Latest news with #PublicIntegritySection
Reuters
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
How Trump defanged the Justice Department's political corruption watchdogs
WASHINGTON - Created after the Watergate scandal, the U.S. Justice Department's Public Integrity Section has fought political corruption for nearly half a century. Five months into President Donald Trump's second term, it has been stripped of power. The unit has lost its authority to file new cases. Its staff has been reduced from more than 30 attorneys to five. And its once-powerful gatekeeping role – reviewing potential cases against members of Congress and other public officials to prevent politically motivated prosecutions – has been suspended. Those changes, confirmed by three people familiar with the department's operations, are part of an overhaul of the Justice Department by the Trump administration that is dismantling guardrails designed to stop political interference in criminal investigations involving politicians, federal judges and other public figures. Reuters reviewed the Public Integrity Section's cases and internal memos, and conducted more than 15 interviews, to document the decimation of an office with a mission to investigate and prosecute corruption allegations at all levels of government and supervise criminal probes into election crimes. Among the most significant changes is the suspension of a longstanding Justice Department requirement that federal prosecutors seek the Public Integrity Section's approval before bringing charges against members of Congress – and consult with the unit before launching criminal prosecutions in many other matters involving public officials. The suspension of that rule in early May hasn't been previously reported. It frees political appointees in the Justice Department to prosecute public officials without going through a review intended to prevent baseless or politically motivated prosecutions. It also halts the unit from supervising election fraud cases, including allegations of election disinformation. A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed changes to the rules are under review, but said no final decisions have been reached. The spokesperson added that Justice Department leaders believe the U.S. Attorney's offices around the country, which are 'closer to the facts and to the communities they serve, are better placed to determine whether to charge these crimes.' U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the president. The requirements to run public corruption cases through the Public Integrity Section give the unit 'far too much power,' the spokesperson said. The crippling of the Public Integrity Section, under a president who campaigned on a vow to exact retribution against his enemies, could make it easier to prosecute Trump's opponents and spare his allies, said constitutional law experts and former Justice Department officials. 'We are talking about the politicization of the justice system,' said Stuart Gerson, the head of the Justice Department's civil division under Republican President George H.W. Bush and an acting attorney general under Democratic President Bill Clinton. 'The rule of law is endangered.' The Justice Department defended the changes. 'This Department of Justice is committed to ending the weaponization of government and will continue to prosecute violent crime, enforce our nation's immigration laws, and make America safe again,' the spokesperson said. Trump has said the changes are necessary to root out Justice Department lawyers he derides as 'hacks and radicals' for prosecuting him and some of his supporters while he was out of power. In a March speech at the Justice Department, he argued that under former President Joe Biden, federal prosecutors undermined public trust and used law enforcement to 'thwart the will of the American people.' Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi has vowed to refocus the department on combatting violent crime and illegal immigration. Justice Department prosecutors who worked on federal investigations involving Trump in recent years repeatedly denied in court filings any political influence in those cases. The dismantling of the Public Integrity Section is part of a broader Justice Department shift away from pursuing corruption cases under a leadership dominated by a core group of Trump's former attorneys, led by Bondi. In February, the administration suspended investigations of U.S. companies for alleged corruption overseas. It also disbanded a Federal Bureau of Investigation task force that examined foreign interference in U.S. politics. In April, it directed prosecutors to step back from litigating fraud involving cryptocurrency – a freewheeling sector that has become a major money spinner for Trump's family. A White House spokesperson said the crypto policy shift 'has nothing to do with the president himself.' Reuters documented the departure of at least 28 staff from the integrity unit in the past five months, including 10 resignations. Eighteen others either transferred, left for temporary details or are awaiting approval for reassignments. Just five remain. Ultimately, staffing is expected to be cut to two or three attorneys, according to the three people familiar with the matter. Trump also has started to undo the Public Integrity Section's legacy by pardoning people convicted in cases brought by the unit's attorneys, giving clemency to political allies and others accused of defrauding the public. Since January, the White House has issued four such pardons involving cases brought by the unit. The defendants in at least five other convictions are seeking pardons, Reuters found. The White House has said the pardons are attempts to correct the wrongs of a politicized Biden Justice Department. A new Justice Department 'Weaponization Working Group' – led by conservative lawyer and activist Ed Martin – is scrutinizing past investigations into the president and his allies. Beyond the Justice Department, Trump and his administration have sought to weaken or eliminate other institutions meant to be insulated from political influence, including firing independent inspectors general, who audit federal agencies for fraud and waste. Those moves risk steering the U.S. toward a more autocratic style of government, some constitutional specialists warn. 