Tag Archives: Department of Justice

USA Today: Trump administration rolls out a strict new ICE policy

Posted on by
Reply

“A new policy rolling out nationally prevents judges from granting a bond to most detained migrants.”

The man walked around the corner of the coral pink detention center building, shuffling a little to keep his shoes on his feet. They’d taken his shoelaces. And his belt.

The 93-degree temperature bounced off the black asphalt as he walked free for the first time in six weeks, after federal immigration agents in California arrested him at a routine court check-in with his American citizen wife.

A year ago, he might have been one of a dozen men released on a day like this.

But a few months ago, the releases from the privately run Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center here slowed to maybe five a day.

Now, releases from the approximately 1,200-bed GEO ICE facility have slowed even further as the Trump administration clamps down on people accused of living illegally in the United States.

A new policy rolling out nationally prevents judges from granting a bond to most detained migrants. Those hearings often end with a judge releasing the detainee if they agree to post a cash bond, and in some cases, be tracked by a GPS device.

The White House argues that mass migration under former President Joe Biden was legally an “invasion,” and it has invoked both the language and tools of war to close the borders and remove people who thought they entered the country illegally.

“The Biden administration allowed violent gang members, rapists, and murderers into our country, under the guise of asylum, where they unleashed terror on Americans,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said at a July 12 press briefing. “Under President Trump, we are putting American citizens first.”

Statistics show that migrants are far less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. And federal statistics show that fewer than half of detained migrants have criminal records.

But because immigration court is run by the Department of Justice and is not an independent judiciary, people within that system aren’t entitled to the same protections ‒ including the right to a speedy trial, a public defender if they can’t afford their own attorney, or now, a bond hearing, according to the administration. For detainees, bond often ranges from $5,000-$20,000, immigration attorneys said.

Migrant rights advocates say the loss of bond hearings means detainees will increasingly have to fight their deportation cases without legal representation or support and advice from community members. In many cases, detainees are being shipped to holding facilities thousands of miles from home, advocates say.

Contesting deportation can take months, and migrant rights groups said they suspect the policy change is intended to pressure migrants into agreeing to be deported even if they have a solid legal case for remaining in the United States.

The Trump administration has not publicly released the policy change; advocates said they first read about it in The Washington Post on July 14. Others said they learned of the policy change when DOJ attorneys read portions of it to judges during bond hearings.

“The Trump administration’s decision to deny bond hearings to detained immigrants is a cruel and calculated escalation of its mass detention agenda, one that prioritizes incarceration over due process and funnels human beings into for-profit prison corporations,” said Karen Orona, the communications manager at the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. “This move eliminates a lifeline for thousands of immigrants, stripping away their right to reunite with families, gather evidence, and fairly fight their cases.”

Out of all of the people detained at the facility, only one man was released on July 15. And like every person released, a volunteer team from the nonprofit Casa de Paz met him on the street outside. They offered him a ride, a cell phone call, and food.

Andrea Loya, the nonprofit’s executive director, said Casa volunteers have seen the Trump administration’s get-tough approach playing out as they speak with those who are released. Like other migrant rights advocates, Loya said she’s frustrated that private prison companies with close ties to the White House benefit financially from the new policy.

“It does not surprise me that this is the route we’re headed down,” she said. “Now, what we can expect is to see almost no releases.”

ICE previously lacked the detention space to hold every person accused of crossing the border outside of official ports of entry, which in 2024 totaled 2.1 million “encounters.” The new July 4 federal spending bill provides ICE with funding for 80,000 new detention beds, allowing it to detain up to 100,000 people at any given time, in addition to funding an extra 10,000 ICE agents to make arrests.

Because there historically hasn’t been enough detention space to hold every person accused of immigration violations, millions of people over the years have been released into the community following a bond hearing in which an immigration judge weighed the likelihood of them showing back up for their next court date. They are then free to live their lives and work ‒ legally or not‒ while their deportation cases remain pending, which can take years.

According to ICE’s 2024 annual report, there were more than 7.6 million people on what it calls the “non-detained” docket ‒ people accused of violating immigration law but considered not enough of a threat to keep locked up. The agency had been attaching GPS monitors to detainees who judges considered a low risk of violence but a higher risk of failing to return to court.

