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
federal bureau of investigation
Trump DOJ Charges Ex-FBI Chief James Comey a Third Time
"It would almost be funny if it weren't such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice—one that we cannot become numb to," said James Comey.
Oct 26, 2026
President Donald Trump's administration has charged former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey a third time, according to documents unsealed on Monday—the same day a US judge ruled that the administration unlawfully fired Comey's prosecutor daughter, who worked on the sex crimes case against the president's dead ex-friend Jeffrey Epstein.
Comey, a former Republican fired during Trump's first term, and various critics have condemned all of the cases against him and others who publicly call out the administration as weaponization of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) against the president's political enemies. The latest case relates to a New York Times article from over a decade ago, when he was still FBI chief.
The case, in which he's accused of unlawfully disclosing classified information, "has played out under seal since October 5. Comey's defense attorneys filed a motion 10 days ago to dismiss the charges against him. He has not been indicted in the case," NBC News reported. "The charges that were filed are a criminal information—essentially a charge filed by prosecutors—and not a grand jury indictment."
Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor and CNN's senior legal analyst, was among the experts who highlighted that "this is a bizarre, and likely improper, use of a criminal 'information' to end-run the statute of limitations."
"Typically an information must be agreed to by a defendant—and Comey did not consent here," Honig explained. "It therefore likely cannot extend the statute of limitations, which would have expired on October 5, 2026."
The DOJ Rapid Response account on X said that "the department filed a waiverless criminal information to toll the statute of limitations as it relates to allegations concerning former FBI Director Comey. Filing a criminal information to toll the statute of limitations is a widely recognized practice in federal court and has been approved by multiple circuit courts of appeals. This is an ongoing criminal investigation, and we will not comment further."
Comey's attorney, Pat Fitzgerald, said that he "steadfastly maintains his innocence" and noted some details from all cases: "In September 2025, the Department of Justice used a person who was not actually a United States attorney to seek an indictment that was not actually shown to the grand jury. And it charged Mr. Comey with crimes that he did not commit. That case was promptly and properly dismissed. In April 2026, the Department of Justice filed charges in the Eastern District of North Carolina concerning Mr. Comey's posting of a photograph of seashells spelling '8647.' We will not comment beyond our filings in that case."
"This most recent case involves an October 5, 2016 New York Times article that two different teams of prosecutors investigated during the first Trump administration," Fitzgerald continued. "Both times the government determined that no charges should be brought against anyone. Now, 10 years after the article was published, the government filed an 'information' against Mr. Comey that was not approved by a judge nor issued by a grand jury. It purports to charge Mr. Comey with crimes that he did not commit. We are gratified that United States District Judge Trevor McFadden has ordered this matter unsealed. Mr. Comey will fight these charges vigorously and in the open."
Comey also directly declared his innocence and vowed to fight back in a video he posted on Substack, saying that "it would almost be funny if it weren't such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice—one that we cannot become numb to."
Yet another case in DC by James Comey
Read on SubstackThe documents were unsealed shortly after US District Judge Jesse M. Furman—appointed to the Southern District of New York by former President Barack Obama—sided with Maurene Comey, concluding that the DOJ "violated the separation of powers, federal administrative law and Ms. Comey’s due process rights when it fired her in July 2025," as the Times detailed Monday.
A spokesperson for the DOJ—which is now led by Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as the president's personal lawyer—said that "the department disagrees with this decision and will appeal in due course."
Sharing news of that ruling on X, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) predicted, "This will drive 'Ranting Man' Trump even crazier!!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cowardly' Kash Patel Accused of Bolstering Election Lies Under Oath to Stroke Trump's Ego
One critic said his comments made clear that "Patel’s leadership at the FBI has been plagued by inappropriate politicization, rampant mismanagement of funds and resources, and a lack of regard for public safety."
Sep 15, 2026
The US Senate Judiciary Committee's Tuesday oversight hearing for the Federal Bureau of Investigation covered a wide range of topics, from alcoholism and bestiality to a snorkeling tour of Pearl Harbor and President Donald Trump's persistent but baseless claims that he won in 2020—and FBI Director Kash Patel came under fire for bolstering the Republican's election lies.
Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) pointed out that just a few days ago, Trump said: "We had a rigged election, as you know. It was totally rigged. Because I won three times. I didn't win twice. I won three times."
The senator then asked Patel if he agreed with Trump's declaration that he won the 2020 election. Although the president's attempts to abuse the US courts to cling to power affirmed his loss, the FBI director responded that "there are many ongoing investigations surrounding that matter, so I'm not gonna comment on it and stylize the evidence."
