Minneapolis Star Tribune: The Trump administration is turning up the pressure on Minnesota

Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, said the Republican White House is ‘actively against’ the state amid growing list of federal investigations, funding freezes.

President Donald Trump’s administration has adopted an aggressive posture toward Minnesota in his second term, launching a series of investigations into the state’s laws, canceling federal dollars with no warning and conducting sweeping law enforcement raids without any advance word to local authorities.

A probe into Minnesota’s affirmative action laws, announced last week, is the latest salvo in an escalating battle between the White House and the Democrats who run the state. The relationship is noticeably more hostile than in Trump’s first term.

The Justice Department’s newest challenge to Minnesota hinged on a policy issued by the state Department of Human Services requiring supervisors to provide justification if they hire a non-diverse candidate. The protocol has been in place since 2002, tied to a state law passed nearly four decades ago, according to the state agency.

The White House has been aggressive in challenging blue-state policies out of step with its agenda. Since Trump returned to office in January, his administration has launched investigations and court challenges to Minnesota’s laws. It also has made moves that directly affected the day-to-day operations of the state, including canceling funding without warning and slowing or halting communication between agencies.

“They are actively against us,” said DFL Gov. Tim Walz, who has become a prominent foe to Trump since his stint on the national Democratic ticket last year.

Walz avoided public clashes with Trump’s first administration but now openly admonishes the president and his allies.

The DOJ is pursuing four probes in Minnesota ranging from state laws surrounding transgender athletes, college tuition rates for undocumented students and, on the local level, a policy instituted by the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office directing prosecutors to consider race in charging decisions and plea deals.

In announcing the probe of Minnesota’s diversity hiring policy, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said last week the Civil Rights Division “will not stand by while states impose hiring mandates that punish Americans for their race or sex.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the DOJ’s investigations “garbage” and “nonsense” pursuits without merit during an interview Monday with the Minnesota Star Tribune. He said he believes the Trump administration is targeting predominantly Democratic states.

“We’re probably more targeted than a red state,” Ellison said.

Another major blow to Minnesota by the feds came in late May when the same Justice Department division moved to dissolve Minneapolis’ federal consent decree, the long-awaited agreement brokered between the DOJ under the Biden administration and Minneapolis meant to usher in sweeping changes to the city police department. In their dismissal, DOJ officials under Trump described such court-enforceable agreements as federal overreach and anti-police.

Some city officials and advocates decried the timing of the announcement, just days before the fifth anniversary of George Floyd’s death.

Such major decisions have sometimes come with no warning at all. The Trump administration abruptly froze and canceled some funding streams to Minnesota earlier this year, including grants to track measles, provide heating assistance and prevent flooding.

On Monday, Ellison joined a lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking to unfreeze more than $70 million for Minnesota schools. Ellison said Trump’s Education Department recently cut the funding “without warning.”

“They don’t cooperate,” Ellison said. “Even during Trump [term] one, it was common for us to be in touch with federal partners. Now, they don’t. It’s like they want to catch you by surprise.”

The hostilities go beyond investigations and court challenges to Minnesota’s laws. The state’s communication with the federal government has ground to a halt, Walz said. When state officials asked for a meeting with a local Veterans Affairs official, they were told it would take six to eight weeks to get an answer.

“If I want to talk to him now or my administration wants to talk to him, we have to put in a request to D.C. It has to be approved by the White House in addition to the VA, before he is able to engage in any meaningful conversation with us,” Walz said.

Federal law enforcement agencies didn’t warn state officials before they raided a Mexican restaurant in south Minneapolis in June, Walz said. That raid prompted confrontations between protestors and law enforcement on E. Lake Street after misinformation spread that an immigration sweep was under way.

An exception is the local U.S. Attorney’s Office and FBI, which worked with state law enforcement to arrest suspect Vance Boelter after the assassination of Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband last month. Walz said the state has “fantastic relationships” with those two agencies.

But Trump refused to call Walz after the assassinations of the Hortmans and the serious wounding of state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife. Trump said it would be a waste of his time and then proceeded to insult the DFL governor. Vice President JD Vance did speak with Walz, however.

For his part, Walz also has been outwardly antagonistic toward Trump, comparing his administration to “wannabe dictators and despots” and accusing him of using federal immigration agents as a “modern-day Gestapo.” The Department of Homeland Security referred to Walz’s comments as “sickening.”