Each detention costs taxpayers $152 per person, every day, compared to $4.20 a day for GPS tracking, ICE data shows.

According to the incarceration-rights group Vera Institute of Justice, 92% of people ordered to show up for immigration court hearings do so.

“We know that detention is not just cruel but is unnecessary,” said Elizabeth Kenney, Vera’s associate director. “The government’s justification of detention is just not supported by research or even their own data.”

Like many migrant rights advocates, Kenney said she has not yet seen the specific policy.

In Seattle, attorney Tahmina Watson of Watson Immigration Law, said the policy ‒ the specifics of which she had also not seen ‒ appeared to be part of ongoing administration efforts to limit due process for anyone accused of immigration violations.

“They have created a system in which they can detain people longer and longer,” said Watson. “Effectively, this means that people who have potential pathways to legality are being held indefinitely. The whole notion is to put people into detention. And I don’t know where that’s going to end.”

No bond, no freedom: New ICE policy keeps migrants locked up longer
Migrant rights advocates say the loss of bond hearings means many detainees will have to fight their deportation cases without legal representation.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/07/16/trump-no-bond-policy-immigration-detainees-ice/85207175007

Straight Arrow News: DOJ whistleblower says Trump appointee ordered defiance of courts

Posted on by
Reply

“They’re putting attorneys who have dedicated themselves to public service in the impossible position of fealty to the President or fealty to the Constitution – candor to the courts or keeping your head low and lying if asked to do so,” Reuveni told The New Yorker. “That is not what the Department of Justice that I worked in was about. That’s not why I went to the Department of Justice and stayed there for fifteen years.” 

Shortly after three planes filled with alleged Tren de Aragua gang members took off for an El Salvador supermax prison in March, a judge issued a verbal order with a simple instruction to government lawyers:  turn the planes around. The planes, however, continued to El Salvador. 

Now, a whistleblower says a top Department of Justice (DOJ) official authorized disregarding the judge’s order, telling his staff they might have to tell the courts “f- you” in immigration cases.

The official was Principal Associate Attorney General Emil Bove, whom President Donald Trump nominated to be a federal judge. Leaked emails and texts from whistleblower and former DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni, released during the week of July 7, came days before a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Bove’s nomination to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the committee approves, Bove’s nomination will advance to the full Senate.

At Bove’s direction, “the Department of Justice is thumbing its nose at the courts, and putting Justice Department attorneys in an impossible position where they have to choose between loyalty to the agenda of the president and their duty to the court,” Reuveni told The New York Times.

Bove is perceived by some as a controversial choice for the lifetime position. He served on Trump’s defense team in the state and federal indictments filed after Trump’s first term in the White House.

In 2024, after Trump appointed him acting deputy attorney general, Bove ignited controversy over his firing of federal prosecutors involved in cases involving the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol and over his role in dismissing corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

Early this year, the federal government was using an arcane 18th-century wartime law – the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – to remove the alleged gang members from the United States without court hearings. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia ruled the removals violated the men’s right to due process, setting up the conflict with the DOJ.

The leaker’s emails and texts suggest Bove advised DOJ attorneys that it was okay to deplane the prisoners in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. 

The messages also cite Bove’s instruction for lawyers to consider saying “f- you” to the courts.

 When Reuveni asked DOJ and Department of Homeland Security officials if they would honor the judge’s order to stop the planes to El Salvador, he received vague responses or none at all.

While the email and text correspondence allude to Bove’s instruction, none of the messages appear to have come directly from Bove himself. The official whistleblower complaint was filed on June 24.

Bove denies giving that instruction. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Bove said he “never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order.”

The leak prompted outrage from both sides of the political spectrum. Some say deporting people without trial to a supermax prison in El Salvador violates due process rights and a  DOJ lawyer telling other lawyers to ignore a court order should put him in contempt of court. 

However, Attorney General Pam Bondi – who served as one of Trump’s defense attorneys during his first Senate impeachment trial in 2020 – responded on X, saying there was no court order to defy. 