After giving Patel another opportunity to answer, which the agency leader used to effectively repeat his response, Welch highlighted the FBI's January raid of an election hub in Fulton County, Georgia—which critics, at the time, condemned as an ominous signal that Trump and his allies would do whatever they could to interfere with this November's midterms.
Welch stressed that the raid occurred despite two recounts in Georgia following the 2020 contest—including one by hand, which showed that Trump lost the state by 11,779 votes—"and no investigation has found any evidence of wrongdoing."
Patel refused to even confirm that there haven't yet been any related indictments, saying, "That matter is ongoing."
Asked by Welch if he would promise to "not in any way interfere in the will of the American people when they go to the polls" this November, Patel said, "I pledge unequivocally that I will not participate in your charade of lies," and signaled that FBI agents would be present at some polling stations for the midterms.
Welch also cited Trump's claims that this year's elections are rigged if Republicans lose and Democrats can only win if they cheat. The senator asked Patel if he agreed with the latter, and the bureau chief again refused to comment on what he called "ongoing investigations."
Watch the full hearing below:
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "while under oath today, Kash Patel peddled dangerous conspiracy theories and misinformation in order to appease Donald Trump's ego."
"His cowardly statement supporting Trump's claim that the only way Democrats could possibly win in November is if the party cheats is particularly rich given Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election and his more recent offer to pay $5k to each American if his own party wins the upcoming election," she continued.
"These sycophantic statements and his testimony throughout the hearing make it clear that Patel’s leadership at the FBI has been plagued by inappropriate politicization, rampant mismanagement of funds and resources, and a lack of regard for public safety," she added. "With Patel at the helm of the agency, dedicated career officers have been dumped over loyalty tests, child predators have been protected, and taxpayer dollars have been wasted going after Trump's personal enemies. Every day Patel remains in charge of the FBI is a day too long."
In addition to Welch, several other Democrats had testy exchanges with Patel throughout the hearing—including Sen. Cory Booker (NJ), who blasted the director as an "incompetent lackey" and said: "He's like an 18-year-old kid who wants to join a fraternity that he could never be a member of, doing keg stands and chugging with friends. He's an embarrassment to the agency and wouldn't qualify even to be an FBI agent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
1 Person in Serious Condition After Border Patrol Shooting in Arizona
The group No More Deaths said that "we condemn all acts of violence from Border Patrol; call for a thorough investigation; and demand that the victim receive continued access to medical attention."
Jan 27, 2026
This is a developing story… Please check back for updates…
An Arizona sheriff confirmed Tuesday evening that a suspect is in "serious but stable" condition after a morning shooting that involved US Border Patrol—which is facing mounting scrutiny for its involvement in President Donald Trump's mass deportation operations.
During a press conference, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos said that an agent conducted a traffic stop targeting someone believed to be involved in human trafficking. He said the suspect fled on foot and fired a gun, and an agent returned fire.
The Pima County Sheriff's Department (PCSD) is "working in coordination" with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which oversees Border Patrol.
An FBI representative at the press conference identified the suspect as 34-year-old Patrick Gary Schlegel. He faces various charges.
At around 7:30 am local time, the Santa Rita Fire District responded to the shooting near milepost 15 of West Arivaca Road in Pima County, just miles from the Border Patrol checkpoint in Amado and the US-Mexico border.
"Patient care was transferred to a local medical helicopter for rapid transport to a regional trauma center," the fire department said in a statement. "The incident remains under active investigation by law enforcement agencies."
The Associated Press reported that "the area is a common path for drug smugglers and migrants who illegally cross the border, so agents regularly patrol there."
PCSD said in a statement that FBI requests for the department to conduct investigations "are standard practice when a federal agency is involved in a shooting incident within Pima County and consistent with long-standing relationships built through time to promote transparency."
"We ask the community to remain patient and understanding as this investigation moves forward," the department also said. "PCSD will thoroughly examine all aspects of the incident, however, these investigations are complex and require time."
No More Deaths, a humanitarian aid group in the region, said that the incident "reflects a long history of violence from federal immigration enforcement. Since 2010, there have been 364 documented deadly encounters with Border Patrol. The number of deaths and disappearance due to Border Patrol enforcement is estimated to reach over 10,000."
"In the present moment, excessive use of force from federal agents has become especially visible. This past week, Border Patrol agents shot and killed a second legal observer in Minneapolis," the group noted. The killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good have ramped up protests against Trump's "Operation Metro Surge" in Minnesota and demands for accountability across the country.