'What is happening here is utterly unprecedented,' said Andrew Kent, who teaches constitutional law at Fordham University School of Law. 'These seem like very dangerous steps for a democracy.' The Public Integrity Section was set up after the 1970s Watergate scandal that forced President Richard Nixon to resign under threat of impeachment for covering up a burglary at a Democratic campaign office and interfering with Justice Department investigations. The new unit, meant to restore faith in government andhold public officials to account, became an elite post for career prosecutors. In the 1980s, the Public Integrity Section won the convictions of multiple congressmen in a famous sting operation codenamed 'Abscam' in which FBI agents posing as Arab sheikhs offered bribes in return for political favors. Today, the unit is responsible for 'some of the most sensitive, complex, and contentious public corruption cases' handled by the Justice Department, its website says. Its work spans the political spectrum, including recent corruption prosecutions of both Republican and Democratic members of Congress. The unit also consulted on the prosecutions of Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith over allegations that Trump mishandled classified documents and tried to overturn his 2020 election defeat, but it did not have a direct role in prosecuting the cases. Smith, who declined a request for comment, dropped both matters when Trump won a second term in office. The unit's Election Threats Task Force also investigated a wave of violent threats by Trump supporters against election workers that arose after Trump falsely claimed the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. More than a dozen cases were prosecuted. After Trump returned to power in January, the Public Integrity Section quickly came under pressure as two cases involving prominent politicians show. In the first weeks of the new administration, Public Integrity attorneys clashed with Martin after the staunch Trump supporter was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin, a lawyer for defendants in the 2021 Capitol riots, wanted to charge U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer with making a criminal threat five years ago. In 2020, the New York Democrat said in a speech that conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices would 'pay the price' for curtailing abortion rights. Schumer expressed regret the next day and said he had no intention of suggesting violence. In February, attorneys in Martin's office advised the Public Integrity Section, as required, that he wanted to subpoena Schumer, said the three people familiar with the department's operations. The unit opposed the plan, arguing in a memo to senior Justice Department officials that Schumer's remark was constitutionally protected political speech and there was no legal or factual basis to investigate him, they added. Martin appealed to the deputy attorney general's office, noting he had drafted an indictment and criticizing what he viewed as the Public Integrity Section's recalcitrance, the three sources said. Martin lost the argument and the case died. In an interview with Reuters, Martin downplayed the conflict with the Public Integrity Section and described the episode as 'a helpful process.' 'Schumer had not done something that could be chargeable,' he said. He declined to comment on whether he had drafted an indictment and tried to override the unit. The second case involving a prominent politician came three months later. By then, the Public Integrity Section was powerless. On May 9, U.S. Representative LaMonica McIver and two other Democratic members of Congress from New Jersey turned up at an immigration detention center for a congressional oversight visit, which is permitted under federal law. The Democratic mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, briefly joined them inside the facility's gated perimeter but was ordered to leave by federal agents. In a chaotic scrum outside the perimeter, as federal officers moved to arrest Baraka on trespassing charges, McIver's elbows appeared to make brief contact with an officer, according to the criminal complaint brought by the U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey against McIver and video of the incident. The complaint also accused McIver of shoving a second officer. No one was reported injured in the scuffle. On May 19, the acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Alina Habba, dropped the trespassing case against Baraka but charged McIver, a vocal Trump critic, with two counts of assaulting and impeding a law enforcement officer. Announcing the charges against McIver, Habba said: 'No one is above the law – politicians or otherwise.' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, a longtime Trump ally, issued a statement saying the decision to charge McIver followed 'a thorough review of the video footage.' The Justice Department's manual for investigations of elected officials sets a high standard for such cases. To prevent politically motivated charges against members of Congress, prosecutors must seek 'prior approval' from Public Integrity Section attorneys on 'any criminal charge,' the manual says. But Habba didn't consult with or seek approval from the Public Integrity Section before filing her case in federal court, said two of the people familiar with the department's operations. The Washington Post reported on May 17 that the department was considering whether to end the consultation requirement. But the suspension had been implemented for about a week by then, the people who spoke with Reuters said. Habba, a former personal lawyer to Trump, told Reuters that she 'coordinated closely with (Justice) Department leadership every step of the way.' She did not respond to a question about whether she sought approval from the Public Integrity Section for the McIver charges. Habba said Reuters' reporting about the case is incorrect but declined to offer specifics. McIver, who denies wrongdoing, told Reuters her prosecution reveals how changes at the Department of Justice are 'making abuse of power easier.' Her lawyer, Paul Fishman, called the charges 'spectacularly inappropriate' and said members of Congress have 'the right and responsibility' to assess conditions at immigration facilities. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for June 11. 'A normal Department of Justice would never have suggested, 'Hey, we have a case here,'' said Peter Zeidenberg, who spent seven years as a Public Integrity Section prosecutor. After reviewing video of the incident, he described the McIver indictment as 'transparently political' because the assault charges appear unsupported by facts. The Trump administration began reining in the Public Integrity Section well before the McIver case. On January 20, the day of Trump's inauguration, more than a dozen senior Justice Department attorneys – including Public Integrity Section chief Corey Amundson – were ordered to move to a new 'Sanctuary Cities Working Group.' It was tasked with gathering information on cities that resist Trump's mass deportation orders for migrants in the U.S. illegally. Amundson didn't move; he quit. A 23-year Justice Department veteran appointed during Trump's first term to run the Public Integrity Section, he was among the first in a series of resignations and reassignments that stripped the office of people, power and responsibilities. The hollowing out accelerated after former Trump personal attorney Emil Bove, then acting deputy attorney general, ordered Manhattan federal prosecutors in a February 10 memo to dismiss a corruption case against Eric Adams, the New York mayor. Bove did not respond to a request for comment. Adams had aligned himself more closely with Trump after being charged in September last year with taking bribes and illegal contributions. Adams denies the charges. Bove's memo said the case was the type of Biden-era politicized prosecution Trump wanted to quash and that the administration needed Adams' support for its immigration crackdown. That order prompted four Public Integrity Section attorneys to resign in a single day, including its acting chief, John Keller. A supervisor from the criminal division also left. A month later, on March 11, a senior manager relayed a message from Justice Department leaders that the Public Integrity Section faced further staff cuts and would no longer bring new prosecutions, said the three people familiar with the department's operations. 'The Titanic was sinking,' stunned colleagues joked among themselves. Today, the remaining staff are working through at least 10 ongoing cases, according to court filings. Former supervisors' offices are empty at the unit's Washington D.C. headquarters. Attorneys from at least one other section have started claiming open desks. 'It's like the village of the damned,' said one of the sources who is familiar with the current mood. With the Public Integrity Section marginalized, Trump is ramping up pardons of public figures convicted in cases brought by its attorneys, helping allies and supporters who have echoed his claims of being persecuted by the Justice Department under Biden. Of more than two dozen people who have received pardons or commutations since March, four have been in cases brought by the Public Integrity Section, a historically high number, including one who was indicted during Trump's first term. Among the four is a former Virginia sheriff convicted last year on federal bribery charges. Another is a Las Vegas Councilwoman convicted of fraud last October after paying for personal expenses, including rent, travel and her daughter's wedding, with money she raised to build statues for two slain police officers. Both were ardent Trump supporters who the president characterized as victims of biased Biden-era prosecutions. One recent pardon came after Justice Department leaders received a letter from the lawyers of Brian Kelsey, a former Republican state senator in Tennessee who reported to prison in late February. Kelsey was indicted in 2021 and pleaded guilty the following year to conspiracy to defraud the federal government for illegally funneling money to his failed 2016 congressional bid. The Public Integrity Section and the U.S. Attorney's office in Nashville prosecuted the case. The letter from Kelsey's lawyers, which is previously unreported, accused the prosecutors of misconduct, alleging they were 'anti-Republican,' among other claims, according to a person with direct knowledge of Kelsey's case. Two of the four prosecutors declined comment; two others did not respond to questions. On March 11, Trump pardoned Kelsey, 47, after he had served two weeks of his 21-month sentence. 