“As Mr. Bove testified and as the Department has made clear, there was no court order to defy, as we successfully argued to the DC Circuit when seeking a stay, when they stayed Judge Boasberg’s lawless order. And no one was ever asked to defy a court order,” the attorney general wrote Thursday, July 10, when the emails and texts were released. 

Bondi was referring to the DOJ’s immediate emergency appeal to the D.C. Circuit of Appeals requesting a stay of Boasberg’s temporary restraining order. The DOJ did not turn the planes around, arguing that a verbal order by the lower court is not binding and that the planes had already left U.S. airspace.

On March 26, the DOJ lost its appeal, with the D.C. Circuit voting 2-1 to uphold Boasberg’s ruling. The DOJ appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts had interfered with national security and overreached on executive immigration power. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the DOJ, 6-3, and lifted the lower court’s injunction on April 9.

Bondi accused the whistleblower Reuveni of spreading lies. She said on X that this is “another instance of misinformation being spread to serve a narrative that does not align with the facts.” 

“This ‘whistleblower’ signed 3 briefs defending DOJ’s position in this matter and his subsequent revisionist account arose only after he was fired because he violated his ethical duties to the department,” Bondi wrote.

Reuveni worked at the DOJ for 15 years, mostly in the Office of Immigration and Litigation. Bondi fired Reuveni in April for failing to “zealously advocate” for the United States in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who was accidentally deported to the El Salvador prison and whose return the Supreme Court eventually ordered.

Bondi and other Trump administration officials have fired many DOJ and FBI employees, saying the administration has broad constitutional power to do so. 

“They’re putting attorneys who have dedicated themselves to public service in the impossible position of fealty to the President or fealty to the Constitution – candor to the courts or keeping your head low and lying if asked to do so,” Reuveni told The New Yorker. “That is not what the Department of Justice that I worked in was about. That’s not why I went to the Department of Justice and stayed there for fifteen years.” 

DOJ whistleblower says Trump appointee ordered defiance of courts
A Trump judicial nominee told DOJ lawyers to ignore court orders to return planes carrying alleged gang members, a whistleblower claims.

https://san.com/cc/doj-whistleblower-says-trump-appointee-ordered-defiance-of-courts

MSNBC: A federal judge’s ruling against ICE should be required reading for every American

Posted on by
Reply

Los Angeles is a city under attack. Spurred on by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller’s outrage that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not been deporting enough people, ICE agents have been sweeping through the city, often clad in full military attire like a conquering army. Photographs and videos document ICE’s “arrest first and ask questions later” approach on a daily basis.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong ordered ICE to stop “conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers.” She refused to be taken in by the Trump administration’s fog of deception and disinformation. “The federal government agrees: Roving patrols without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment and denying access to lawyers violates the Fifth Amendment,” she wrote. “What the federal government would have this Court believe — in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case — is that none of this is actually happening.”

Frimpong’s ruling should be required reading for every American. She modeled the kind of resistance that is essential in the face of the administration’s concerted attack on facts, truths and common sense. Her “believe what you see, not what they say” response sets an example for all Americans who wish to resist an authoritarian takeover in this country.

The Courthouse News Service reports that, at a hearing held Thursday, the government wanted the judge to believe “that the ICE raids were sophisticated operations, based on surveillance and information from other law enforcement agencies targeting specific individuals.” According to CNS, lawyers for the Justice Department argued that ICE could “also stop and question other individuals there who they suspected were immigrants without legal status….” That would be acceptable, a DOJ lawyer argued, based on the “totality of the circumstances.”

The government offered these claims against the weight of the evidence and out-of-court statements. In an appearance last week on Fox News, the administration’s border czar Tom Homan included “physical appearance” in the list of things that ICE takes into account during their patrols in Los Angeles. At the Thursday hearing, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that ICE was engaging in racial profiling, targeting members of the Hispanic community and ignoring people of European ancestry who might be in the country illegally. “The evidence is clear that they’re looking at race,” Mohammad Tasjar, an attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, told Frimpong. Even a lawyer for the government acknowledged that “agents can’t put blinders on.”