"As a humanitarian organization founded on the belief that all people deserve dignity, we condemn all acts of violence from Border Patrol; call for a thorough investigation; and demand that the victim receive continued access to medical attention," said No More Deaths, which also called for the abolition of Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
CBP and ICE are both part of the US Department of Homeland Security. The various shootings and other violence by DHS agents in recent months have fueled calls for the resignation or impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Trump.
Although the Trump administration has responded to the outrage in Minnesota by relocating a key official—the Atlantic reported Monday that "Gregory Bovino has been removed from his role as Border Patrol 'commander at large' and will return to his former job in El Centro, California, where he is expected to retire soon"—the president said Tuesday that Noem won't resign.
DHS violence has also complicated a congressional effort to prevent a federal government shutdown before the end of the month, given the growing number of lawmakers and people across the country demanding "no funds for ICE and Border Patrol."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Press Freedom Coalition Urges Congress to Probe FBI Raid of WaPo Journalist's Home
"We look to you to defend our First Amendment freedoms against executive overreach and abuse."
Jan 23, 2026
Over a dozen press freedom groups on Friday urged congressional leaders to examine the Federal Bureau of Investigation's recent raid of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Virginia home and the seizure of her electronic devices as part of a probe into a government contractor accused of illegally possessing classified documents.
Their letter came after US Magistrate Judge William B. Porter—who authorized the FBI's search of Natanson's home in Alexandria—ruled Wednesday that prosecutors "must preserve but must not review" data on the journalist's phone, computers, and smart watch.
Noting that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) may have obtained the search warrant "under false pretenses and potentially in violation of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980," 17 groups argued that "congressional intervention is necessary because the FBI's January 14, 2026 raid of Natanson's home represents a perilous escalation in the executive branch's use of law enforcement powers against the free press and a citizenry that depends on fearless newsgathering."
"The available facts suggest... the weaponization of legal process to engage in a fishing expedition into more than 1,000 confidential sources cultivated by Natanson inside the federal workforce," the coalition wrote to top Republicans and Democrats on four relevant committees.
"By raiding Hannah Natanson's home and seizing her devices, the government threatened bedrock principles of our Constitution and a free society."
Specifically, the letter explains, given that the criminal complaint doesn't accuse contractor Aurelio Perez-Lugones of disseminating classified information, and he and his devices were already in custody when Natanson's house was searched, there is a "grim possibility" that the raid "was a pretextual attempt to threaten the press, to uncover whistleblowers, and to chill newsgathering unflattering to the government."
The Privacy Protection Act "allows law enforcement to conduct searches and seizures of journalists' work product materials only under narrow exceptions, such as where the journalist is alleged to be involved in a crime," notes the letter. "But again, the government has not accused Natanson of any wrongdoing."
"Congress has an independent and co-equal duty to oversee the Department of Justice," the missive stresses. "If the Department of Justice has nothing about its own conduct to hide from Congress and the public, this administration should welcome the opportunity to prove the necessity of its actions."
"If, however, federal officials have misled a judge in order to expose the identities of whistleblowers and to intimidate the press, Congress must know immediately," the coalition concluded. "We look to you to defend our First Amendment freedoms against executive overreach and abuse."
Since returning to office a year ago, President Donald Trump has waged a "war on free speech," as the group Free Press detailed in a report last month. Highlighted actions include taking control of the presidential press pool, Trump's alarming speech to the DOJ, blocking the Associated Press from the Oval Office for using the term Gulf of Mexico, an executive order to defund National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service, suing over Wall Street Journal reporting on the president's ties to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, threatening to sue over the BBC's documentary about January 6, 2021, the Pentagon's new press policy, and getting late-night host Jimmy Kimmel suspended.
Those actions are part of a broader crackdown on dissent targeting Trump critics, government employees who worked on accountability for January 6, and protesters—including people in the streets over the administration's anti-immigrant operations.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, policy director at Demand Progress, one of the organizations behind the new letter, said in a statement that "by raiding Hannah Natanson's home and seizing her devices, the government threatened bedrock principles of our Constitution and a free society... Congress has a responsibility to investigate whether the government is undermining the First Amendment and a free press by targeting and threatening a reporter like this."
The other signatories are the American Society of Journalists and Authors, Amnesty International USA, Association of Foreign Press Correspondents in the USA, Defending Rights and Dissent, Democratic Messaging Project, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Journalism and Women Symposium, Media and Democracy Project, National Press Photographers Association, PEN America, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reporters Without Borders, and Society of Professional Journalists.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Searching Data Seized During Raid on Reporter's Home
“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety," said one free press defender.