'God used Donald Trump to save me from the weaponized Biden DOJ,' Kelsey wrote on X, referring to the Justice Department. Reuters could not determine if the letter contributed to Kelsey's pardon. Kelsey did not respond to questions about his case. In contrast, Reuters could identify only one defendant in a Public Integrity case pardoned during Biden's four-year term: former Kentucky Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Lundergan, 78, who was convicted in 2019 for illegal corporate donations to his daughter's 2014 Democratic campaign for a U.S. Senate seat. Lundergan was serving a 21-month sentence when he was freed on compassionate grounds due to old age and poor health, court records show. Citing that and his post-prison community service, Biden pardoned him on his last day in office, at least two years after he was released. But Biden faced withering criticism at the end of his term when he also pardoned his son, Hunter, who had pleaded guilty to tax violations and was convicted on firearms-related charges. Hunter was prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney who began his probe during Trump's first term and was appointed as a special counsel under Biden to continue the investigation. The Public Integrity Section was consulted on the probe, according to one of the people familiar with the department and an additional person with knowledge of the case. But the unit had no direct role in the prosecutions. Biden had promised not to pardon his son, but later justified the move, claiming Hunter was 'selectively and unfairly prosecuted.' Currently, defendants in at least five other public corruption cases handled by the Public Integrity unit are seeking pardons or dismissals, according to a review of public statements, court filings and interviews with one of the people familiar with the department's operations and two others close to the defendants. Those and other cases will be reviewed by Ed Martin, the lawyer who now leads the Weaponization Working Group. A longtime Republican activist in Missouri, Martin helped lead the 'Stop the Steal' movement to overturn the 2020 election for Trump. The Weaponization Working Group will review cases against Trump brought by local, state and federal prosecutors and tackle 'abuses of the criminal justice process,' Attorney General Bondi said in a Feb. 5 memo. Trump also appointed Martin pardon attorney, a traditionally nonpartisan job that reviews clemency applications. It does not issue pardons but makes recommendations to the White House. It's typically been occupied by a career Justice Department attorney – rather than a political appointee – to ensure pardons are conducted without favoritism. On May 22, Peter Ticktin, a Florida lawyer and longtime Trump ally, delivered a pardon application to Martin for Jonathan Woods, a former Republican state senator in Arkansas convicted of a bribery and kickback scheme in 2018, during Trump's first term. He is serving an 18-year prison sentence in a case that was prosecuted by the Public Integrity Section. In his appeal for a pardon, Woods said he was targeted because he is an 'outspoken conservative' with 'Christian values,' Ticktin told Reuters, reading from the application. Asked why the Woods case began under Trump, Ticktin argued that Trump 'didn't have control over everything' in his first term. He added that Jack Smith, who headed the Public Integrity Section from 2010 to 2015, had compromised the unit through overzealous prosecutions. As the transformation of the Public Integrity Section hobbles its ability to pursue future cases, and the wave of pardons undoes past convictions, some former Justice Department staff are bracing for a loss of law-enforcement independence. 'The true weaponization is beginning now,' said Randall Eliason, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in Washington D.C. specializing in corruption under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Raskin launches probe of McIver charges in ICE facility scuffle
Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is launching an investigation into the charges filed against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and the mayor of Newark, N.J., saying the moves appears to violate Justice Department policy. McIver was charged last month after a scuffle with Department of Homeland Security officers outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility after they began to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D). Alina Habba, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey and former personal attorney to President Trump, charged McIver with assaulting law enforcement, saying she used her forearms to push back against agents. Habba's office has already moved to dismiss the trespassing charges initially filed against Baraka, earning a reprimand from the judge in the case who cited an 'apparent rush in this case, culminating … in the embarrassing retraction of charges.' 'Ms. Habba's unprecedented charging decision is a blatant attempt to intimidate Members of Congress and to deter us from carrying out our constitutional oversight duties. It appears Ms. Habba brought these charges in violation of long-standing Department of Justice (DOJ) policies designed to prevent exactly this type of politically motivated abuse of prosecutorial power,' Raskin wrote. Raskin fired off a series of questions about the charges brought against both McIver and Baraka. That includes whether there was any contact with the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ. 'DOJ prosecutors must consult with the Public Integrity Section before initiating an investigation of Members of Congress and must seek the Section's approval before bringing charges. 