During the hearing, as The New York Times reported, the judge “was skeptical of the government’s assertions that it was not violating the constitutional rights of people and that agents were stopping immigrants based on ‘the totality of circumstances,’ rather than relying on race.”

That skepticism was reflected in the 52-page opinion the judge handed down one day later. Frimpong wrote that the migrants who filed suit were likely to prevail in their claim that ICE had no legitimate basis to stop and detain most of the people caught up in its military style operations in Los Angeles. She found that the ICE operation constituted a “threatening presence” that left people fearful that they were being “kidnapped.” The judge ordered that, when conducting such operations, the government must stop relying on factors such as race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish, speaking English with an accent, presence at a particular location, or type of work.

Frimpong seemed particularly disturbed by the government’s failure to “acknowledge the existence of roving patrols at all.” As she put it, “the evidence before the Court at this time portrays the reality differently.” She also noted that the government had failed to provide any evidence that what ICE is doing could pass constitutional muster, despite “having nearly a week” to do so.

This judge’s insistence that reality does in fact matter is particularly important in the face of an administration that time and again demands Americans accept whatever it says.

In the immigration context at least, that ploy seems not to be failing. A recent Gallup poll found that 79% of respondents say immigration is “a good thing” for the country versus just 20% who say it is a “bad thing.” Just a year ago, those numbers were 64% and 32% respectively. The percentage of Americans who want to see a decrease in immigration also sharply declined, from 55% in 2024 to 30% today. And 62% of Americans now disapprove of President Trump’s handling of immigration.

Judge Frimpong’s determined refusal to be deceived by the administration’s smoke and mirrors and her rebuke of ICE’s “roving patrols” shows other members of the judiciary — and the rest of the country — that the White House’s rationalizations of its immigration policy deserve not a shred of deference. It should serve as a wake-up call to all of us and a reminder of the damage the administration’s anti-immigrant crusade is doing to our constitutional order.

A federal judge’s ruling against ICE should be required reading for every American
U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong refused to be deceived by the administration’s smoke and mirrors.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/ice-los-angeles-judge-ruling-profiling-immigration-rcna218624

Rolling Stone: Pam [Bimbo #3] Bondi Fires Top DOJ Ethics Adviser

Posted on by
Reply

Pam “Bimbo #3” Bondi don’t need no stinkin’ ethics!!!

Attorney General Pam [Bimbo #3] Bondi – who has been purging the Justice Department of anyone tied to the Jan. 6 prosecutions as well as the prosecutions of President Donald Trump – fired the lawyer personally advising her and the department’s thousands of employees on ethics, Bloomberg reported Sunday. 

Joseph Tirrell, who began his career in the Navy and spent almost two decades in the federal government, was fired last Friday via a brief letter from [Bimbo #3] Bondi, who gave no reason for the termination. The same day, Bondi fired 20 DOJ employees who were involved in prosecuting Trump. She has also recently fired employees related to the prosecutions of the Jan. 6 riots on the Capitol. Tirrell had advised Special Counsel Jack Smith on ethics related to the prosecution of Trump, Bloomberg reported.

“My public service is not over, and my career as a Federal civil servant is not finished,” Tirrell wrote on LinkedIn on Monday. “I took the oath at 18 as a Midshipman to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ I have taken that oath at least five more times since then. That oath did not come with the caveat that I need only support the Constitution when it is easy or convenient.” 

“I believe in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,'” he wrote. “I also believe that Edmund Burke is right and that ‘the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.'”

Tirrell was responsible for advising Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and other DOJ leaders on financial disclosures, conflicts of interest, gifts, and recusals. He also helped guide the 117,000 Justice Department employees on ethics rules. He previously served as an ethics attorney at the FBI.

He reportedly approved Jack Smith’s $140,000 in free legal fees from a major Washington, D.C., law firm. In February, [Bimbo #3] Bondi instructed a working group to investigate “Weaponization by Special Counsel Jack Smith and his staff who spent more than $50 million targeting President Trump.” Smith resigned in January. 

[Bimbo #3] Bondi has been under fire for possible ethics violations. Earlier this month, the Miami Herald reported that the DOJ dropped its investigation into pharmaceutical company Pfizer’s potential foreign corruption violations. Bondi was previously an outside legal counsel for Pfizer. 

Trump has also taken aim at ethics in his administration. Earlier this year, he ordered the Justice Department to pause investigations into foreign bribery cases, although the investigations eventually resumed. The Trump Organization, the president’s family business empire, fired its ethics attorney after they represented Harvard in a suit against the government for freezing its federal funding. 

“The rules don’t exist anymore,” another fired DOJ official, Patty Hartman, told CBS News last week. 

Hartman, previously a top public affairs specialist at the FBI and federal prosecutors’ offices, had worked on press releases related to prosecutions of the Jan. 6 riots. The Justice Department began purging employees who worked on these prosecutions as soon as Trump took office. Trump issued a mass pardon for all 1,500 defendants hours after he was sworn in, including some of the most violent offenders. 

Hartman was fired last Monday and warned that there were more firings to come. Three other employees tied to the prosecutions of Jan. 6 have been fired in the past month, CBS News reported.

“There used to be a line, used to be a very distinct separation between the White House and the Department of Justice, because one should not interfere with the work of the other,” Hartman told CBS News. “That line is very definitely gone.”

“We appear to be driving straight into an abyss that holds no memory of what democracy is, was, or should be,” the now-former DOJ official added on social media.

Pam Bondi Fires Top DOJ Ethics Adviser
Attorney General Pam Bondi fired a top ethics lawyer at the Justice Department amid a purge of anyone connected to the Jan. 6 or Trump prosecutions.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/pam-bondi-fires-top-doj-ethics-lawyer-1235384777

Washington Post: ICE declares millions of undocumented immigrants ineligible for bond hearings

Posted on by
Reply

A memo from ICE’s acting director instructs officers to hold immigrants who entered the country illegally “for the duration of their removal proceedings,” which can take months or years.

The Trump administration has declared that immigrants who arrived in the United States illegally are no longer eligible for a bond hearing as they fight deportation proceedings in court, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post.

In a July 8 memo, Todd M. Lyons, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told officers that such immigrants should be detained “for the duration of their removal proceedings,” which can take months or years. Lawyers say the policy will apply to millions of immigrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border over the past few decades, including under Biden.

In the past, immigrants residing in the U.S. interior generally have been allowed to request a bond hearing before an immigration judge. But Lyons wrote that the Trump administration’s departments of Homeland Security and Justice had “revisited its legal position on detention and release authorities” and determined that such immigrants “may not be released from ICE custody.” In rare exceptions immigrants may be released on parole, but that decision will be up to an immigration officer, not a judge, he wrote.

The provision is based on a section of immigration law that says unauthorized immigrants “shall be detained” after their arrest, but that has historically applied to those who recently crossed the border and not longtime residents.

Lyons, who oversees the nation’s 200 immigration detention facilities, wrote that the policy is expected to face legal challenges.

ICE did not respond to requests for comment. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott issued similar guidance last week; that agency also did not respond to questions.

The sweeping new detention policy comes days after Congress passed a spending package that will allocate $45 billion over the next four years to lock up immigrants for civil deportation proceedings. The measure will allow ICE to roughly double the nation’s immigrant detention capacity to 100,000 people a day.

Since the memos were issued last week, the American Immigration Lawyers Association said members had reported that immigrants were being denied bond hearings in more than a dozen immigration courts across the United States, including in New York, Virginia, Oregon, North Carolina, Ohio and Georgia. The Department of Justice oversees the immigration courts.

“This is their way of putting in place nationwide a method of detaining even more people,” said Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “It’s requiring the detention of far more people without any real review of their individual circumstances.”

Immigration hawks have long argued that detaining immigrants is necessary to quickly deport those who do not qualify for asylum or another way to stay in the United States permanently. They say detaining immigrants might also discourage people from filing frivolous claims, in hopes of being released as their cases proceed in the backlogged immigration courts.

“Detention is absolutely the best way to approach this, if you can do it. It costs a lot of money obviously,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors enforcement. “You’re pretty much guaranteed to be able to remove the person, if there’s a negative finding, if he’s in detention.”