Jan 21, 2026
A US judge on Wednesday blocked federal prosecutors from searching data on a Washington Post reporter's electronic devices seized during what one press freedom group called an "unconstitutional and illegal" raid last week.
US Magistrate Judge William B. Porter in Alexandria, Virginia—who also authorized the January 14 raid of Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home—ruled that "the government must preserve but must not review any of the materials that law enforcement seized pursuant to search warrants the court issued."
The government has until January 28 to respond to the Post's initial legal filings against the agent's actions. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for February 6.
Natanson—who describes her work as covering "Trump's reshaping of the government"—welcomed Wednesday's order.
"I need my devices back to do my job," she said on Bluesky.
Federal Bureau of Investigation investigators executed a warrant to search Natanson's Virginia home as part of a probe into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a federal contractor who is accused of illegally possessing classified documents. FBI agents seized Natanson’s cellphone, her smart watch, and her personal and work laptops.
As Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney noted, the criminal complaint for Perez-Lugones’ case contains no allegations that he gave classified documents to any Post reporter, as implied by Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.
The Post said that the seized devices “contain years of information about past and current confidential sources and other unpublished newsgathering materials, including those she was using for current reporting."
“The government cannot meet its heavy burden to justify this intrusion, and it has ignored narrower, lawful alternatives,” the newspaper added.
As the Post noted Wednesday:
It is exceptionally rare for law enforcement officials to conduct searches at reporters’ homes. The law allows such searches, but federal regulations intended to protect a free press are designed to make it more difficult to use aggressive law enforcement tactics against reporters to obtain the identities of their sources...
The US has no law that explicitly makes it a crime for a journalist to obtain or publish classified information. In 2019, when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was indicted under the Espionage Act for disclosing classified information, First Amendment scholars warned that his case could set a precedent that could be used against journalists. That issue was never tested in court because Assange and the government reached a plea deal in 2024.
"The outrageous seizure of our reporter’s confidential newsgathering materials chills speech, cripples reporting, and inflicts irreparable harm every day the government keeps its hands on these materials,” the Post said in a statement. “We have asked the court to order the immediate return of all seized materials and prevent their use. Anything less would license future newsroom raids and normalize censorship by search warrant.”
Free press defenders cheered Porter's order.
“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety," Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern said in a statement. "But even the Trump administration’s policies require searches of journalists’ materials to be narrow and targeted and that authorities use filter teams and other measures to avoid searching protected records."
"That the administration wouldn’t follow its own guidelines shows that the raid on Natanson’s home wasn’t about any criminal investigation, and certainly wasn’t about national security," he added.
The search and seizure of @washingtonpost.com reporter @hannahnatanson.bsky.social's records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety.The judge was right to block it until a full hearing, at which time he should block it permanently.Read our statement: freedom.press/issues/judge...
[image or embed]
— Freedom of the Press Foundation (@freedom.press) January 21, 2026 at 2:30 PM
“This is the first time in US history that the government has searched a reporter’s home in a national security media leak investigation, seizing potentially a vast amount of confidential data and information," Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press president Bruce Brown said in a statement. "The move imperils public interest reporting and will have ramifications far beyond this specific case."
Wednesday's order came two weeks after the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Seth Harp, a journalist wrongly accused of “leaking classified intel” and “doxing” a US special forces commander involved in President Donald Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and abduction of the South American nation’s president and his wife.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Straight Grift': Trump Reportedly Wants $230 Million From Taxpayers for DOJ Probing Him
"The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don't need a law professor to explain it," said Pace University's Bennett Gershman. "It's bizarre and almost too outlandish to believe."
Oct 21, 2025
President Donald Trump is facing fresh allegations of attempting to corruptly profit from his office after The New York Times reported Tuesday that the Republican is demanding that the US Department of Justice pay him about $230 million in taxpayer dollars for previous federal investigations into him, and his allies at the DOJ are expected to make the final decision.
Trump filed the administrative claims—which are submitted to the department for potential settlements to prevent lawsuits in federal court—before he returned to the White House earlier this year, people familiar with the matter told the newspaper. However, the president nodded to the legal battle in public comments at the White House last week.
"They raided my house in Florida. It was an illegal raid," the president said beside Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel, US Attorney General Pam Bondi, and her deputy, Todd Blanche—Trump's former lead criminal defense lawyer and one of two people who can green-light such settlements.
"I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said, I'm sort of suing myself. I don't know," Trump continued. "How do you settle the lawsuit? I'll say, Give me X dollars, right? And I don't know what to do with the lawsuit. It's a great lawsuit. And now I won—it sort of looks bad. I'm suing myself, right?"
"Trump is now openly shaking down HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT for hundreds of millions of dollars to line his pockets… while claiming there's not enough money for Americans' healthcare."
As the Times detailed Tuesday:
The first claim, lodged in late 2023, seeks damages for a number of purported violations of his rights, including the FBI and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and possible connections to the 2016 Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the claim has not been made public.
The second complaint, filed in the summer of 2024, accuses the FBI of violating Mr. Trump's privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago, his club and residence in Florida, in 2022 for classified documents. It also accuses the Justice Department of malicious prosecution in charging him with mishandling sensitive records after he left office.
In addition to the deputy attorney general, the head of the DOJ's Civil Division can sign off on such settlements. That post is currently held by Stanley Woodward Jr. As the newspaper noted, Woodward previously represented not only Walt Nauta, the president's co-defendant in the classified documents case, but also "a number of other Trump aides, including Mr. Patel, in investigations related to Mr. Trump or the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021."
A White House representative referred questions to the DOJ, where spokesperson Chad Gilmartin said, "In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials."
Meanwhile, Pace University professor Bennett Gershman told the Times: "What a travesty... The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don’t need a law professor to explain it."
"And then to have people in the Justice Department decide whether his claim should be successful or not, and these are the people who serve him deciding whether he wins or loses," he added. "It's bizarre and almost too outlandish to believe."
Congressional Democrats, lawyers, journalists, and other critics also weighed in on Trump's reported conduct on social media, condemning it "corrupt and impeachable," "straight grift," and "straight up extorting the Justice Department and looting taxpayers."
"It's hard to think of an action more purely corrupt than a president ordering the executive branch to pay him hundreds of millions of dollars," said David French, a Times columnist and visiting professor of public policy at Lipscomb University. "I cannot wait to read the MAGA defenses of this (and there will be many). They'll display Soviet levels of sycophancy."
People's Policy Project president Matt Bruenig said that "suing the government in your personal capacity and then having the government, which you run, settle the lawsuit with you for money is the true infinite money trick."
Matthew Miller, the US State Department spokesperson during the Biden administration, suggested that "this would be the most corrupt act in presidential history. No complicated schemes, no outside actors, just a straight-up looting of the taxpayers to put $230 million in Trump's pocket."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement:
It's difficult for a president who spent the past 10 months behaving like a wannabe dictator and demonstrating his contempt for the law to surprise us, but Donald Trump has managed to do it today. Instead of being content with getting away with his lawless behavior, Trump is now brazenly demanding compensation from taxpayers for having the audacity to treat him like a public servant who can be held accountable for wrongdoing.
There is no other way to put it: The authoritarian demagogue we call our president is drunk on power, and there is no amount of money that can satiate this grifter's appetite for hoarding wealth instead of using his presidency to serve the good of the country. This disgusting behavior must be called out and stopped.
The reporting came on day 21 of a federal government shutdown over congressional Republicans' refusal to reverse healthcare cuts expected to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans.
"Trump is now openly shaking down HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT for hundreds of millions of dollars to line his pockets… while claiming there's not enough money for Americans' healthcare," declared US Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.). "He has no shame. He is openly and boldly corrupt."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said: "What does Donald Trump need more of OUR money for? I guess it's good to be president when you can bully, intimidate, and shake down every institution in this country, including now the Department of Justice. This is what a mob boss looks like."
Democrats on the US House Judiciary Committee were similarly critical, calling it "the ultimate Shutdown Shakedown."
"Donald Trump, who's put more than $3 billion in his pocket since returning to the White House, now wants to have 'his' lawyers at the DOJ to pay him $230 million in the middle of the GOP government shutdown," the panel members said. "While tens of millions of Americans desperately try to pay for groceries, healthcare, and childcare, Trump is robbing America blind. This is exactly why the Constitution forbids the president from taking any money from the government outside of his official salary. This is Donald Trump First, America Last—the Gangster State at work, billionaires shaking down the people."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the panel's ranking member—and manager of Trump's historic second impeachment—is launching an investigation into the potential settlement, citing the US Constitution's domestic emoluments clause.
Like the committee's Democrats, critics pointed to the various ways Trump and his family have cashed in on the presidency, from his Qatari jet to their cryptocurrency moves.
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich concluded Tuesday that "America's Grifter-in-Chief knows no bounds."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Bondi Testifies to Senate, DOJ Alumni Blast 'Appalling' Leadership
"It is incumbent on all of us to fight for the Justice Department before it's too late."
