This is a very specific request, and the search results provide numerous examples from the recent Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing and other public statements by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.¹

The remarks are primarily characterized by direct verbal attacks against Democratic senators and critics of President Trump, as well as a framing of the Department of Justice’s actions as a corrective measure against what she claims was the prior administration’s “weaponization of justice.”²

Here are the key instances and quotes of negative remarks made against those who spoke or acted negatively toward President Trump, based on the recent reports:

1. Direct Personal Attacks on Democratic Senators

Attorney General Bondi used personalized, non-sequitur attacks against Democratic lawmakers during the oversight hearing:³

• Against Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL):
  • She told Durbin: “I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump.”⁴
  • She also told him: “If you’re not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will,” referring to the deployment of federal agents and National Guard troops to Chicago and other cities.⁵
• Against Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA):
  • She snapped at him, asking: “Will you apologize to Donald Trump?” for his role in pursuing impeachments against the president.⁶
  • She also personally insulted him, calling him “a failed lawyer.”
  • She stated: “If you worked for me you would have been fired because you were censured by Congress for lying.”⁷
• Against Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI):
  • She accused him of “slander[ing] President Trump, left and right” while questioning his own integrity by referencing his association with an Epstein confidant, saying: “Y’know Senator Whitehouse, you sit here and make salacious remarks once again trying to slander President Trump left and right, when you’re the one who was taking money from one of Epstein’s closest confidants…”⁸
• Against Democratic Critics Generally:
  • She stated she would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech,” though she later walked this back to refer only to speech that crosses the line into threats of violence.⁹

2. Characterizing Critics’ Actions and Investigations

Bondi framed the actions of Trump’s critics as an abuse of power and betrayal of the public trust:¹⁰

• Against the FBI’s 2020 Election Investigation:
  • She “slammed the FBI investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat as ‘unconstitutional, undemocratic abuse of power.’”¹¹
• Against the Biden Justice Department (as a defense of Trump):
  • She repeatedly accused the previous administration of being the one to “weaponize” the Justice Department against Trump, stating: “They were playing politics with law enforcement powers and will go down as a historic betrayal of public trust…¹² This is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people’s faith in our law enforcement system.”
• General Tone Against Opponents:
  • She asserted that the Justice Department under the current administration is “ending the ‘weaponization of justice’” even as Trump’s political adversaries face federal investigations and prosecutions (including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Senator Adam Schiff).¹³

3. Remarks on Individuals Facing Federal Action

The Justice Department under the Attorney General has opened or pursued criminal investigations against several vocal critics of the President, which critics describe as politically motivated actions.¹⁴ Bondi has defended these actions:

• Against Former FBI Director James Comey:
  • She maintained that Comey was “indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia by, I may point out, one of the most liberal grand juries in the country” (in defense of the case’s legitimacy, which followed the President calling for his prosecution).
  • The Attorney General repeatedly declined to comment directly on any discussions she had with the White House regarding the investigation and indictment of Mr.¹⁵ Comey.

The political environment surrounding President Trump, particularly among his allies, has been characterized by sharp counter-criticism against those who oppose him. The search results highlight numerous instances where individuals who have served in or around the Cabinet have spoken negatively against the President’s critics.

The most recent and detailed examples come from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, while others demonstrate a pattern of defending the administration’s actions and policies.

Here is a summary of instances where Cabinet-level officials or senior advisors have spoken negatively toward those who opposed or criticized President Trump:

---

1. Attorney General Pam Bondi (Current Attorney General)

During recent Senate oversight hearings, Attorney General Bondi directly and personally attacked Democratic senators who were questioning the Department of Justice’s actions regarding investigations into Trump’s political opponents.

• Against Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL):
  • “I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump.” (When Durbin questioned troop deployment to the city).
  • “If you’re not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will.” (In response to questions about National Guard deployment).
• Against Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA):
  • She asked him: “Will you apologize to Donald Trump?” for his role in pursuing impeachments against the President.
  • She also called him “a failed lawyer.”
  • She stated he should have been fired for his past actions: “If you worked for me you would have been fired because you were censured by Congress for lying.”
• Against Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI):
  • She accused him of “slander[ing] President Trump, left and right” and attempted to deflect his question by referencing his connection to an Epstein confidant, stating: “You sit here and make salacious remarks… when you’re the one who was taking money from one of Epstein’s closest confidants…”
• Against the Biden Justice Department (as a whole):
  • She has repeatedly accused the previous administration of being the one to “weaponize” the Justice Department against Trump, claiming they were “playing politics with law enforcement powers.”

2. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (Former Secretary of State)

In his public statements and writings, Pompeo has been highly critical of fellow Republicans and former colleagues who became critics of President Trump:

• Against Former National Security Advisor John Bolton:
  • Pompeo stated that Bolton should “be in jail, for spilling classified information.”¹
  • He often dismissed Bolton’s critique of the President.
• Against Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley:
  • He “dings her time as UN ambassador,” calling it “a job that is far less important than people think” and questioning why she would quit “such an important job at such an important time.”²

3. Senior Advisor Stephen Miller (Former Senior Advisor)

Miller, a key architect of the administration’s immigration policies, was noted for his aggressive defense of policies that drew heavy criticism:³

• Against Critics of the Zero-Tolerance Policy (Family Separations):
  • He defended the policy by focusing on the legal status of the border crossers, stating: “It was a simple decision by the administration to have a zero-tolerance policy for illegal entry, period.⁴ The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law.”
• Against Critics within the Civil Service:
  • Miller was credited with shaping efforts to “purge” government agencies of civil servants who were not completely loyal to the administration’s agenda.⁵

4. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos (Former Secretary of Education)

DeVos frequently criticized what she viewed as the entrenched opposition to the administration’s educational reforms from Democratic politicians, career bureaucrats, and teachers’ unions:

• Against Democratic Senators:
  • She blamed “Democrats’ continual objections seemingly for no reason but to spite us” for year-long delays in confirming her assistant secretary nominees.⁶
• Against Career Officials:
  • She characterized some career officials as having an “animus toward us” and accused them of “leak[ing] everything they got their hands on.”⁷
  • She noted one official “proudly displayed every negative news article published about me or our team on her office door.”⁸
• Against Teachers’ Unions and Media:
  • She accused the unions of setting a “shrill, over-the-top criticism” tone that was amplified by allies in the Democratic Party.⁹
  • She described the education press corps as “a truly agenda-driven group.”¹⁰

---

While many former Trump Cabinet members have become prominent critics of the President, those who remained or later returned as loyalists often adopted a highly adversarial stance toward his opponents, utilizing rhetoric that personalized the political conflict.

That is a very serious question that touches on fundamental issues of international law, executive power, and the laws of armed conflict. The actions taken by the Trump administration, directed by the President and carried out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have generated intense legal debate and criticism from legal scholars and human rights groups.

The general answer to your question is that legal experts are divided, but many argue the strikes appear to violate established international and domestic laws, and may have bypassed standard rules of engagement.

Here is a breakdown of the administration’s justification and why critics and legal experts question the legality of these actions:

1. The Administration’s Legal Justification

The Trump administration’s strategy has been to reclassify the situation to allow the military to use lethal force, essentially trying to move the strikes from a law enforcement paradigm to a military conflict paradigm.

• The “Armed Conflict” Claim: The most significant step was the President’s notification to Congress, asserting that the United States is in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels and designated groups like the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA).
  • This determination allows the administration to claim that the strikes are done pursuant to the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), where rules of engagement are more permissive.
  • Defense Secretary Hegseth publicly asserted: “We have the absolute and complete authority to conduct that,” citing the defense of the American people alone, and repeatedly called the people killed “narco-terrorists.”
• Article II Authority and Self-Defense: The administration has also cited the President’s Article II constitutional authority (as Commander in Chief) and the inherent right of self-defense under international law.

2. Why Critics Argue Laws and Agreements Were Subverted

Legal experts and former government officials have argued that the strikes do not meet the standards required by domestic and international law:

A. Violation of Traditional Rules of Engagement (Law Enforcement vs. Military)

• Standard Maritime Law: Under decades of established U.S. and international practice, Coast Guard and Navy ships intercept suspected drug vessels. Standard procedure is to interdict (stop and board), confiscate drugs, and arrest the crew, using force only as a last resort. This force typically involves warning shots and then disabling shots aimed at the vessel’s propulsion, not immediately destroying the ship and killing the crew.
• Action Taken: The U.S. military, acting on orders, used kinetic strikes (missiles/drones) to destroy the vessel and kill the people on board, which many experts argue is a massive and unprecedented escalation that failed to follow the established rules of engagement for law enforcement interdiction. Reports suggest that lethal force was used even though the ship could have been safely interdicted.