In its 2024 annual report, however, ICE said it detains immigrants only “when necessary” and that the vast majority of the 7.6 million people then on its docket were released pending immigration proceedings. Keeping them detained while their case is adjudicated has not been logistically possible, and advocates have raised concern for migrants’ health and welfare in civil immigration detention.

Immigrants are already subject to mandatory detention without bond if they have been convicted of murder or other serious crimes, and this year the Republican-led Congress added theft-related crimes to that list after a Georgia nursing student, Laken Riley, was killed by a man from Venezuela who had been picked up for shoplifting and not held for deportation.

Immigration lawyers say the Trump administration is expanding a legal standard typically used to hold recent arrivals at the southern border toa much broader group — including immigrants who have lived in the United States for decades. Many have U.S. citizen children, lawyers say, and likely have the legal grounds to defend themselves against deportation.

Forcing them to remain in detention facilities often in far-flung areas such as an alligator-infested swamp in Florida or the Arizona desert would make it more difficult to fight their cases, because they will be unable to work or easily communicate with family members and lawyers to prepare their cases.

“I think some courts are going to find that this doesn’t give noncitizens sufficient due process,” said Paul Hunker, an immigration lawyer and former ICE chief counsel in the Dallas area. “They could be held indefinitely until they’re deported.*

ICE is holding about 56,000 immigrants a day as officers sweep the nation for undocumented immigrants, working overtime to fulfill Trump’s goal of deporting 1 million people in his first year. Officials have reopened family detention centers that the Biden administration shuttered because ofsafety concerns, stood up soft-sided facilities such as one in the Everglades, and begun deporting immigrants with little notice to alternative countries such as conflict-ridden South Sudan.

Immigration lawyers say the new ICE policy is similar to a position that several immigration judges in Tacoma, Washington, have espoused in recent years, denying hearings to anyone who crossed the border illegally.

The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project in Seattle filed a lawsuit in March on behalf of detainees challenging the policy, arguing that their refusal to consider a bond hearing violated the immigrants’ rights.

The original plaintiff in the case, Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez, has lived in Washington state since 2009, works as a farmer and is the “proud grandfather” of 10 U.S. citizens, court records show. His eight siblings are U.S. citizens who live in California.

He also owns his home, where ICE officers arrested him in February for being in the United States without permission. In April, a federal judge in Washington found that he has “no criminal history in the United States or anywhere else in the world” and ordered immigration officers to give him a bond hearing before a judge. A judge denied him bond and he has since returned to Mexico, his lawyer said.

But that decision does not apply nationwide, lawyers said.

Aaron Korthuis, a lawyer in the case, said Rodriguez is typical of the type of immigrants who now face prolonged detention as they fight deportation in immigration courts. He called the government’s new interpretation of bond hearings “flagrantly unlawful.”

“They are people who have been living here, all they’re doing is trying to make a living for their family,” Korthuis said in an interview. He said the policy “is looking to supercharge detention beyond what it already is.”

ICE declares millions of undocumented immigrants ineligible for bond …
archived 15 Jul 2025 00:05:00 UTC

https://archive.is/vMvoj#selection-673.0-847.222

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

Posted on by
Reply

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!

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

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

Newsweek: Pam Bondi’s DOJ to make Ghislaine Maxwell decision after Epstein backlash

Posted on by
Reply

Pam Bondi’s leadership of the Department of Justice may come under further Jeffrey Epstein-related scrutiny over an appeal by Epstein’s former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell.

The British socialite, and former friend of Prince Andrew, was sentenced to 20 years in jail in June 2022 for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation, but has appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration’s response to that case is due July 14 at a particularly pressured time for Bondi, who as attorney general leads the DOJ.

Why It Matters

Bondi has facing severe criticism from within President Donald Trump‘s MAGA base after a report by the DOJ and FBI last week stated there was no Epstein client list and no evidence the New York financier blackmailed prominent public figures.

This has sparked accusations of a cover-up as Bondi appeared to suggest in February the alleged document was sitting on her desk. The White House later sought to clarify that she was referring to Epstein files more generally.

Newsweek has contacted the DOJ for comment by email out of office hours.

What to Know

Epstein is thought to have abused hundreds of girls and was awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges when he died in his jail cell in 2019.

The case has long featured allegations that he forced his victims to have sex with his powerful friends, but none have ever been charged. Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have been linked to Epstein but both men, and Prince Andrew, strenuously deny knowledge of his crimes.

Trump administration figures suggested new details and even new cases would emerge after a review ordered by the President into the Epstein files this year.

However, a memo by the DOJ and FBI last week indicated there would be no new cases and stated there was no evidence of a blackmail plot by Epstein.

“This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’ There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions,” said the memo.

“We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

This sparked furious responses from MAGA commentators and tears from alt-right radio host Alex Jones, exerting extra pressure on the DOJ, run by Bondi as attorney general, over how to handle Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal following her criminal conviction for sex trafficking.

Ghislaine Maxwell’s Appeal

Maxwell’s lawyers argue she should never have been put on trial due to a plea deal between Jeffrey Epstein and Florida prosecutors in 2008.

A filing by her team, seen by Newsweek, reads: “Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein.

“Only because the United States did so in the Second Circuit and not elsewhere, her motion to dismiss the indictment was denied, her trial proceeded, and she is now serving a 20-year sentence.

“In light of the disparity in how the circuit courts interpret the enforceability of a promise made by the ‘United States,’ Maxwell’s motion to dismiss would have been granted if she had been charged in at least four other circuits (plus the Eleventh, where Epstein’s agreement was entered into).

“This inconsistency in the law by which the same promise by the United States means different things in different places should be addressed by this Court.”

D. John Sauer, Donald Trump’s pick for Solicitor General, has already twice applied to extend the deadline for the administration’s response to Maxwell’s appeal, leading to the current July 14 deadline.

A letter from Sauer to the court, seen by Newsweek, read: “The government’s response is now due, after one extension, on June 13, 2025.

“We respectfully request, under Rule 30.4 of the Rules of this Court, a further extension of time to and including July 14, 2025, within which to file the government’s response.

“This extension is necessary because the attorneys with principal responsibility for

preparation of the government’s response have been heavily engaged with the press of previously assigned matters with proximate due dates.”

What People Are Saying

Conservative media personality Megyn Kelly was among those to heap pressure on Bondi over backlash during an appearance at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit over the weekend. “It’s starting to create a real hornet’s nest within the administration and I’ve got to be honest I blame Pam Bondi. I’ll tell you why: incompetence,” she said.

“She is the reason that things are unravelling around this story right now, that virtually all the Republican Party cares about. It’s also true that [FBI Deputy Director] Dan Bongino and [FBI Director] Kash Patel had questions about Epstein before they took office before they went to the FBI,” she continued.

“But once they joined the FBI they said nothing. They kept their mouths shut about Epstein. You have not seen them, except for one joint appearace with Dan and Kash on Fox, running all over the media looking for attention on this, yes, clickbaity story.

“Who have you seen?” Kelly asked. “Pam Bondi. She has never missed an opportunity to go on television and dangle sweet nothings that might be coming your way, try to lead you to believe that she’s got it, it’s on her desk, it’s coming, ‘tomorrow you’re going to see something on Epstein.'”

Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday: “What’s going on with my ‘boys’ and, in some cases, ‘gals?’ They’re all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We’re on one Team, MAGA, and I don’t like what’s happening. We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and ‘selfish people’ are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein. For years, it’s Epstein, over and over again.”

What Happens Next

The Government will now either file its reply, which should lay out how it intends to contest the case, or seek a third extension. Either way, there should be a filing to the Supreme Court case outlining which option has been chosen.

There must be many more besides Prince Andrew who took advantage of Epstein’s many underage victims. The must ALL be exposed.

Pam Bondi’s DOJ to make Ghislaine Maxwell decision after Epstein backlash
Ghislaine Maxwell filed a Supreme Court appeal arguing she should be covered by Jeffrey Epstein’s controversial plea deal.

https://www.newsweek.com/pam-bondi-doj-ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-files-2098469

Alternet: A cult leader shows how Trump is taking America to a very dark place

Posted on by
Reply

Former FBI agent Michael Fienberg has gone public, pointing out that the agency, under the leadership of Dan Bongino and Kash Patel, is purging itself of people who are not members of the Trump cult (my phrase, not his).

Similar cult-like behavior is on vivid display with the White House press secretary, the head of DHS, and the head of the Department of Justice — among numerous other administration officials and elected Republicans — regularly spouting lies and half-truths that target women, immigrants, and Democrats.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is implying that the children who died in the Texas floods were the victims of a nefarious plot — presumably by Democrats or Jews who operate space lasers — to modify the weather, completely ignoring the fact that Republican-aligned fossil fuel billionaires have been engaged in a half-century-long scheme to sabotage our atmosphere with their carbon dioxide emissions in exchange for trillions of dollars in profits. Some of which, no doubt, have been shared with Greene or her campaign.

Multiple administration officials, elected Republicans, and rightwing media cult leaders on platforms like Fox “News” have been amplifying the racist, antisemitic “Great Replacement Theory,” that wealthy Jews are paying to “replace” white people in America with Blacks, Mexicans, and other people of color. This has led to ICE becoming the largest police force in America, with a budget larger than that of the entire Russian military, soon to be sweeping a neighborhood near you in their never-ending hunt for brown-skinned people.

Donald Trump didn’t need to lure his followers into a remote jungle, like Jim Jones did in Guyana. He didn’t need to physically isolate them from the rest of the world. Instead, Trump built his Jonestown right here at home, within the boundaries of our republic, brick by brick. He did it using over 30,000 documented lies, fear, rage, and the intoxicating promise of belonging.

Today, tens of millions of Americans are trapped inside Trump’s reality-warping cult. And just as Jones’ followers drank poisoned Kool-Aid believing it was salvation, Trump’s followers have swallowed his Big Lies and are now willing to sacrifice our Constitution, our democracy, and our future on the altar of one man’s insatiable ego.

This is an old story in new packaging….

Click the links below to read the rest of the article:

Alternet: A cult leader shows how Trump is taking America to a very dark place

https://www.alternet.org/alternet-exclusives/the-cult-of-trump-2673148656

TAG 24 News: Trump administration loses it over ICEBlock app: “Sure looks like obstruction of justice!”

Posted on by
Reply

On Monday, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi [Bimbo #2] Noem shared an X post that included a clip from a CNN segment about the ICEBlock app, which creator Joshua Aaron told the network was created not to target agents, but rather to allow users to “avoid them altogether.”

“This sure looks like obstruction of justice,” [Bimbo #2] Noem wrote in her post.

It’s no different than holding up a sign that says “speed trap ahead” or “roadblock in half a mile” — it’s constitutionally protected free speech.

And when your Gestapo goons are snatching people off the streets based on their skin color, it’s a matter of self-preservation and self-defense. We are not lemmings.

“Our brave ICE law enforcement face a 500% increase in assaults against them,” she went on to claim, without providing evidence.

Who the fuck cares what happens to masked Gestapo thugs indiscriminately snatching brown people (including U.S. citizens) off the streets to meet their arrest quotas? Fuck ’em!

Trump administration loses it over ICEBlock app: “Sure looks like obstruction of justice!”

https://www.tag24.com/politics/politicians/donald-trump/trump-administration-loses-it-over-iceblock-app-3399542

Daily Beast: Trump Declares War on Los Angeles Following ICE Protests

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has sued the City of Los Angeles for discriminating against federal immigration officers.

President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit Monday against Los Angeles, its mayor Karen Bass, and the Los Angeles City Council for “illegal” sanctuary city policies that it says “deliberately impede federal immigration officers’ ability to carry out their responsibilities.”

Two reasons why the feds will lose this one:

    1. Masked Gestapo pigs are not a protected class under the discrimination laws.

    2. The Tenth Amendent does not permit the federal government to order the states to do the feds’ bidding.

    Trump Declares War on Los Angeles Following ICE Protests
    The lawsuit claimed that the city discriminated against federal immigration officers using sanctuary city policies.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-declares-war-on-los-angeles-following-ice-protests