Oct 07, 2025
In the lead-up to US Attorney General Pam Bondi's Tuesday testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, hundreds of former employees of the Department of Justice and outside watchdog groups sounded the alarm about the current state of the DOJ.
"From prosecutors, special agents, and intelligence analysts to immigration judges, grant managers, civil rights attorneys, and more, we all carried out our duties faithfully, regardless of who occupied the White House. Until we no longer could," the 282 ex-DOJ employees wrote in a Monday letter released by the alumni network Justice Connection.
"Each of us left the department, either voluntarily or involuntarily, because of actions taken by this administration," they continued. "It is incumbent on all of us to fight for the Justice Department before it's too late."
The letter, first reported by MSNBC, calls out the DOJ for carrying out President Donald Trump's "retribution campaign," spreading lies about the "deep state," violating court orders, and inappropriately dismissing employees, including at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and attorneys in the Civil Rights Division.
"The administration is taking a sledgehammer to other long-standing work the department has done to protect communities and the rule of law, too," the letter notes, citing attacks on the Tax Division, the Public Integrity Section, FBI public corruption squads, and hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for at-risk communities.
"As for its treatment of its employees, the current leadership's behavior has been appalling," the letter adds. "Demonizing, firing, demoting, involuntarily transferring, and directing employees to violate their ethical duties has already caused an exodus of over 5,000 of us."
The letter urges DOJ leadership to "adhere to the legal guardrails and institutional norms," Congress to "exercise its oversight responsibilities far more vigorously," and fellow alumni and all Americans to speak out. It concludes that "our democracy is only as strong as the rule of law, and the rule of law can't survive without the principal institution that enforces it."
In a statement, Stacey Young, executive director and founder of Justice Connection, echoed that warning: "For decades, the guiding tenet for those working at the department was to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons. Many believe that's no longer possible."
"They're being asked to put loyalty to the president over the Constitution, the rule of law, and their professional ethical obligations," she added. "We're seeing the erosion of the Justice Department's fabric and integrity at an alarming pace. Our democratic system cannot survive without the primary institution that enforces the law."
Bondi and other DOJ leaders—particularly FBI Director Kash Patel—have faced mounting criticism throughout the second Trump administration, including for the attorney general's Day One memo arguing that department employees are expected to "zealously defend" the president's interests and policies.
"The abuse of the Justice Department under Bondi's watch has been rampant, including the recent high-profile and scandalous move to secure an indictment against former FBI Director Jim Comey after the president publicly demanded they do so, and despite the previous prosecutor’s claims of insufficient evidence," Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said in a Tuesday statement.
"The DOJ has been in constant turmoil since Bondi took the helm, firing prosecutors who worked Capitol riot cases or investigated Trump and pushing out senior officials at the FBI," she continued. "At the same time, under her leadership, the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ, the section dedicated to fighting corruption from federal officials, has been reduced from a total of 36 employees to two."
"The Department of Justice is intended to be independent from the White House, not its revenge arm," Gilbert stressed. "Her tenure shows they have become exactly that."
Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk also issued a statement ahead of the Senate hearing. He said that "in her eight months as Attorney General, Pam Bondi has confirmed all warnings about her treating the office as an enforcer for Donald Trump's personal whims while also acting as a walking conflict of interest for her former lobbying firm and clients."
"It says it all that the former Qatar lobbyist Bondi penned a DOJ memo—i.e. corruption 'get out of jail free card'—allowing Donald Trump to use a gifted luxury super jet from the nation he's doing billions of dollars in crypto business with during and after his presidency," he continued.
"During her first Senate hearing," he wondered, "will Bondi answer for all these sweetheart deals she's supporting for the president and former lobbying clients while millions of working Americans are asked to choose between a continued government shutdown or losing their healthcare?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked Chats Show Alleged Kirk Killer 'Doesn't Fit Into Any Tidy Narrative'
"He wasn't a Groyper. He also wasn't Antifa," said journalist Ken Klippenstein, who obtained Tyler Robinson's Discord messages and spoke with a childhood friend of the 22-year-old suspect.
Sep 16, 2025
Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein on Tuesday challenged conflicting narratives circulating about Tyler Robinson by obtaining online chats and speaking with a childhood friend of the 22-year-old man accused of assassinating far-right activist Charlie Kirk.
Republican US President Donald Trump "and company portray the alleged Utah shooter as left-wing and liberals portray him as right-wing," Klippenstein wrote. "The federal conclusion will inevitably be that he was a so-called nihilist violent extremist (NVE); meanwhile, the crackdown has already begun, as I reported yesterday. The country is practically ready to go to war."
While Kirk's fatal shooting last week during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University has been widely condemned as political violence, the unnamed childhood friend told Klippenstein: “I think the main thing that’s caused so much confusion is that he was always generally apolitical for the most part... That's the big thing, he just never really talked politics, which is why it's so frustrating.”
“Everyone who knew him liked him and he was always nice, a little quiet and kept to himself mostly but wasn't a recluse,” the friend said, describing Robinson as a fan of the outdoors, video games—including Helldivers 2, the apparent source of some inscriptions on bullet casings found by authorities—and guns.
“Obviously he's okay with gay and trans people having a right to exist, but also believes in the Second Amendment,” according to the friend, who said that Robinson is bisexual and his family didn't know he was in a relationship with his transgender roommate.
Republican Utah Governor Spencer Cox and Federal Bureau of Investigation Deputy Director Dan Bongino have publicly identified his roommate and romantic partner as Lance Twiggs—and said that Twiggs is cooperating with authorities and did not know of Robinson's alleged plan to kill Kirk.
Robinson—who ultimately ended authorities' manhunt for the shooter by turning himself in—appeared virtually for his first court hearing on Tuesday. He faces multiple charges, including aggravated murder, and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
As Newsweek reported Tuesday, prosecutors have allegedly obtained text messages in which Robinson admits to Twiggs that he killed Kirk and discusses having to leave behind a rifle, later retrieved by authorities. Robinson reportedly told his parents that he targeted the Turning Point USA leader because "there is too much evil and the guy spreads too much hate."
In the wake of Kirk's death, many of his critics have also acknowledged his incendiary commentary on a range of topics. Right-wing figures and officials, including key members of President Donald Trump's administration, have responded by launching what Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) called “the biggest assault on the First Amendment in our country’s modern history.”
As Klippenstein wrote:
The federal government, the Washington crowd, and corporate media (based in Washington and New York) see the country in wholly partisan terms, Republican versus Democrat, Red versus Blue, old media versus social media, liberal versus conservative, right versus left, straight versus gay, and on and on. Charlie Kirk’s assassination (in Utah!) should remind us of the actual diversity of the nation, and of the cost of polarization that demonizes the other side.
No one in Robinson’s group is cheering or justifying the murder in any of the messages I reviewed. They’re just struggling to understand what their friend did. But Washington has become obsessed with the Discord chat, convinced it’s some kind of headquarters for the murder and cauldron of radicalization and conspiracy. Today FBI Director [Kash] Patel vowed to investigate “anyone and everyone in that Discord chat.”
What I see is a bunch of young people shocked, horrified, and searching for answers, like the rest of the country.
At least one person on Capitol Hill quickly took note of the reporting. Sharing it on the social media platform X, Congressman Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said: "This is very interesting. The more that comes out the more this doesn't fit into any tidy narrative other than a young man who made a bad choice with a gun."
Other journalists praised Klippenstein on X, saying: "Hey look it's real journalism," and "At the moment Ken Klippenstein has done the best reporting I've seen anywhere on Tyler Robinson."
Journalist Roger Sollenberger wrote: "This is the most valuable and insightful reporting yet on Tyler Robinson—citing current actual friends and messages from a Discord group he was in. And it underscores how stupid and irresponsible the rush has been to assign him to a political aisle."
Appearing before the US Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Patel said the FBI is interviewing more than 20 people who were part of a Discord group with Robinson.
Responding on X, Klippenstein said: "The members of Tyler Robinson's Discord are just as shocked and traumatized by what happened as anyone. That the FBI is treating them like conspirators is so cruel it's stomach-turning."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump FBI Director 'Acted Unlawfully' and 'Deliberately Chose' to Politicize Agency: Lawsuit
Patel allegedly told an FBI official that "the FBI tried to put the president in jail and he hasn't forgotten it."
Sep 10, 2025
A new lawsuit alleges that Trump-appointed FBI Director Kash Patel knowingly broke the law during a campaign to politicize the entire agency.
In a complaint filed Wednesday, former FBI officials Brian Driscoll Jr., Steven Jensen, and Spencer Evans claim that Patel "not only acted unlawfully but deliberately chose to prioritize politicizing the FBI over protecting the American people."
The complaint then laid out evidence of Patel's alleged lawbreaking, including a conversation in which the FBI director said that he had been directed by White House officials "to fire anyone who they identified as having worked on a criminal investigation against President Donald J. Trump."
According to Driscoll, Patel told him that there was nothing he could do to prevent these agents from losing their jobs because "the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn't forgotten it." The complaint says Driscoll proceeded to inform Patel that firing FBI agents for this reason would be illegal, to which he responded that "he understood that and he knew the nature of the summary firings were likely illegal and that he could be sued and later deposed."
The lawsuit also details a conversation that Driscoll had with Paul Ingrassia, a 29-year-old White House liaison who directly asked him questions of an overtly political nature, including:
- "Who did you vote for?"
- "When did you start supporting President Trump?"
- "Have you voted for a Democrat in the last five elections?"
Driscoll refused to answer any of these questions, the lawsuit stated.
The complaint further sheds light on the actions of Emil Bove, a former Trump attorney who earlier this year was confirmed as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.
During a meeting with Bove in late January, Driscoll and Jensen informed him that messages from the Office of Personnel Management urging federal employees to voluntarily resign or face potential termination were creating "panic and anxiety" among FBI agents.
Bove allegedly responded that creating panic and anxiety "was the intent" of the messages.
In addition to all this, the complaint offers insights into the way that Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino react to criticism from right-wing influencers on social media.
In one instance, the complaint alleges, Patel and Bongino found themselves taking heat from some prominent accounts on X because they'd promoted Jensen, who had played a role investigating and prosecuting Trump-supporting Capitol rioters, to serve as acting director in charge of the Washington Field Office.
Patel, tired of the criticism he was receiving for promoting Jensen, asked him if he would consider filing defamation suits against the angry internet trolls to take some pressure off him.
"Jensen declined, noting that he was unconcerned with the viewpoints of online personalities and would remain focused on the FBI's mission," the complaint notes.
Driscoll, Jensen, and Evans were all ousted from the FBI this past August as part of what critics contend was an authoritarian purge whose goal was "to weaponize federal law enforcement and replace highly experienced public servants with political hacks eager to carry out Trump's retribution agenda."
Keep ReadingShow Less
DC Residents' Anger at Fed Presence Grows as Poll Shows 'Overwhelming' Opposition to Trump Takeover
"A federalized takeover of any aspect of a city's operations will naturally create a backlash, and that is clearly happening here," said one expert on DC residents' reactions to the Trump takeover.
Aug 20, 2025
Residents of Washington, DC are getting increasingly fed up with US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard and other federal law enforcement officials in their city.
Zeteo journalist Prem Thakker reported on Tuesday that residents in Columbia Heights jeered and shouted at masked federal agents in their local Metro station who were apparently there to assist transit police in holding train fare evaders accountable.
While at the station, Thakker observed agents from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) standing around an alleged fare evader alongside the transit police. This led Thakker to ask a police officer on the scene whether it was really the best use of HSI and FBI's time to have them tackling petty crimes.
"He first said they weren't [helping enforce anti-fare evasion laws]; it was only the local police who responded," wrote Thakker. "It was a confusing response, given all the agents we just saw at the scene. We then got into a lengthy back-and-forth... I repeatedly tried to re-focus the conversation on ICE and other federal agencies' roles. He said he can't speak to other agencies, while maintaining that they were all supporting each other."
Thakker then exited the station and saw a large crowd of people chanting at federal agents and telling them to get out of their neighborhood. The agents subsequently got into their unmarked vehicles and drove out of the area, which led to cheers from residents.
One woman who jeered the federal agents explained to Thakker why she opposed having them patrol DC's streets.
"I've seen them, purposely, walk up to Latino-Americans that don't speak proper English and then say to them, 'You don't speak English, you're going with me'—[they] don't ask no name, no citizenship, no anything," she told Thakker. "It's heartbreaking to see that these people come here to make their life different in America, and it's being sabotaged."
Data suggests that opposition to the presence of federal agents in the nation's capital is widespread. A poll of DC residents conducted by The Washington Post found that they "overwhelmingly" oppose Trump's deployment of National Guard and federal agents in their city.
All told, 79% of DC residents surveyed said they were opposed to Trump's actions, compared to only 17% who said they were supportive. What's more, the percentage of residents who said they "strongly oppose" the deployments stood at 69%, indicating broad and intense opposition to the president's initiative.
Mark Rozell, dean of George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government, told the Post that it was little surprise that DC residents are rebelling against Trump's attempted takeover of their city's law enforcement operations.
"A federalized takeover of any aspect of a city's operations will naturally create a backlash, and that is clearly happening here," he said. "Residents are saying [crime] is not as bad as the president claims, and they want to reclaim the image of their city against a presidential narrative that is tarnishing DC's reputation."
Over the weekend, hundreds of DC residents took part in "Free DC" protests against the Trump takeover, and organizers have pledged to make them at least a weekly occurrence over the next several months.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy