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
jamie raskin
Top Dems Refer Kristi Noem to Trump DOJ for Prosecution Over Perjury Allegations
"Secretary Noem made a series of demonstrably false statements in a brazen attempt to undermine critical congressional oversight of the Department of Homeland Security."
Mar 16, 2026
Two Democratic congressional leaders on Monday said they had "low expectations" for President Donald Trump's Department of Justice to examine alleged perjury by ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, but they noted that the statute of limitations for making false statements to Congress is five years as they referred her for an investigation—meaning Noem's recent remarks about her department's operations under her leadership could be probed after Trump leaves office.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi days after Noem testified before two panels earlier this month—proceedings that came just before Trump announced he was firing the secretary.
Noem, who will officially leave office at the end of the month, has presided over the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as Trump has embarked on his mass deportation plan—deploying armed federal agents to cities across the US, resulting in the deaths of more than two dozen people including at least three US citizens, sending hundreds of people to a notorious prison in El Salvador against a judge's orders, and detaining tens of thousands of people in centers known for abuse and neglect.
Those subjects were all addressed at the hearings in which Noem testified on March 3 and 4, and Durbin and Raskin argued in their letter to Bondi that the secretary's comments on the issues could make her liable for a federal crime.
"After months of evading our committees’ requests to testify in routine oversight hearings, Secretary Noem made a series of demonstrably false statements in a brazen attempt to undermine critical congressional oversight of the Department of Homeland Security," wrote the lawmakers. "Making false statements to Congress, and making false statements under oath, are federal crimes."
Noem repeatedly told the committees that under her leadership, DHS "absolutely" complies with federal court orders, and persisted in that claim even after Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) pointed out that days earlier, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz in the District Court of Minnesota had identified 210 instances of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violating court orders. The violations noted by the judge only represented those that took place between December 2025-February 2026 in the state of Minnesota.
Schiltz is one of several judges who have determined DHS and its underlying agencies have defied court orders, including in cases when judges have ordered the immediate release of immigrants who were held without due process or on false pretenses. The fact that Noem repeatedly told lawmakers that "we comply with all federal court orders" could violate federal statutes including 18 USC §1001, said Durbin and Raskin.
Noem was also asked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) about a $220 million advertising campaign that featured her prominently in what she said was an effort by Trump to get "the message out" about her agency's anti-immigration operations. The president denied on the day he fired Noem that he had known anything about the campaign, but aside from that discrepancy, Durbin and Raskin said the outgoing secretary may have falsely stated that there was a competitive bidding process for the campaign.
Noem was confronted with evidence during one of the hearings that one contractor, Safe America Media, had received $143 million to produce the campaign. But she said repeatedly that "there was no involvement whatsoever of anybody that is on the political appointee side of this position on that media contract."
New reporting has shown that Noem actually "handpick[ed]" four companies that were politically connected to the secretary and her allies for the ad campaign.
At both the Senate and House hearings, Noem was asked whether DHS has detained US citizens since Trump took office for his second term last year. She responded definitively in the negative at both hearings—making "demonstrably false" statements, said Durbin and Raskin.
At least 170 US citizens were wrongfully detained in the first six months of Trump's crackdown, and during "Operation Midway Blitz" in Durbin's home state, a 15-year-old, a man who had presented his birth certificate and ID to prove his citizenship, and members of Chicago Alderman Mike Rodriguez's staff were among those who were detained.
Finally, the two Democrats accused Noem of perjuring herself when she responded to questions about conditions in ICE detention centers, claiming that the facilities provide "medical care to all of our detainees [and] three nutritious meals a day," and that detention standards are "the highest in the nation."
Numerous reports have pointed to medical neglect and abuse—some that could amount to torture, according to Amnesty International—at detention centers across the country. At least 48 people have died in these ICE facilities since January 2025. A family's account of conditions at Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas, which is run by private prison contractor CoreCivic, detailed moldy and worm-infested food and medical neglect, with the center ignoring a doctor's referral for a comprehensive scan to examine a lump under the mother's rib cage.
"There is ample evidence that ICE is neither meeting its own detention standards, nor providing anything that resembles a nutritious meal," wrote Durbin and Raskin. "ICE internal audits have documented significant failures to meet medical care standards."
The lawmakers urged Bondi to respond to their referral promptly while noting that they had "low expectations" that the Trump administration would hold Noem accountable.
At the House hearing earlier this month, Balint issued a warning to Noem that Americans "will get accountability" sooner or later.
One day, Kristi Noem won’t have Trump to hide behind.
She will be held accountable for the terror she and her employees have unleashed on the American people. pic.twitter.com/qVbz8Rd7Jy
— Rep. Becca Balint (@RepBeccaB) March 4, 2026
"You are the secretary of DHS—for now," said Balint. "And you think you're immune from accountability, but I promise you this: One day, [Trump] is not going to be president anymore. He is not going to be in charge, and when that day comes, we will still be here."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No Safety in Appeasement': Law Firms That Fought Trump Vindicated as DOJ Drops Cases
"Another significant victory for the rule of law over Trump's reign of lawlessness," said Rep. Jamie Raskin.
Mar 03, 2026
Congressman Jamie Raskin said the US Department of Justice's decision Monday to abandon its legal cases against law firms that refused to capitulate to President Donald Trump should serve as "a reminder that those who fight back against authoritarianism are winning."
The DOJ asked the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to dismiss its cases against law firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block, which won legal challenges they filed last year after Trump issued executive orders saying they should lose government contracts and their employees should be blocked from government buildings.
Those executive orders were signed because the firms represented and employed high-profile Democrats and other opponents of Trump.
Other law firms, including Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss, angered lawyers within their ranks and the larger legal community when they signed deals with Trump; the latter firm agreed to end its internal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and provide $40 million in free legal work for the president and causes he supports.
The Trump administration's decision on Monday proved, said Raskin (D-Md.), that "there’s no safety in appeasement.”
“When the Trump administration tried to bully and silence law firms by banning them from federal buildings, courthouses and contracts, a handful—like Susman Godfrey, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—fought back," said Raskin. "Today, those firms forced Trump to back down and abandon his blatantly unconstitutional effort to punish lawyers, clients, and causes because Trump disagrees with their speech. Meanwhile, the firms that chose to roll over saddled their associates and partners with doing billions of dollars-worth of free legal work for Trump, his twisted administration and his MAGA allies."
While other firms caved to Trump's demands last year, the companies that didn't quickly won legal victories, with one federal judge saying the executive order targeting Jenner & Block was “doubly violative of the Constitution" because it targeted the clients it represents as well as a lawyer it once employed—Andrew Weissman, who was part of former special counsel Robert Mueller's team that investigated Trump.
“This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the executive branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," US District Judge John Bates wrote last May. "It thus violates the Constitution and the court will enjoin its operation in full.”
"This episode will be remembered as demonstrating the difference between institutions that had the ethical courage to uphold the Constitution and fight bullying and then won, and those that compromised their ethics and gained nothing."
Jenner & Block said Monday that "the government’s decision to withdraw its appeals makes permanent the rulings of four federal judges that the executive orders targeting law firms, including Jenner & Block, were unconstitutional."
"Our partnership is proud to have stood firm on behalf of its clients, and we look forward to continuing to serve them—guided by these bedrock values—for many decades to come," said the firm.
Brian Hauss, deputy director of the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project at the ACLU, said the DOJ had finally admitted "what everyone knew on Day 1: There is no way to defend these unconstitutional executive orders."
“This shameful assault on the rule of law has failed, thanks to the brave lawyers who refused to compromise their integrity," said Hauss.
Vanita Gupta, former associate attorney general under the Biden administration, told NBC News that the law groups that struck deals with the White House had "undermined the rule of law and the legal profession in this country."
"This episode will be remembered as demonstrating the difference between institutions that had the ethical courage to uphold the Constitution and fight bullying and then won, and those that compromised their ethics and gained nothing," Gupta said. "Let’s hope that media companies, universities, and other organizations pay heed."
In addition to his attacks on law firms, the president has threatened universities with funding cuts and federal investigations into what the White House views as antisemitism and extremism on campus and the colleges' efforts to promote diversity and inclusion.
At least six universities have struck deals with Trump. The University of Pennsylvania agreed to ban transgender student athletes from participating on women's sports teams and Columbia University agreed to further crack down on campus protests like those that erupted in 2024 against US support for Israel's assault on Gaza—protests that both the Biden and Trump administrations claimed were antisemitic.
Harvard sued the administration over its decision to freeze $2.2 billion in research funding and was granted a restraining order last year to protect international students whom the White House had threatened with visa restrictions.
On Monday, Raskin said the DOJ's decision to back down from the attacks on law firms was "another significant victory for the rule of law over Trump's reign of lawlessness."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘There’s a Bunch of Sick F*cks’: Lawmakers in Both Parties Stunned and Disgusted After Viewing Unredacted Epstein Files
“Initially my reaction to all this was, I don’t care, I don’t know what the big deal is," the Trump-supporting Sen. Cynthia Lummis said. "But now I see what the big deal is."
Feb 10, 2026
Members of Congress were given a chance to scour unredacted versions of the Department of Justice's files on Jeffrey Epstein for the first time on Monday.
There are more than 3 million pages available for lawmakers to comb through following their release to the public with heavy redactions. Meanwhile, despite a law requiring all the files to be released in December, the DOJ is still sitting on another 3 million pages that have yet to be published.
