hinder progress there. "In my view, the White House has little to gain in standing in front of autonomy, given autonomy is central to physical AI, and for the US to be a leader globally in AI, it also needs to be a leader in physical AI," Munster said in his Friday report. "The bottom line, I expect cooler heads to prevail and the Federal Government will continue to support the growth of these services." Goldstein told BI that he doesn't see many avenues the administration could take to hinder Tesla's robotaxi progress. He said the Department of Transportation is reviewing federal standards for autonomous vehicle safety. "In theory, if Trump wanted to see Musk face retaliation and target Tesla, they could, say, require autonomous vehicles to have lidar in order to be approved by the federal government for operation, but I don't think they're going to get that detailed," Goldstein said. "I think that Trump could more easily just target SpaceX by just cutting their contracts if he really wanted to hurt Elon, versus making some really weird, nuanced policy." Spokespeople for the DOT and the White House did not respond to a request for comment. In a note on Friday, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote that Musk's feud with Trump doesn't impact the "longer-term vectors that drive the stock's value." "AI leadership, autonomy/robotics, manufacturing, supply chain re-architecture, renewable power, critical infrastructure... Tesla still holds so many valuable cards that are largely apolitical, in our opinion," Jonas wrote. By late Friday afternoon, the online jabs had slowed down, but the Trump-Musk alliance remained on ice. The president told NBC News on Saturday that he doesn't expect to mend his relationship with Musk and warned the CEO against supporting Democratic candidates. Still, during a press gaggle on Air Force One on Friday, Trump said he hadn't thought about Musk but wished him and his company well. "I mean, I hope he does well with Tesla," Trump said.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
California lawmaker warns Menendez brothers' case is driving return of bill to release thousands of killers
A California lawmaker blames the attention on the Menendez brothers' case for prompting a bill to resurface that could put thousands of killers back on the streets. "California Democrats just opened the prison gates for over 1,600 cold-blooded killers," Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, a Republican, shared in a statement with Fox News Digital. "Democrat lawmakers have proven time and time again they don't care about the victim or their family. They don't care about keeping the public safe. They care about defending killers." Jones added what makes this move even more interesting was the timing of it. "As soon as the Menendez brothers' situation started trending, all of a sudden this bill comes up again," Jones said. "And it's really a very kind of cynical effort to get caught up in that wave of social media, media attention, the press cycle for building somebody's name. ... So, we're opposed to this bill. "It's a shameless attempt to ride a wave of social media sympathy with zero regard for the thousands of other brutal killers their bill could unleash." Jones said, unlike some of his Democratic counterparts, Republicans in California and the Senate are committed to keeping Californians safe. "And the way we do that is by keeping these violent felons locked up in prison where they belong," Jones said. "Dangerous Democrats are playing politics with public safety." Jones said the move to resentence Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were serving life in prison without parole for the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, was not the right action to take. "It's pretty straightforward to me. These people were convicted of very heinous murders with a sentence of life without parole. And for us to go back on that sentencing now and then the victims to be re-victimized, the families of the murdered, to have to continuously relive this is unconscionable to me," Jones explained. Jones added what doesn't make sense in all this is Gov. Gavin Newsom's Democratic Party continues to push to protect perpetrators instead of victims and using the Menendez brothers' case to get their bill across the finish line. "I think the legislators from LA are taking advantage of that news cycle and the social media attention that is coming from this. They think they're gonna get some Hollywood stars to come up to Sacramento and testify on this bill to promote it. I don't think that's going to happen," Jones explained. Jones was speaking about SB 672, also known as the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, which is a California bill that would allow individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed before the age of 26 to request a parole hearing after serving at least 25 years. The state Senate passed SB 672 Tuesday by a 24-11 vote. The proposal now heads to the Assembly. The bill, introduced by Democratic Sen. Susan Rubio, was amended to exclude criminals convicted of certain offenses the chance to seek parole, including those who killed a law enforcement officer or carried out a mass shooting at a school, among other offenses. "Sacramento's love affair with criminals doesn't seem to be letting up, even after 70% of Californians made it clear they wanted lawmakers to crack down on crime. Now, the state Senate is trying to let convicted murderers out of jail early," Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican candidate for California governor, shared in a statement after the bill's passage in the Senate. "It's also amazing that once the Menendez brothers found a way to apply for parole, the legislators here still doubled down and continued to push the bill through," Jones added. "And, again, it goes back to Gavin Newsom and the Democrats in California protecting perpetrators and ignoring victims." The previous bill, SB 94, would have given certain inmates serving life without parole a chance to petition to have sentences reviewed if crimes were committed before June 5, 1990, but it stalled in the legislature and did not move forward. Newsom's office told Fox News Digital it typically does not comment on pending legislation. Rubio's office told Fox News Digital she is "disappointed" some lawmakers are sharing false information. "It is unfortunate that the bill has been grossly misrepresented. I am disappointed that my friends from the other side of the aisle continue to peddle misinformation when, out of respect for them, I went over in detail what the bill does and does not do. I invited them to give me input, and the invitation is still open," Rubio's office shared in a statement. During Erik and Lyle Menendez's resentencing hearing last month, both shared emotional testimony, admitting "full responsibility" for their parents' murders after a bombshell decision by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic to resentence them. The resentencing hearing came after the brothers filed a habeas corpus petition in May 2023 citing new evidence of sexual assault. Former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón then filed a motion for resentencing in October 2024. Both filings followed the passage of AB 600, a California law allowing for resentencing of long-convicted inmates to align with current law. "There's all kinds of special circumstances, that's what a lot of these murders are called, special circumstances that, really, these people don't deserve to ever be out of prison," Jones said. Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman said "justice should never be swayed by spectacle" after the judge's decision. "The decision to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez was a monumental one that has significant implications for the families involved, the community and the principles of justice," Hochman said in a news release. "Our office's motions to withdraw the resentencing motion filed by the previous administration ensured that the court was presented with all the facts before making such a consequential decision. "The case of the Menendez brothers has long been a window for the public to better understand the judicial system. This case, like all cases — especially those that captivate the public — must be viewed with a critical eye. Our opposition and analysis ensured that the court received a complete and accurate record of the facts. Justice should never be swayed by spectacle." The brothers remain in prison but are now eligible for parole. They have a parole board hearing scheduled for August. Jones said the Menendez brothers are "getting special attention by the media and the Democrat leadership, who are really out of touch with everyday Californians." "Look, promoting this and pushing this idea is opening a Pandora's box for 1,600 other special circumstance murderers that are in prison right now, and I just can't support moving in a direction that allows so many of those people out on parole," Jones said. "I would argue if (the Menendez brothers) are truly rehabilitated, which I have some doubts about that, but if they are, then maybe the best place for them is in prison, where they can mentor and help other people that are coming into the prison system to get their lives turned around too." Jones added that releasing Erik and Lyle Menendez is not a risk he is willing to get behind. "As a society, do we want to really take the risk of letting these two out or any of the other 1,600 special circumstance murders that we don't know by name but are in prison for the same sentence? Do we really want to roll the dice and take the risk of allowing these people out and having the opportunity for any more victims in California? And I think the answer is a resounding no," Jones said. Stepheny Price is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business. She covers topics including missing persons, homicides, national crime cases, illegal immigration, and more. Story tips and ideas can be sent to
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy
Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy | Opinion There's no other takeaway from this other than: We were happy to pay Musk whatever he wanted as long as he loved Trump, but the minute he stopped loving Trump, we can easily stop paying him. Show Caption Hide Caption 'Two big egos.' Americans not surprised by Trump-Musk feud Americans across the country say they're not surprised by the public feud between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Aside from being globally cathartic, the all-too-predictable breakup of President Donald Trump's unquenchable ego and Elon Musk's immense sense of self-importance pulled the dressing-room curtain back on the Republican Party. And what we saw was both cringeworthy and indecent. Or as I like to call it, the Republican Party. Here are three things this episode of 'Real Annoying Billionaires of Washington, DC' taught us about the conservatives who excitedly welcomed Musk – and his money – into politics: 1. Trump and GOP used taxpayers' money to purchase Elon Musk's support As the president and the weirdo billionaire hurled insults at each other on June 5, Trump posted this threat: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Gee, I wonder who, up until June 5, was helping Musk grease the wheels to line up 'Billions and Billions of Dollars' in additional government contracts? As The New York Times reported in March: 'Within the Trump administration's Defense Department, Elon Musk's SpaceX rocketry is being trumpeted as the nifty new way the Pentagon could move military cargo rapidly around the globe. In the Commerce Department, SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service will now be fully eligible for the federal government's $42 billion rural broadband push, after being largely shut out during the Biden era. … And at the Federal Aviation Administration and the White House itself, Starlink satellite dishes have recently been installed, to expand federal government internet access.' Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? How quickly Trump went from filling Musk's coffers to repay him for his support and campaign contributions to suggesting Musk's contracts were, in fact, a form of government waste and fraud. (I mean … they are a form of government waste and fraud, but not in the way Trump was suggesting.) There's no other takeaway from this other than: We were happy to pay Musk whatever he wanted as long as he loved Trump, but the minute he stopped loving Trump, we can easily stop paying him. I think there's a word for that. 2. Elon Musk, despite all the tush-kissing, never liked or respected Donald Trump Musk's swift about-face on Trump shows what many of us have long suspected: Republicans or Republicans-of-convenience like Musk don't actually like or respect Trump. On Feb. 7, Musk posted on social media: 'I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man.' On June 5, Musk posted: '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Going from 'I love you, man' to 'I'm alleging you're connected to a notorious sex offender who was facing child sex trafficking charges before he died of suicide in jail' is quite a journey. And it implies that Musk saw Trump for what he is: a useful, loathsome fool. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. The minute Trump became not useful to Musk, he sang his truth, something I'd bet most Republicans would do if they had untold wealth and didn't have to worry much about repercussions. That tells you all you need to know about the modern-day GOP – liars boosting a lout in their own self-interest. 3. DOGE was nonsense, and Republicans never really liked Musk For all its fanfare, the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency that Musk oversaw accomplished precious little cost-cutting while inflicting massive harm on America's global reputation, the lives of people reliant on U.S. aid, and the overall functioning of the federal government. Republicans knew this yet still tripped over themselves to toss roses at Musk's feet, hailing him as some kind of genius/savior. They wanted his money, and they wanted the disinformation cannon that comes with his right-wing social media platform. But when Musk grew wise to what Republican lawmakers were doing with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – a deficit-ballooning monstrosity – he turned on his handmaidens and his former love, President Trump. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. So Trump, of course, called him crazy. Which begs the question: Why were you letting a crazy person access Americans' most private data and demolish the federal workforce? And are you now going to … you know … make sure the guy you think is crazy didn't do something catastrophically bad? Congressional Republicans had to pick a side, and they've largely stepped into Trump's arms, knowing Musk may well be disliked even more than the sitting president. The Washington Post reported June 6: 'Across the government, the Trump administration is scrambling to rehire many federal employees dismissed under DOGE's staff-slashing initiatives after wiping out entire offices, in some cases imperiling key services such as weather forecasting and the drug approval process.' Translation: Musk's DOGE nonsense was for naught, an attempt to fluff a billionaire's ego while cloaking the high-spending, deficit-raising moves Republicans were going to make all along. There's a sucker born every minute, and two Republicans to take 'em. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
