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
‘Damning’ New Evidence Suggests Trump Stole Classified Documents to Advance Business Interests
"If the DOJ is so confident in Trump's conduct, why are they desperate" to hide former special counsel Jack Smith's report, wondered Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee.
Mar 25, 2026
Democrats on the US mHouse Judiciary Committee on Wednesday demanded that President Donald Trump's Department of Justice "stop the cover-up" of former special counsel Jack Smith's full investigation into Trump's retention of classified documents following his first term, after new material sent to the panel revealed that some documents were stolen to advance the president's business interests.
Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi about "cherry-picked documents" related to Smith's investigations into Trump's taking of classified documents, which he stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey.
The DOJ has regularly produced documents for the Judiciary Committee as Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has sought to portray Smith as having a partisan vendetta against the president, said Raskin. Smith led investigations into Trump's hoarding of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results during the Biden administration. Last month US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, permanently blocked the release of Smith's final report on the documents case.
Raskin wrote Wednesday that even as Jordan has embarked on a "vindictive campaign" against Smith and has sought a narrow selection of material from the DOJ, Bondi had "quite amazingly missed the fact that some of the documents you provided include damning evidence about your boss’s conduct and may well violate the gag order your DOJ and Donald Trump demanded from Judge Aileen Cannon."
Those documents include a January 13, 2023 memorandum from prosecutors who said the FBI had determined Trump retained documents that "would be pertinent to certain business interests.” The documents "established a motive for retaining them" that related to Trump's businesses.
Trump and his family have garnered condemnation for profiting off the presidency, with the family raking in more than $5 billion in cryptocurrency profits since he took office for a second time, and Trump's two eldest sons investing in a drone company that is vying for Pentagon contracts as the president wages war on Iran.
The prosecutors' memo also says the retention of some of the documents represented "an aggravated potential harm to national security," with one "particularly sensitive document" accessible only by an estimated six people in the US government, including the president, before he took it to his private property.
Additionally, the memo says prosecutors had "identified a classified map that we believe Trump may have shown to individuals on board” his private airplane in June 2022. Susie Wiles, the CEO of Trump's super political action committee and now the White House chief of staff, "was aboard and witnessed this event. Raskin's letter includes a flight manifest listing 14 people who were aboard Trump's private plane when he allegedly showed the classified map, but all of the names were redacted.
Raskin emphasized that without access to the second volume of Smith's final report, the Judiciary Committee cannot confirm what the classified map shows, the relationship between his business interest and the classified documents, or what the especially sensitive material is.
The congressman noted that some facts are known about Trump's activities around the time that he allegedly showed the classified map:
We do know that around the time of this flight to Bedminster, President Trump was entering into partnerships with Saudi-backed LIV Golf and state-linked real estate firm Dar al Arkan. A month after this flight, in July 2022, President Trump played golf at Bedminster with Yasir al-Rumayyan, head of the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia—the same official who plied the Trump family with tens of millions of dollars as the family began to run out of money between terms... We also know that there are reports that Donald Trump, at one point while on the phone with his ghostwriter, “made a reference to having classified records relating to the bombing of Iran.” He also reportedly boasted that it was only the hawks who wanted to attack Iran, not him, and that he had Pentagon war plans “done by the military and given to me” about such a potential attack.
"If this map is related to our military posture in the Middle East, and it was in fact shown to any foreign official, Saudi or otherwise, that would amount to an unforgivable betrayal of our men and women in uniform who are currently valiantly fighting in President Trump’s disastrous war against Iran," wrote Raskin.
"It is now clear that DOJ is in possession of evidence that President Trump has already endangered national security to further the interests of Trump family businesses," he wrote. "It is time for you to stop the cover-up and allow the American people to know what secrets he betrayed and how he may have cashed in on them."
Raskin demanded information from the DOJ regarding who accessed the classified materials, whether any foreign actors were given access, and what the documents contain.
“Every new detail that comes to light about the report Judge Cannon has gone to great lengths to keep hidden underscores the same basic truth: The public is being denied access to critical information about one of the most serious national security scandals in American history,” said Chioma Chukwu, executive director of the government watchdog American Oversight. “While fragments of the factual record have seen the light of day, the full report remains under seal because Judge Cannon has prioritized the president’s personal interests over transparency. The public has a right to see special counsel Smith’s findings in full. Blocking the report’s release only serves to protect those in power and prevent accountability.”
After Raskin's letter was released, the DOJ took the social media to accuse him and Smith of being "blinded by hatred of President Trump" and pronounce the department "the most transparent in history."
"This letter is nothing more than a cheap political stunt, almost as if taking cues from members of the corrupt Jack Smith prosecution team," said the DOJ.
The House Judiciary Committee Democrats retorted that the administration "is doing legal gymnastics to prevent the American people from ever seeing special counsel Jack Smith's full report on how Trump stole classified documents to advance his corrupt business interests."
"If the DOJ is so confident in Trump's conduct, why are they desperate to keep Smith's report under lock and key?" they asked. "Stop the cover-up, release the evidence, and let the American people decide for ourselves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
Most Popular