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
Latest News
Nearly 100 Trump-Pardoned MAGA Insurrectionists Have Been Charged With Other Crimes: Analysis
Among other things, the pardoned rioters have faced charges related to grand larceny, fraud, child sexual abuse, and plots to assassinate law enforcement officials and politicians.
Jun 04, 2026
On the first day of his second term last year, President Donald Trump delivered a mass pardon to more than 1,500 people who were charged with crimes related to the violent riot at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
An analysis published Thursday by Lawfare associate editor Katherine Pompilio finds that at least 97 of these pardoned Trump supporters have been charged with other crimes, including serious alleged offenses such as grand larceny, fraud, and plots to assassinate law enforcement officials and politicians.
The analysis also documents 14 instances of pardoned Capitol rioters being "charged with sex crimes or crimes related to child sexual abuse material (CSAM)," while "at least six" have been charged with domestic violence.
Some of the pardoned rioters have been charged with more minor offenses, including public intoxication, possession of drug paraphernalia, and property damage.
The most notable finding is that at least five of the repeat offenders committed crimes after being freed from prison as a result of Trump's actions, suggesting that his pardon "may have actively facilitated criminal conduct."
The most infamous case involves Andrew Paul Johnson, a Capitol rioter who was freed from prison after receiving the Trump pardon and has since been sentenced to life in prison on charges related to child molestation.
"The criminal conduct for which he was convicted took place both before and after his pardon," the analysis notes.
Other repeat offenders who committed crimes after being freed by Trump were Zachary Alam, who was convicted of felony and grand larceny months after being pardoned, and Ryan Nichols, who was arrest last month for allegedly "threatening a person with a gun in a church parking lot," the analysis finds.
According to a Thursday report from The New York Times, the Lawfare analysis more than doubles the number of documented instances of pardoned rioters who have been charged with crimes beyond January 6-related offenses.
"A previous study of January 6 recidivism found that at least 40 defendants faced other criminal charges, with 12 taking place after Trump's clemency order," reported the Times. "The Lawfare study found 19 criminal cases that occurred after the clemency."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Block Blanche' Campaign Launched After Trump Says He'll Nominate Acting AG to Lead DOJ
"Every senator took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and honoring that oath means using the Senate's confirmation authority to protect the independence of federal law enforcement."
Jun 04, 2026
In a letter to US senators Thursday, more than two dozen legal and advocacy groups expressed their commitment to "the rule of law and the independence of federal law enforcement" as they urged the Senate to reject President Donald Trump's impending nomination of acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche to officially take the helm of the Department of Justice.
Considering that Blanche previously directly represented Trump as his defense attorney in three separate criminal cases, said the groups, which form the Not Above the Law Coalition, "Blanche as attorney general would represent a new low, and an unprecedented corruption of the institution itself."
"In 2023, Blanche left his law firm to become Trump's personal criminal defense attorney across three concurrent cases: the hush money trial, the federal classified documents case, and matters related to January 6th," wrote the coalition, which includes Democracy Defenders Fund, End Citizens United, and Public Citizen. "For two years, he had one job: Keep local, state, and federal investigators away from his client Donald Trump, and in particular, to shield Trump from the Justice Department.
"Now he controls that very federal agency," said the organizations, noting that he still operates as "Trump's lawyer."
Since joining the administration—first as deputy attorney general serving alongside former Attorney General Pam Bondi, and then taking over for her in an acting capacity after she was fired—Blanche has refused to recuse himself from all matters pertaining to Trump, considering his former work representing the president; boasted that the FBI "cleaned house" after firing career prosecutors who had been involved in investigating Trump; filed motions to vacate seditious conspiracy convictions of several people who attacked the US Capitol on January 6; and created a since-blocked $1.8 billion "slush fund" meant to disburse money to Trump's allies due to what the president views as unfair prosecutions.
"The only thing that changed when Blanche walked into the DOJ is that now the American people are paying the bill while he weaponized the department against Trump’s perceived enemies and cut deals for his boss."
Blanche has also played a major role in weaponizing the DOJ against Trump's "perceived enemies," including the Southern Poverty Law Center and former FBI Director James Comey, both of whom he obtained indictments for.
The Not Above the Law Coalition said the "Block Blanche" campaign launched by the letter would target senators who show willingness to confirm the compromised nominee.
