DoJ leader suggested defying courts over deportations, whistleblower says
Emil Bove, the Department of Justice's principal associate deputy attorney general, who Donald Trump nominated for the US court of appeals for the third circuit, reportedly said the department 'would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you'' when it came to orders blocking the deportation of undocumented people.
Former attorney at the justice department, Erez Reuveni, claimed Bove said the agency should violate court orders. In a whistleblower letter to members of Congress first obtained by the New York Times, Reuveni painted the scene of a lawless justice department willingly to defy the courts and fire the people who stood in their way.
Related: 'Clouded in mystery': how Ice became a rogue agency that does Trump's bidding
'Mr. Reuveni was stunned by Bove's statement because, to Mr. Reuveni's knowledge, no one in DOJ leadership - in any Administration – had ever suggested the Department of Justice could blatantly ignore court orders, especially with a 'fuck you,'' says the letter, written by his lawyers at the Government Accountability Project.
The comments came in the context of Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport people on removal flights in mid-March, the letter contends, after Bove 'stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what'.
At the time of Bove's alleged comments, Reuveni, who was in the meeting, said he was in disbelief. But in the three weeks that followed, his disbelief became 'a relic of a different time' as the department undermined the courts and rule of law. In three separate cases Reuveni was involved in, he found 'internal efforts of DOJ and White House leadership to defy (court orders) through lack of candor, deliberate delay and disinformation'.
Reuveni was a career attorney who had served across multiple administrations for 15 years in the department, including the first Trump administration.
Reuveni says he directly witnessed and reported to his superiors a host of misconduct, including 'DOJ officials undermining the rule of law by ignoring court orders; DOJ officials presenting 'legal' arguments with no basis in law; high-ranking DOJ and DHS officials misrepresenting facts presented before courts; and DOJ officials directing Mr. Reuveni to misrepresent facts in one of these cases in violation of Mr.Reuveni's legal and ethical duties as an officer of the court'.
Reuveni had notified the court in the case of Kilmar Ábrego García, the Maryland man erroneously deported to El Salvador who has since returned to the US, that Ábrego García's deportation had been a 'mistake'. He said he refused his superiors' directive to file a brief to the court that would have misrepresented the facts of the case. He was subsequently put on administrative leave and then terminated on 11 April. Trump administration officials have said Reuveni didn't 'vigorously' or 'zealously' defend his client, the United States.
'Discouraging clients from engaging in illegal conduct is an important part of the role of lawyer,' the whistleblower letter says. 'Mr. Reuveni tried to do so and was thwarted, threatened, fired, and publicly disparaged for both doing his job and telling the truth to the court.'
Bove is set for a confirmation hearing on his judicial nomination before the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, where the whistleblower's claims are sure to enter into questioning.
The White House and justice department have denied Reuveni's claims, according to the New York Times. Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general and Bove's boss, called Reuveni's accounts 'falsehoods purportedly made by a disgruntled former employee and then leaked to the press in violation of ethical obligations' and questioned the timing of its release ahead of Bove's confirmation hearing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Can Thomas Massie survive Trump's swamp machine?
The knives are out for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Trump's $500 million political machine has Kentucky's 4th District in its crosshairs, and the establishment media is already writing the congressman's obituary. But they're missing the real story here. This isn't about one maverick politician bucking the system. This is about the soul of the Republican Party, and whether it still has one. Massie stands alone. While his colleagues genuflect before Trump's Truth Social tantrums, Massie asks the hard questions. When the president bypasses Congress to strike Iran, Massie calls it unconstitutional. When Trump demands Republicans rubber-stamp another bloated spending bill, Massie votes no. When the party leadership demands lockstep loyalty, Massie chooses principle. For this, he's branded a 'grandstander' and 'Little Boy' by a man who turned the presidency into performance art. What makes Massie unique in the age of MAGA isn't just that he dissents; it's that he can't be bought. While most Republicans perform ritual acts of submission to stay in Trump's favor, Massie reads the Constitution. In Washington, that's practically a revolutionary act. Massie represents what MAGA was supposed to be before it got hijacked: a rebellion against the permanent ruling class, not a rebranding of it. While Trump's movement descended into ego worship and grievance theater, Massie stayed where it began — principled, skeptical and unwilling to bow to power, no matter who holds it. The movement that promised to drain Washington ended up building a new palace. It said 'America First,' but delivered 'Trump First.' Through all this, Massie stayed exactly where he was: demanding spending cuts, opposing executive overreach and defending the Constitution even when his own party tried to bulldoze it. Every MAGA promise has been shattered by its loudest apostles. Fiscal restraint? Trump exploded the deficit. Constitutional order? He ruled by tweet and tantrum. Endless wars? He launched unauthorized strikes. Dismantling the swamp? He just gave it a new uniform. Massie didn't move. He voted against every bloated stimulus package. He fought against illegal wars — not just when Democrats launched them, but when Trump did it, too. He defended congressional authority when his own party told him to shut up and fall in line. That's not rebellion for show — it is actual courage. Of course, the MAGA faithful will call him a traitor. That's the tell. They don't oppose the establishment; they have just built a new one. And Massie, by refusing to play along, exposes the absurdity of their game. Trump's pollsters wave around numbers like talismans. They predict a pro-Trump challenger will sweep the district. But Massie knows his district. He has fought off three primary challenges since 2012. His voters value independence over obedience, and he gives them that, in spades. The Republican Party faces a choice. It can become Trump's private army, where one stray thought earns you a superPAC hit-job, or it can remember what it once stood for: Small government, constitutional order and leaders who know the limits of power. Massie is the road not taken. He endorsed the 2024 presidential bid of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis when Trump was in the basement. He voted against war fever when it was politically convenient to stay silent. His offense isn't ideological drift; it's consistency. And in a party now built on sycophancy, many view that as unforgivable. The irony is delicious. Trump, the man who ran against the swamp, now uses the swamp's playbook, word for word. Endless money, poll-tested puppets and political punishment for disobedience. The populist hero has become everything he claimed to hate. Massie's libertarian, constitutional streak isn't a glitch. In a party now driven by clicks and blind devotion, he's the outlier who still believes in self-government. When Trump calls for bombing another country on a whim, Massie's the one reminding us we're a republic, not a monarchy. This is what real anti-establishment politics looks like: not all-caps rage posts, not loyalty parades, but stubborn, often unpopular principle. Trump built a machine to generate outrage. Massie just shows up and votes the way he always has. If Massie falls, the Republican Party won't just lose a congressional seat; it will forfeit the last trace of the ideals it once pretended to believe in. Who will vote against the next trillion-dollar spending spree? Who will stand up to the next foreign war fever dream? Who will remind the executive branch — Republican or Democrat — that it is not above the law? Trump may have the war chest, but Massie has something far more dangerous to the machine: credibility and conviction. While others orbit Trump's moods, Massie orbits the founding documents. While others contort themselves to fit the day's narrative, he hasn't bent once in over a decade. This isn't just a primary. It's a referendum on whether the Republican Party still has room for Republicans. Not sycophants. Not performers. But actual public servants, men and women who care more about liberty than likes, more about separation of powers than social media relevance, more about the country than any cult of personality. Thomas Massie is the last Republican who remembers what the job is actually for. If he falls, what's left isn't a party. It'll be an echo chamber dressed up as a political movement. John Mac Ghlionn is a writer and researcher who explores culture, society and the impact of technology on daily life. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's tax and spending cuts bill clears key test vote in Senate as Republicans race to get measure to president's desk
WASHINGTON (AP) — Trump's tax and spending cuts bill clears key test vote in Senate as Republicans race to get measure to president's desk.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump doesn't have to grab power; Republicans are giving it to him
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. Republican majorities in the Congress and conservatives on the Supreme Court are ceding power instead of protecting it, giving President Donald Trump more and more control over what the Constitution separated in three. But Republican lawmakers cheered when Trump launched an air offensive against Iran rather than balking that many were kept out of the loop. House Speaker Mike Johnson didn't seem to mind reports that the White House would be limiting its information-sharing with lawmakers. His response suggested concern about leaks than about guarding lawmakers' duty to oversee the executive. Regulating international trade is something the Constitution puts on lawmakers' plates. A series of laws over the past hundred years slowly gave power over tariffs to the president, but Trump has taken that authority and weaponized it to make demands of other countries, as he did Friday when he cut off trade talks with Canada, the latest twist in a trade war he engineered and is scripting like a reality show. Conservative justices limited the ability of district court justices to issue nationwide injunctions against executive policies. 'This really brings back the Constitution,' President Donald Trump said without a whiff of irony at the White House on Friday. The decision also literally lets him ignore the plain language of the 14th Amendment, at least for now. 'This is a fundamental shift in the balance between the powers of the presidency and the powers of the courts,' said Elie Honig, CNN's senior legal analyst. 'This ruling that we just got impacts everything about the way that the presidency exercises power.' Justice Amy Coney Barrett said there is no precedent in US law for nationwide injunctions. She harked back to English law and the 'judicial prerogative of the King' in a very technical and history-based decision that, she said intentionally 'does not address' the issue of birthright citizenship in either the 14th Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act. 'This is as clear as the Constitution gets about questions,' said Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional law professor at Princeton, appearing on CNN Friday. But the case won't get to the court this year. The short-term result of the decision could well be that at least some babies born in the US may not have US citizenship, despite the very clear language in the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court told lower courts to take another look at the cases and reassess their injunctions. The court also seemed to invite class action lawsuits against Trump's executive order. Nationwide injunctions from district court judges have bedeviled presidents of both parties, but Trump's brash view of his power has made for a record number of actions by lower courts. Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi framed the decision as a reclaiming of power from lower court judges in liberal districts. 'They turned district courts into the imperial judiciary,' she said. But the liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that this is the type of slippery slope that puts the entire US system of government at risk. 'I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' she wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more.' Conservative justices last year bought into Trump's argument that presidents should be afforded a kind of super immunity from prosecution for nearly any action they take while in office. Chief Justice John Roberts said the court 'cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.' Rather, it had something larger in mind. 'Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case,' he wrote. That decision all but ended Trump's prosecution during the Biden administration for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He subsequently won the 2024 presidential election. If granting Trump immunity was meant to preserve separation of powers, it was a whiff, since, as CNN's Joan Biskupic has written, Trump is using that decision almost as a blank check. He 'boasts of his ability to define the law,' she wrote. 'That was meant for the babies of slaves; it wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation,' Trump said of the 14th Amendment at the White House on Friday. The 14th Amendment was actually enacted after the Civil War as an answer to the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision of 1857, an ugly blot on the court's history that declared Black people ineligible for citizenship. By not addressing the issue, the court at least seems open to allowing Trump to change the amendment's meaning, for now, without going through the process of changing the Constitution or passing legislation through Congress — which is a hard thing to square with Roberts' idea of separation of powers principles. In part because Trump does things like issue executive orders that plainly seem to violate a constitutional amendment and intentionally sets up court clashes over laws like the Impoundment Act, which are designed to limit presidents' ability to ignore Congress, his actions have led to a record number of nationwide injunctions. Now, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, he will try to move forward with a laundry list of stalled agenda items he read off at the White House Friday: 'Including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people,' he said. If the Supreme Court gives him power, he'll use it.