Lawmakers have so far only scratched the surface of the information available. But what they've seen after just one day has even some of President Donald Trump's biggest defenders reevaluating their dismissal of the Epstein scandal.
“Initially, my reaction to all this was, I don’t care, I don’t know what the big deal is," Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) told independent journalist Pablo Manríquez on Monday. "But now I see what the big deal is and it was worth investigating. The members of Congress who were pushing this were not wrong!”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who have led the charge in Congress for the files to be released, said on Monday that six individuals who were “likely incriminated” in Epstein’s crimes had their identities blacked out by the DOJ in the files that were released publicly.
“In a couple of hours, we found six men whose names have been redacted, who are implicated in the way that the files are presented,” Massie told reporters outside the DOJ office where lawmakers viewed the files.
They did not initially specify the individuals' names, but Massie said at least one was a US citizen and some were “high‑up” foreign officials.
Massie later revealed that one of the men on this list was Les Wexner, the ex-CEO of L Brands, which owns Victoria's Secret. Wexner appears in the files thousands of times and was infamously one of Epstein's most intimate financial clients.
After Massie questioned why Wexner's name was blacked out, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced it had been unredacted and said the DOJ was "hiding nothing." The other five names remained redacted as of Tuesday morning.
The FBI closed its investigation into Epstein in July, concluding that while the financier himself abused several underage girls, along with his partner Ghislane Maxwell—who is currently serving 20 years in prison—he was not running a sex-trafficking ring that included other powerful figures.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said the files he and other lawmakers reviewed yesterday told a much different story.
“It’s disgusting," he said. "There are lots of names, lots of co-conspirators, and they’re trafficking girls all across the world."
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) put it more succinctly when a Drop Site News reporter caught her on the way back from the DOJ office and asked what she learned from viewing the files.
"There's a bunch of sick fucks," she said.
Lawmakers also said the documents contradicted Trump’s claims that he booted Epstein from membership at his Florida club, Mar-a-Lago, and disassociated from him in the early 2000s because the predator was poaching young female workers from the resort. Trump has said that one of them was the late Virginia Giuffre, then a 17-year-old locker room employee, who’d go on to become one of Epstein’s victims and most prominent accusers.
According to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), "for some indeterminate, inscrutable reason,” the DOJ concealed a summary of statements allegedly made by Trump, provided by Epstein's lawyers, in which the president said he never asked Epstein to leave the club.
Balint confirmed she saw the same document.
"One [document] was related to whether or not Trump had ever kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago, as he claimed," she said. "It's not true. It's a lie."
The law passed in November requiring the files' release mandates that victims of Epstein's abuse have their privacy protected, but forbids the DOJ from redacting information to protect prominent individuals, including government officials, from embarrassment.
“The broader issue is why so many of the files they’re getting are redacted in the first place,” Khanna said. “What Americans want to know is who the rich and powerful people are who went to [Epstein's] island? Did they rape underage girls? Did they know that underage girls were being paraded around?”
Massie and Khanna said they were disappointed to find that many of the files that were supposed to be available were still heavily redacted. Massie lamented that the DOJ had not yet provided access to the FBI’s 302 forms, which contain official summaries of interviews with witnesses and victims.
Raskin said viewing the files affirmed many of the concerns about the DOJ "over-redacting" files.
“We didn’t want there to be a cover-up, and yet, what I saw today was that there were lots of examples of people’s names being redacted when they were not victims,” Raskin told CNN. "There are thousands and thousands of pages replete with redactions. There are entire pages in memos where you can't see anything."
Lawmakers were given permission to view the files in a letter sent by the DOJ on Friday, following mounting criticism about the extensive number of redactions in the public release. They are required to sift through the files in a tightly-secured DOJ office and are barred from making copies available to the public, though they are allowed to take notes.
Raskin said that the office contains only four computers, making the process of sorting through more than 3 million files agonizingly slow.
"Working 40 hours a week on nothing else but this, it would take more than seven years for the 217 members who signed the House discharge petition to read just the documents they've decided to release," he wrote in a post on social media.
Attorney General Pam Bondi is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee about the handling of the files on Wednesday. Massie said he plans to grill her about why so many potential co-conspirators had their names redacted in the public release.
“I would like to give the DOJ a chance to say they made a mistake and over‑redacted and let them unredact those men’s names," he said. That would probably be the best way to do it.”
Blanche has responded to the criticism on social media, saying, "The DOJ is committed to transparency."
Khanna, who appeared on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe” Tuesday morning, said that based on what he saw in the public release, the opposite is true.
" Donald Trump had the FBI scrub those files in March," he said. "And the documents we saw already had the redactions of the FBI from March. So we still have not seen the vast majority of documents unredacted that have the survivor statements of the rich and powerful men who committed these crimes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular