Former FBI agent pardoned by Trump for Jan. 6 charges now serving at DOJ: Sources
Jared Wise was on trial when he was pardoned as part of President Donald Trump's sweeping series of pardons and commutations for nearly all of the more than 1,500 individuals charged in connection with the Capitol attack.
According to sources, Wise is now serving in the department as an investigator and counselor to Ed Martin, the former interim D.C. U.S. Attorney, whose permanent nomination to the post was rejected by Republican senators concerned over his past vocal advocacy for Jan. 6 rioters and other controversial actions he took in Trump's first four months in office.
MORE: Trump admin live updates: House takes up Senate's version of Trump's megabill
The New York Times first reported Wise's appointment at the DOJ.
Wise was charged in May 2023 and later indicted, with prosecutors pointing to videos showing him yelling "Kill 'em!" repeatedly as rioters attacked police outside of the Capitol building. He also allegedly entered the building for roughly nine minutes and then continued shouting at police.
'You guys are disgusting," Wise allegedly said in body camera footage recorded by law enforcement. "I'm former law enforcement. You're disgusting. You are the Nazi. You are the Gestapo. You can't see it. . . . Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!'
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment when asked about Wise's appointment. Martin also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
FBI relocating to Ronald Reagan Building in downtown Washington, D.C
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is relocating its headquarters to the The Ronald Reagan Building, closing the storied headquarters building it has occupied since 1975, the law enforcement agency said July 1. The agency is currently housed in the J. Edgar Hoover Building in downtown Washington D.C. 'This is a historic moment for the FBI,' FBI Director Kash Patel said in a joint announcement with the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)."Through our strong partnerships with members of Congress and GSA we are ushering FBI Headquarters into a new era and providing our agents of justice a safer place to work. Moving to the Ronald Reagan Building is the most cost effective and resource efficient way to carry out our mission." Back in May, Patel announced agency was moving its more than 1,500 personnel out of the downtown Washington D.C. building. The planned relocation from comes more than than two decades of looking for a new office and after federal officials cited an aging building, needed space to meet the agency's mission and workforce requirements. FBI's existing headquarters in the Hoover building "has accumulated years of deferred maintenance, suffering from an aging water system to concrete falling off the structure,' said GSA Acting Administrator Stephen Ehikian. 'I am proud of the GSA's commitment to working with Director Patel and his FBI team to find a building that best supports their mission and their people.' The plan headquarters the FBI inside a building once home to the U.S. Agency for International Development, the principal agency extending aid to countries recovering from disaster, which has since been dismantled by the Trump administration. The announcement did not provide a move date and USA TODAY has reached out to the FBI for comment. How many people work at Patel previously spoke about closing Hoover Building and transforming it into some type of a 'deep state' museum. In May, Patel said the FBI had about 11,000 of its 38,000 or so staff in the National Capital Region, a 50-mile radius around Washington, D.C. 'It's like a third of the workforce. A third of the crime doesn't happen here. So we're taking 1,500 of those folks and moving them out,' Patel said this spring. Where is the FBI headquarters? The FBI's headquarters is currently housed in the Hoover Building in Washington, D.C. at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. The Reagan Building complex, at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, is currently home to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other tenants. "The GSA will continue to support and work with CBP on space that allows them to fulfill their mission while the transition of the FBI to the Reagan Building commences," the FBI and GSA wrote in the announcement. 'A world-class location' GSA Public Buildings Service Commissioner Michael Peters said the move provides "a world-class location for the FBI's public servants, but it also saves Americans billions of dollars on new construction and avoids more than $300 million in deferred maintenance costs at the J. Edgar Hoover facility.' Contributing: USA TODAY's Josh Meyer Natalie Neysa Alund is a senior reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at nalund@ and follow her on X @nataliealund.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
10:35 AM ET: Sean 'Diddy' Combs guilty on prostitution charges, acquitted on others - CNN Breaking News Alerts - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
10:35 AM ET: Sean 'Diddy' Combs guilty on prostitution charges, acquitted on others CNN Breaking News Alerts 10:43 AM EDT It's a mixed verdict for Sean "Diddy" Combs. Listen for more details.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
News Of Haitian TPS, Travel Ban & Supreme Court Order Stun Immigrants
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA - FEBRUARY 07: Supporters of immigrants' rights protest against U.S. President ... More Donald Trump's immigration policies on February 07, 2025 in Homestead, Florida. President Trump has directed agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. (Photo by) News of three U.S. immigration-related developments recently surprised immigrants and immigration advocates. The cancellation of Haitian Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands, the revival of a broad travel ban targeting 19 countries (including eight Muslim-majority nations), and a quiet yet significant victory at the Supreme Court limiting the power of federal judges to block unconstitutional executive actions nationwide were momentous decisions with wide-ranging consequences for the United States. Each action raises serious legal and moral concerns. Collectively, they indicate a dangerous mix of policy overreach, discriminatory motives, and the weakening of judicial protections that could affect not only this government but future ones—Democratic or Republican. TPS Terminations: Focusing on the Most Vulnerable In late June, the Trump administration announced its plan to end TPS for about 430,000 Haitians, effective September 2, 2025. At first glance, the figure seems shocking—but it hides even a much harsher reality. Nearly half of these individuals, around 200,000, have already been deported through previous measures: Title 42 expulsions, humanitarian parole terminations, and strict border interceptions. TPS, a humanitarian provision embedded in U.S. immigration law, offers legal residence and work authorization for individuals fleeing natural disasters, conflict, or extraordinary conditions in their home countries. It is not a loophole. It is a lawful status granted and extended by successive administrations of both parties in recognition of humanitarian necessity. Revoking this protection on a large scale, especially when around 1.75 million immigrants from various countries currently in the United States could be affected by such actions, not only upsets lives and families but also breaches the trust in the rule of law. TPS holders are not undocumented immigrants. They entered legally or were granted lawful residence due to circumstances beyond their control. Their removal does not serve a mandate to deport 'illegal immigrants,' but instead shows a preference for politically convenient targets. In Trump's zeal to meet his goal of 'deporting 11 million immigrants who are in the country illegally,' he is deporting legal immigrants. Worse still, the administration seems to be skipping necessary legal procedures. Before TPS can be revoked, the Department of Homeland Security must properly review country conditions, consult with other federal agencies, issue a 60-day notice, and offer a wind-down period of 6–18 months. These protections are in place to prevent deportations from returning individuals to danger. The courts might still step in, as they did in Ramos v. Nielsen, when a lower court found that the Trump administration's previous TPS cancellations were discriminatory and biased. The administration's new attack on TPS might follow a similar path—litigation, injunctions, appeals. But for thousands of Haitians, the uncertainty is already traumatic. The Travel Ban Revisited: Familiar Faces, Persistent Bias Adding to the TPS decision is the Trump administration's reimposition of a travel ban, now expanded to include 19 countries, eight of which are majority-Muslim. Though presented as a national security measure, the origins and focus of the policy resemble the earlier 'Muslim Ban' that was partially struck down by courts and widely condemned as discriminatory. This recent iteration does little to ease those concerns. The list of affected countries remains unclear, the criteria are random, and the process lacks transparency or meaningful oversight by Congress. Entire families—spouses, children, students—are now denied entry, regardless of their personal history, reason for travel, or connections to the U.S. These bans do not improve national security. They alienate allies, harm economies, and increase xenophobia. Even more, they weaken the core Canadian promise: that people are judged by their deeds and character, not their nationality or religion. Supreme Court's Injunction Ruling: A Win for Executive Authority Perhaps the most far-reaching—and least noticed—development is the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Casa case, which significantly narrows the ability of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The case originated from Trump's executive order to limit birthright citizenship. The constitutional issue—whether the 14th Amendment protects the citizenship rights of all U.S.-born children—was avoided by the Court, which instead chose to focus on procedural matters. In doing so, the Court determined that federal judges can no longer routinely issue injunctions that block presidential actions nationwide. This decision, while cloaked in administrative reasoning, has explosive implications. Historically, nationwide injunctions have been one of the few effective tools to limit executive overreach. When a federal court uncovers credible evidence of constitutional violations—such as family separations, discriminatory bans, or revocation of legal status—it must be able to halt the action consistently. The alternative is chaos: legal rights that vary depending on the region, with one federal district upholding citizenship and another not. The criteria for these injunctions are strict: These are not impulsive decisions. They are rooted in law, precedent, and thorough judicial review. Removing courts' authority in this area creates a fragmented legal system, causes delays in justice, and exposes vulnerable groups to lasting harm while appellate review processes unfold slowly. While conservatives may celebrate the ruling as a victory over 'judicial activism,' they might soon regret it. Future Democratic governments could now implement sweeping directives—on guns, climate, or abortion access—without fearing immediate nationwide injunctions. Judicial restraint, once a safeguard against tyranny, has now been selectively weakened. Checks, Balances, and Consequences The Trump administration's recent immigration developments are not just isolated mistakes. They reflect a deliberate plan: to push the boundaries of executive power, sideline the courts, and change immigration law by decree rather than through legislation. In each of the three instances—TPS cancellation, the travel ban, and the limitation on nationwide injunctions—the pattern remains consistent. Lawful immigrants and minorities are targeted. Established legal procedures are ignored or weakened. And judicial oversight is reduced or compromised. The Constitution envisions a balance of powers — not an unchecked presidency. When courts can no longer act quickly to stop illegal or discriminatory acts, it is not only immigrants who suffer but also the integrity of the law itself. The cancellation of the Haitian PTS program, the introduction of a broad travel ban, and the Supreme Court's decision to limit nationwide injunctions issued by lower federal courts should concern all Americans—regardless of political affiliation. Today, it affects Haitian families and Muslim travellers who face the consequences. Tomorrow, it could be any group that falls out of political favour. The real question is not whether Trump's actions were lawful but whether they were right—and whether future leaders will feel unjustly constrained by them.