The broader breakdown in communication with the federal government is a notable change from Trump’s first term, when Walz could more easily reach administration officials. Walz told a group of States Newsroom editors in June that Vice President Mike Pence called him every couple of weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic to try to deliver masks and other relief.

Walz said he worries about how the federal government would treat Minnesota in a natural disaster. Critics have noted a contrast in how Trump treats blue and red states; he promised full support for Texas following deadly flash floods but criticized elected Democrats in California who sought federal help after wildfires devastated Los Angeles.

“The way California was treated on wildfires, that worries all of us,” Walz said. “How are we going to be treated when these things happen?”

It’s King Donald vs. America! King Donald will lose!

https://www.startribune.com/in-trumps-second-term-walz-says-federal-government-is-actively-against-minnesota/601420489

Reuters: Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit

The U.S. Justice Department unit charged with defending against legal challenges to signature Trump administration policies – such as restricting birthright citizenship and slashing funding to Harvard University – has lost nearly two-thirds of its staff, according to a list seen by Reuters.

Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since President Donald Trump’s election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to the list compiled by former Justice Department lawyers and reviewed by Reuters.

The tally has not been previously reported. Using court records and LinkedIn accounts, Reuters was able to verify the departure of all but four names on the list. 

Reuters spoke to four former lawyers in the unit and three other people familiar with the departures who said some staffers had grown demoralized and exhausted defending an onslaught of lawsuits against Trump’s administration.

“Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system,” said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump’s second term. “How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?”

Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress.

The Trump administration has broadly defended its actions as within the legal bounds of presidential power and has won several early victories at the Supreme Court. A White House spokesperson told Reuters that Trump’s actions were legal, and declined to comment on the departures.

“Any sanctimonious career bureaucrat expressing faux outrage over the President’s policies while sitting idly by during the rank weaponization by the previous administration has no grounds to stand on,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. 

The seven lawyers who spoke with Reuters cited a punishing workload and the need to defend policies that some felt were not legally justifiable among the key reasons for the wave of departures. 

Three of them said some career lawyers feared they would be pressured to misrepresent facts or legal issues in court, a violation of ethics rules that could lead to professional sanctions.

All spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics and avoid retaliation. 

A Justice Department spokesperson said lawyers in the unit are fighting an “unprecedented number of lawsuits” against Trump’s agenda.

“The Department has defeated many of these lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court and will continue to defend the President’s agenda to keep Americans safe,” the spokesperson said. The Justice Department did not comment on the departures of career lawyers or morale in the section.

Some turnover in the Federal Programs Branch is common between presidential administrations, but the seven sources described the number of people quitting as highly unusual. 

Reuters was unable to find comparative figures for previous administrations. However, two former attorneys in the unit and two others familiar with its work said the scale of departures is far greater than during Trump’s first term and Joe Biden’s administration.

Heading for the Exit

The exits include at least 10 of the section’s 23 supervisors, experienced litigators who in many cases served across presidential administrations, according to two of the lawyers.

A spokesperson said the Justice Department is hiring to keep pace with staffing levels during the Biden Administration. They did not provide further details.

In its broad overhaul of the Justice Department, the Trump administration has fired or sidelined dozens of lawyers who specialize in prosecuting national security and corruption cases and publicly encouraged departures from the Civil Rights Division. 

But the Federal Programs Branch, which defends challenges to White House and federal agency policies in federal trial courts, remains critical to its agenda. 

The unit is fighting to sustain actions of the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency formerly overseen by Elon Musk; Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship and his attempt to freeze $2.5 billion in funding to Harvard University.

“We’ve never had an administration pushing the legal envelope so quickly, so aggressively and across such a broad range of government policies and programs,” said Peter Keisler, who led the Justice Department’s Civil Division under Republican President George W. Bush.

“The demands are intensifying at the same time that the ranks of lawyers there to defend these cases are dramatically thinning.”

The departures have left the Justice Department scrambling to fill vacancies. More than a dozen lawyers have been temporarily reassigned to the section from other parts of the DOJ and it has been exempted from the federal government hiring freeze, according to two former lawyers in the unit.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not comment on the personnel moves.

Justice Department leadership has also brought in about 15 political appointees to help defend civil cases, an unusually high number. 

The new attorneys, many of whom have a record defending conservative causes, have been more comfortable pressing legal boundaries, according to two former lawyers in the unit. 