B. Violation of International and Domestic Law

• The UN Charter (Article 2(4) and 51): The UN Charter restricts the use of force. To justify a strike like this under self-defense (Article 51), the administration would need to prove the vessel was engaging in, or was facing the imminent threat of, an armed attack against the U.S. Critics state “There has been no evidence presented that the vessel was engaging in an armed attack or was about to be engaging in an armed attack.” The mere transport of drugs does not meet the standard for an armed attack.
• Prohibition on Assassination (Executive Order 12333): Domestic law prohibits assassinations by U.S. government employees. Legal scholars argue that the targeted, lethal strikes against individuals—who may not qualify as combatants—may violate this prohibition.
• Lawful Target Status: Under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), individuals involved only in drug trafficking would not likely be lawful targets unless they were combatants directly participating in hostilities. Simply labeling a group a “terrorist organization” does not automatically make every member a lawful military target.

3. Have They Committed a Crime?

While legal experts have suggested that the attacks may constitute unlawful killings or a violation of U.S. and international laws, prosecuting top officials for such actions is extremely difficult due to the nature of executive authority:

• Presidential Deference: Historically, Congress and the courts have been highly deferential to presidents when they assert the authority to use military force, particularly when national security (like combating drugs/terrorism) is invoked.
• Lack of Accountability: Experts have noted that even if the action were deemed illegal, it is unlikely that administration officials would face criminal consequences for the use of military force in an international context.
• Blurring the Lines: The strategy to declare an “armed conflict” is an attempt to legally blur the line between an illegal action and a legal military operation, making it politically and legally challenging to hold anyone accountable under current U.S. legal frameworks.

In short, the legality of the strikes is highly contested, with many respected legal experts concluding that the administration’s justification is a strained use of military authority that departs from decades of law enforcement practice and risks undermining international legal norms.

That is the crucial question that highlights a significant tension in the international legal system: the accountability of powerful nations.

The short answer is: The United States actively shields itself and its officials from the jurisdiction of international criminal courts, and the lack of immediate action does not mean the actions are legally acceptable.

Here is a breakdown of why the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has not taken action, and what this implies about accountability:

1. Why The Hague (The ICC/ICJ) Has Not Acted

The primary reason is jurisdictional and political:

Court	Role	US Stance & Action
International Criminal Court (ICC)	Tries individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.	The United States is NOT a party to the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the ICC. Therefore, the ICC generally lacks jurisdiction over U.S. citizens unless the crime was committed on the territory of a member state (which international waters are not). Furthermore, the U.S. administration has historically been hostile to the ICC, even imposing sanctions on ICC staff involved in investigating U.S. personnel in the past.
International Court of Justice (ICJ)	Tries states (countries) over disputes of international law (e.g., a border dispute).	Venezuela or another state could theoretically bring a case against the U.S. to the ICJ, but the U.S. often contests the court’s jurisdiction in politically sensitive matters and may not comply with a ruling, highlighting the enforcement limitations of international law.

2. Legal Condemnation vs. Legal Action

Despite the lack of formal prosecution, there has been significant and widespread legal condemnation:

• Human Rights Watch (HRW) has explicitly stated that the maritime strikes amount to “unlawful extrajudicial killings” and violate international human rights law, as the U.S. made no effort to minimize harm or use non-lethal alternatives like arrest.¹
• Legal Scholars from organizations like the Atlantic Council, Chatham House, and Lawfare have almost universally condemned the administration’s legal justification (the “armed conflict” claim) as “legally untenable,” “utterly without precedent,” and a violation of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force.²
• UN Human Rights Experts have jointly condemned the strikes as extrajudicial executions.³
• Foreign Governments, including the presidents of Colombia and Brazil, have condemned the strikes, calling them an “act of tyranny” and “executing people without a judgement.”⁴

3. The Question of “Can Trump Do Whatever He Wants?”

The lack of immediate international legal action does not mean the action is legal, but it does expose a fundamental truth about global governance and power:

• Accountability is Weak for Powerful States: The U.S. possesses immense global power, which allows it to push the boundaries of international law while insulating its officials from the very judicial bodies established to enforce those laws. It acts with impunity that is simply not afforded to smaller, less powerful nations.
• Blurring the Legal Line: By formally classifying the cartels as “unlawful combatants” and the situation as an “armed conflict,” the administration is attempting to create a domestic legal justification for actions that would otherwise be clear human rights violations under international peacetime law.⁵
• Domestic Constraints Remain: Accountability for the President and Defense Secretary Hegseth would most likely have to come from within the U.S. system:
  • Congress: Lawmakers have questioned the legality of the strikes and the lack of consultation, but the executive branch often resists Congressional checks on military action.
  • U.S. Courts: Courts have historically been reluctant to interfere with the President’s actions in foreign policy and military matters.

Your observation is astute. The gap between what is condemned as unlawful by legal experts and what is actually prosecuted in international courts is a defining challenge of the international legal order. The absence of a check from The Hague is primarily a reflection of the U.S. position outside the ICC system, not an endorsement of the strikes’ legality.