21 Reports suggest, however, that Ms. Habba did not,' Raskin wrote. 'The consultation requirement is designed to guard against a rampant Executive Branch weaponizing the vast apparatus of federal law enforcement against the President's perceived enemies, or even the perception that a DOJ investigation or prosecution was motivated by improper political purpose. The Justice Manual is clear that approval from the Public Integrity Section is required before charging a Member of Congress with a crime based on actions taken in their official capacity.' The Justice Department said it is considering removing the requirement that prosecutors first consult with the Public Integrity Section. Raskin asks the DOJ whom Habba consulted before bringing charges, if she coordinated with Trump or any White House staff, and to turn over all communications regarding the charges. For her part, McIver has denied any wrongdoing and noted she rejected a plea deal from Habba, saying it pushed her to 'admit to doing something that I did not do.' 'I came there to do my job and conduct an oversight visit, and they wanted me to say something differently, and I'm not doing that. I'm not going to roll over and stop doing my job because they don't want me to, or they want to neglect the fact that we needed to be in there to see what was going on and that detention center, and so, absolutely, no, I was not going to do that,' McIver said last month during an appearance on CNN. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
03-06-2025
- General
- The Hill
Raskin launches probe of McIver charges in ICE facility scuffle
Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is launching an investigation into the charges filed against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and the mayor of Newark, N.J., saying the move appears to violate Justice Department policy. McIver was charged last month after a scuffle with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility after they began to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D). Alina Habba, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey and former personal attorney to President Trump, charged McIver with assaulting law enforcement, saying she used her forearms to push back against agents. Habba's office has already moved to dismiss the trespassing charges initially filed against Baraka, earning a reprimand from the judge in the case who cited an 'apparent rush in this case, culminating…in the embarrassing retraction of charges.' 'Ms. Habba's unprecedented charging decision is a blatant attempt to intimidate Members of Congress and to deter us from carrying out our constitutional oversight duties. It appears Ms. Habba brought these charges in violation of long-standing Department of Justice (DOJ) policies designed to prevent exactly this type of politically motivated abuse of prosecutorial power,' Raskin wrote. Raskin fired off a series of questions about the charges brought against both McIver and Baraka. That includes whether there was any contact with the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department. 'DOJ prosecutors must consult with the Public Integrity Section before initiating an investigation of Members of Congress and must seek the Section's approval before bringing charges. 21 Reports suggest, however, that Ms. Habba did not,' Raskin wrote. 'The consultation requirement is designed to guard against a rampant Executive Branch weaponizing the vast apparatus of federal law enforcement against the President's perceived enemies, or even the perception that a DOJ investigation or prosecution was motivated by improper political purpose. The Justice Manual is clear that approval from the Public Integrity Section is required before charging a Member of Congress with a crime based on actions taken in their official capacity.' The Justice Department said it is considering removing the requirement that prosecutors first consult with the Public Integrity Section. Raskin asks the DOJ whom Habba consulted before bringing charges, if she coordinated with Trump or any White House staff, and to turn over all communications regarding the charges. For her part, McIver has denied any wrongdoing and noted she rejected a plea deal from Habba, saying it pushed her to 'admit to doing something that I did not do.' 'I came there to do my job and conduct an oversight visit, and they wanted me to say something differently, and I'm not doing that. I'm not going to roll over and stop doing my job because they don't want me to, or they want to neglect the fact that we needed to be in there to see what was going on and that detention center, and so, absolutely, no, I was not going to do that,' McIver said during an appearance last month on CNN.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The chilling problem with the decision to charge New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver
Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., a sitting member of Congress, was released on her own recognizance following a Wednesday hearing. She faces federal charges in connection with the assault of federal law enforcement officers outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. That she was arrested on these charges is rare, and perhaps without a historical analog. In the few instances in which the federal government has pursued charges against a current member of Congress, it is typically for a crime related to political corruption. There's little question, per video footage from the May 9 incident, that McIver was in the middle of a scrum of people seeking to stop the arrest of Newark's mayor, Ras J. Baraka, and enter the ICE facility. As a sitting member of Congress, McIver has the legal right to enter the facility, although she — of course — does not have the right to assault federal officers on the way in. But what people should know is that something is amiss with the decision to charge McIver. Before bringing charges against a sitting member of Congress, current, but paused, Department of Justice rules dictate that federal prosecutors confer with the Public Integrity Section. In addition, that section is supposed to sign off before charges are filled. But apparently none of that happened. Published reports indicate that members of the administration told the Public Integrity Section to halt its consultations with other federal prosecutors while they review DOJ rules. Here, we see members of the executive branch pausing the typical procedures meant to protect sitting members of the legislative branch. Part of what the Public Integrity Section does is ensure that if charges are brought against sitting members of Congress, they are brought for legal reasons, not political ones. Members of Congress serve as an important check against the executive; they should not be chilled into eschewing their oversight authority. Quite the opposite, members of the legislative branch must feel confident that they can carry out their functions as the leaders of a co-equal branch, and that political appointees will not weaponize the DOJ against them when they do. This is exactly what the Public Integrity Section was designed to guard against. Perhaps, if the Public Integrity Section were consulted, they would have pointed to a potential constitutional hurdle related to this prosecution. The 'speech or debate' clause in the Constitution is designed to support the independence of the legislative branch by giving members of Congress immunity from criminal or civil suit for actions taken while engaged in legislative activities, including oversight activities. The DOJ will almost certainly argue that McIver's behavior transgressed the bounds of legitimate legislative activities. The apparently paused DOJ rule which dictates that the Public Integrity Section be consulted prior to filing the type of charges filed against McIver, and the 'speech or debate' clause, both act as a bulwark against the prosecution of members of the Legislature for doing their jobs. The thing we should worry about is that the specter of being on the receiving end of a federal criminal complaint will chill the legitimate activities of the members of our legislative branch. We don't want a government designed to stand on three legs to end up teetering on two. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
DOJ may waive key review for elected officials' prosecutions
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is considering allowing prosecutors to bypass consultation with the Public Integrity Section as they pursue charges against elected officials. In doing so, the Trump administration would cut a key review from a team of prosecutors who specialize in bringing cases against public officials — a team also assembled to help ensure charges aren't brought for political reasons. The potential shift, however, comes at a time when Trump administration members have floated cases against several officials. A Justice Department official confirmed the move, saying it would be a shift from 'centralizing all authority' in the Public Integrity Section. 'Justice Manual provisions for several sections are under review. No final decisions have been made. The point of the review is to ensure that equal responsibility is held in the field,' they said. The Washington Post first reported the development. The potential change would leave U.S. attorneys across the country free to pursue cases against elected officials — and some Trump nominees have already threatened to do so. Ed Martin, who until last week served as the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, ignited an inquiry into Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for comments he made five years prior about Supreme Court justices. Martin similarly sent a letter to Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) after the lawmaker made comments about pushing back against Elon Musk. After key GOP opposition to his nomination to lead the office tanked his confirmation process, Martin has since been tapped to lead the department's Weaponization Working Group. And in New Jersey, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) was arrested and later charged with trespassing after a clash with immigration officials as lawmakers gathered to tour a new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. Trump officials have warned there could be charges for the three New Jersey Democrats present that day: Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Rob Menendez and LaMonica McIver. The three lawmakers said they did nothing wrong as they showed up for a tour, blaming ICE officials for escalating the situation. The Public Integrity Section has brought a number of cases against officials, though several have not scored conviction. The team recently helped bring charges against former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D). The case against Adams was later dismissed under the Trump administration, prompting a wave of resignations from the Public Integrity Section. Federal prosecutors have also lost high-profile cases against elected officials, like those into former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), with the conviction in the latter case overturned by the Supreme Court. Updated at 11:03 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