“They have to be willing to advocate on behalf of their clients and not fear the political fallout,” said Mike Davis, the head of the Article III Project, a pro-Trump legal advocacy group, referring to the role of DOJ lawyers in defending the administration’s policies.

People who have worked in the section expect the Federal Programs Branch to play an important role in the Trump administration’s attempts to capitalize on a Supreme Court ruling limiting the ability of judges to block its policies nationwide. 

Its lawyers are expected to seek to narrow prior court rulings and also defend against an anticipated rise in class action lawsuits challenging government policies. 

Lawyers in the unit are opposing two attempts by advocacy organizations to establish a nationwide class of people to challenge Trump’s order on birthright citizenship. A judge granted one request on Thursday.

Facing Pressure

Four former Justice Department lawyers told Reuters some attorneys in the Federal Programs Branch left over policy differences with Trump, but many had served in the first Trump administration and viewed their role as defending the government regardless of the party in power. 

The four lawyers who left said they feared Trump administration policies to dismantle certain federal agencies and claw back funding appeared to violate the U.S. Constitution or were enacted without following processes that were more defensible in court.

Government lawyers often walked into court with little information from the White House and federal agencies about the actions they were defending, the four lawyers said.

The White House and DOJ did not comment when asked about communications on cases.

Attorney General Pam Bondi in February threatened disciplinary action against government lawyers who did not vigorously advocate for Trump’s agenda. The memo to Justice Department employees warned career lawyers they could not “substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election.”

Four of the lawyers Reuters spoke with said there was a widespread concern that attorneys would be forced to make arguments that could violate attorney ethics rules, or refuse assignments and risk being fired. 

Those fears grew when Justice Department leadership fired a former supervisor in the Office of Immigration Litigation, a separate Civil Division unit, accusing him of failing to forcefully defend the administration’s position in the case of Kilmar Abrego, the man wrongly deported to El Salvador.

The supervisor, Erez Reuveni, filed a whistleblower complaint, made public last month, alleging he faced pressure from administration officials to make unsupported legal arguments and adopt strained interpretations of rulings in three immigration cases.

Justice Department officials have publicly disputed the claims, casting him as disgruntled. A senior official, Emil Bove, told a Senate panel that he never advised defying courts.

Career lawyers were also uncomfortable defending Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms, according to two former Justice Department lawyers and a third person familiar with the matter.

A longtime ally of Bondi who defended all four law firm cases argued they were a lawful exercise of presidential power. Judges ultimately struck down all four orders as violating the Constitution. The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal at least one case.

Not everybody wants to continue hanging out with a bunch of losers!

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/two-thirds-doj-unit-defending-trump-policies-court-have-quit-2025-07-14

Associated Press: Justice Department moves to cancel police reform settlements reached with Minneapolis and Louisville

The Justice Department moved Wednesday to cancel settlements with Minneapolis and Louisville that called for an overhaul of their police departments following the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor that became the catalyst for nationwide racial injustice protests in the summer of 2020.

The Trump administration also announced it was retracting the findings of Justice Department investigations into six other police departments that the Biden administration had accused of civil rights violations.

But:

Police reform advocates denounced the move to walk away from the agreements, saying a lack of federal oversight will put communities at risk.

“This move isn’t just a policy reversal. It’s a moral retreat that sends a chilling message that accountability is optional when it comes to Black and Brown victims,” said the Rev Al. Sharpton, who worked with the Floyd and Taylor families to push for police accountability. “Trump’s decision to dismiss these lawsuits with prejudice solidifies a dangerous political precedent that police departments are above scrutiny, even when they’ve clearly demonstrated a failure to protect the communities they’re sworn to serve.”

Kristen Clarke, who led the Civil Rights Division under the Biden administration, defended the findings of the police investigations of her office, noting that they were “led by career attorneys, based on data, body camera footage and information provided by officers themselves.”

“To wholesale ignore and disregard these systemic violations, laid bare in well-documented and detailed public reports, shows patent disregard for our federal civil rights and the Constitution,” Clarke said in a statement to The Associated Press.

Most of these eight police departments will probably revert to their old ways, sooner rather than later. Federal intervention and supervision has been the only effect way to reform bad policing.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justice-department-moves-to-cancel-police-reform-settlements-reached-with-minneapolis-and-louisville/ar-AA1FcWMo