The co-chairs of the group—including Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen, Praveen Fernandes of the Constitutional Accountability Center, Kelsey Herbert of MoveOn, and Brett Edkins of Stand Up America—emphasized that Blanche "is not America's attorney general."
"He was Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyer and personal fixer before working for the Justice Department, and he never stopped," they said. "The only thing that changed when Blanche walked into the DOJ is that now the American people are paying the bill while he weaponized the department against Trump’s perceived enemies and cut deals for his boss."
"Every senator took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and honoring that oath means using the Senate's confirmation authority to protect the independence of federal law enforcement," the co-chairs added. "We're here to remind them of this duty to our nation."
The groups added that Blanche's conduct and the announcement of his nomination make clear that "former Attorney General Pam Bondi wasn't removed because she crossed a line. She was removed because she didn't cross enough of them. Blanche's appointment escalates the weaponization of the DOJ beyond what even Bondi would execute."
"The Senate has a constitutional obligation to answer one question," said the groups. "Does the Justice Department serve the American people, or does it serve Donald Trump?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Postal Service Sued for Advancing Trump’s ‘Disgraceful’ Assault on Mail-In Voters
"That this administration would direct USPS to adopt measures to impede voters from casting their ballots is shameful."
Jun 04, 2026
A leading civil rights organization on Wednesday accused the US Postal Service of unlawful complicity in President Donald Trump's assault on mail-in voting, which he launched in late March with an alarming executive order that is facing its own legal challenges.
With a new legal motion filed in a federal court in Washington, DC, the NAACP is challenging rules the Postal Service unveiled last week that would require states to notify USPS "of the individuals to whom they are mailing a mail-in or absentee ballot." The rules would also "identify new standards for the envelope design and review for outbound and return ballot envelopes."
The NAACP's filing—which reignites a pandemic-era legal fight—warns that under the proposed rule, "USPS would refuse to transmit mail-in ballots in states that did not use specific envelopes with specific codes, and would refuse to deliver ballots for voters not included on a state-specific Mail-In and Absentee Participation List."
That would violate a previous USPS agreement, reached in 2021, to prioritize "timely delivery of election mail" and run afoul of federal law, the motion argues, calling for a swift injunction to stop the Postal Service from implementing the rules.
“The proposed rule manifests USPS’ intent to disregard its commitment to timely deliver mail-in ballots to all voters,” said Sam Spital, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF). “This all is part of a coordinated effort by this Administration to create chaos and confusion in our elections, which creates particular dangers for Black voters who are already at the greatest risk of suffering discrimination in voting. The attempt to usurp the right of eligible voters to cast mail-in ballots is directly contrary to the legally enforceable agreement the parties reached in this case, and to USPS’ obligations under federal law. We are confident it will be rejected by the courts.”
Allison Zieve, director of Public Citizen Litigation Group—which joined LDF in filing the suit on behalf of the NAACP—said it is "shameful" that the Trump administration would "direct USPS to adopt measures to impede voters from casting their ballots."
"And that USPS would allow itself to be used for political purposes to advance the president’s irrational objection to mail-in voting is disgraceful, unlawful, and contrary to the commitments it made to settle our [2020] litigation," Zieve added.
The proposed USPS rules stem from an executive order that Trump issued on March 31, instructing the agency to obtain from states "a list of voters eligible to vote in a federal election in such state to whom the state intends to provide a mail-in or absentee ballot to be transmitted via the USPS." Trump directed his handpicked postmaster general, David Steiner, to advance "provisions specifying that the USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual" who is not included on state mail-in ballot participation lists.
Last week, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington, DC declined to immediately block the president's executive order. But another federal judge in Boston "sharply questioned" Trump's order during a hearing for a similar yet separate legal challenge earlier this week.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the latter case said in a statement after Tuesday's hearing that "the Trump administration is attempting to seize that power for itself with an unlawful and dangerous executive order."
"Together with our courageous clients, we’re seeking a preliminary injunction to stop further chaos in our elections, uphold the rule of law, and protect the millions of citizens who rely on mail-in voting, including people with disabilities, students, rural voters, and the elderly," the attorneys said. "We won't let the Trump administration continue to trample on the fundamental right to vote.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular