Attorney General’s Statements Raise Concern Over Independence from Trump
U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche reignited fears last week during a media interview that he would become the enforcer for the president's political policies.
He said President Donald Trump’s views would be considered in deciding whether the Justice Department prosecutes someone.
Blanche told NBC’s Kristen Welker on Meet the Press that he would not promise that the Justice Department would always operate independently from the president.
“No, I’m not going to pledge that,” Blanche said. “And no attorney general should ever pledge that.”
Blanche, a former personal criminal defense lawyer for Trump, argued that the president has a legitimate role in setting law enforcement priorities.
He mentioned Trump’s demand that the Justice Department pursue violent criminals, saying a pledge of independence could imply that the attorney general would reject such presidential directives.
Blanche said he would “prosecute without fear or any sort of favor” while acting with integrity.
Blanche’s duty to make prosecutorial decisions based on evidence of a crime rather than directives from the president was a significant issue during his Senate confirmation hearing. Some senators expressed concern his close relationship with Trump might result in prosecutions of the president’s personal and professional adversaries.
Blanche represented Trump in criminal cases involving allegations of 2020 election interference, mishandling classified documents and hush-money payments before becoming his deputy attorney general and then attorney general. The Senate confirmed him Aug. 8 by a 50-49 vote.
Justice Department rules seek to distinguish between White House coordination on policy and improper political influence. The rules allow communication with a presidential administration but limit contacts on specific investigations and prosecutions.
Allowing political policy to override decisions on whether evidence indicated criminal behavior is called selective prosecution, a violation of constitutional rights to equal protection under the law.
Blanche said Trump has never asked him to cross an ethical boundary as attorney general.
“He never has. He never will,” Blanche said.
Days earlier, Blanche told Justice Department employees that he would uphold the rule of law and lead the department “without fear or favor.”
Skeptics of Blanche’s objectivity include former Justice Department attorneys. More than a quarter of the department’s attorneys and career officials resigned or were ousted under his leadership as acting attorney general.
His critics also used attempted prosecutions of prominent federal officials as the basis for allegations of political influence.
They have included former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, former CIA Director John Brennan and former national security advisor John Bolton.
Blanche also discussed the $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” that Trump wanted to use to compensate his supporters who were prosecuted before his second presidential term. Most of them were rioters during the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
He said during the Meet the Press interview that “there is no fund.” He added, “I’ve repeatedly said it’s dead.”
He declined to rule out some compensation for the Jan. 6 defendants, saying they could still make a claim against the government on their own.
The Justice Department charged more than 1,50 people with crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol before Trump’s second term. Trump issued sweeping clemency for nearly all of them. A few others were granted reduced prison sentences.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Judge Blocks Plan to Keep FBI Headquarters in Downtown Washington
A federal judge last week blocked the FBI from moving its headquarters to the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C.
The ruling said the Trump administration unlawfully abandoned a written directive from Congress to relocate the agency to Greenbelt, Maryland.
“Notably, the text provides no conditions under which the selection could be unilaterally rescinded or switched to a nonconforming site,” U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang wrote in his 47-page ruling.
The judge said the General Services Administration should have been left with no option but to select the headquarters site from locations that were identified through procedures set by the federal Administrative Procedure Act.
All three of the initial candidate sites were located in Washington’s suburbs. The GSA selected Greenbelt in 2023.
The ruling also barred the Trump administration from diverting about $555 million in congressional funding intended for the Greenbelt project to the Washington site.
The ruling was based on a lawsuit by Maryland and Prince George’s County, which argued that the Trump administration violated a congressional mandate.
Chuang wrote in granting Maryland an injunction, “Plaintiffs have shown that the Reagan Building Selection Decision and the FBI Reprogramming Decision will cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm by depriving them of the long-term economic benefits associated with the consolidated FBI headquarters project if constructed at the Greenbelt site.”
FBI officials criticized the decision as political interference while implying an appeal is likely.
“This is not the first time courts have tried to undermine the administration in its goal to make government more cost-effective for American taxpayers,” an FBI statement said. “This FBI is mission focused and will continue the best course of action to meet the needs of law enforcement.”
The Ronald Reagan Building is a short walk from the current FBI headquarters in downtown Washington. It is home to U.S. Customs and Border Protection as well as international trade organizations, nonprofits and embassy consulates.
It was the headquarters to the U.S. Agency for International Development until President Donald Trump largely closed down the agency last year. The space vacated by USAID is designated for the FBI, unless the court order Tuesday halts the move.
Trump administration officials cited the convenience and low cost of a short move, as well as the importance of keeping the headquarters in the nation’s capital, as reasons for choosing the Ronald Reagan Building.
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore had a different opinion, saying in a statement the planned move to the Ronald Reagan Building was an attempt “to take from Maryland what Maryland had already won.”
He added, “Now it is time to stop the games and get to work building the world class FBI headquarters that our public servants deserve, where it belongs: in Prince George’s County, Maryland.”
The current FBI headquarters in the J. Edgar Hoover Building opened in 1974. It was designed in a brutalist style built largely of cement.
More recently, chunks of cement have fallen off the building, the plumbing has sometimes leaked and the wiring does not support modern telecommunications well. FBI officials say it also is too small for their growing responsibilities and staff.
The dispute over the FBI headquarters is part of a larger struggle between Trump and federal courts on how to remake Washington.
Historic preservationists and some members of Congress have sued to stop the addition of a ballroom to the White House, renovation of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, resurfacing of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and plans for a triumphal arch near the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery.
In each case, Trump has argued his role as leader of the executive branch of government granted him the authority he needs. Opponents say he is exceeding his authority unless he first gets permission from Congress.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
FBI Crime Data Show Sharp Drop
Violent crime in the United States fell sharply in 2025, with the murder rate dropping 18.1 percent and overall violent crime declining 9.3 percent, according to recent FBI statistics.
The figures were embraced by President Donald Trump as evidence that his law and order policies are working.
“In 2025 we achieved the single largest reduction in violent crime in American history,” Trump said during a speech this month in suburban New York City.
The FBI claimed the murder rate was down to its lowest level in 125 years with about 4.1 killings per 100,000 people.
“Together we’re showing what is possible when you have a president in the White House who lets you do your jobs,” Trump told Nassau County police who sat in the audience behind him.
Some of Trump’s critics questioned whether his administration could claim all the credit for lower crime statistics. They say the rate was declining even before his second presidential administration started last year.
The Council on Criminal Justice said in a statement that there is “no single or easy explanation” for the historic crime reductions. Other possibilities are changes in criminal justice practices and technology, the advocacy organization said.
The FBI's data show declines across all four major categories of violent crime.
In addition to murder and non-negligent manslaughter falling 18.1 percent, robbery dropped 18.5 percent, rape declined 7.6 percent and aggravated assault fell 7.2 percent. Property crime also declined substantially, by 12.4 percent.
Burglary is down 15.8 percent and motor vehicle theft fell by 22.7 percent, according to the FBI figures.
The FBI released preliminary figures in May showing the same trend, but Friday's release provided more complete details.
Trump has used Washington, D.C., as a showcase for his war on crime. It included sending 4,600 National Guard troops to patrol crime-prone areas and federal sites in an attempt to free police for investigations.
“In D.C., crime is down 81 percent,” Trump said.
The troops and federal anti-crime effort created complaints from local officials about interference with their authority. Trump said the statistics show he was right in a crackdown that he said included arresting about 5,000 criminals in the Washington area.
“One of the most dangerous cities in the world, we’ve taken it to one of the safest cities in the country,” he said.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Project Veritas Wins Appeal After Secret Agent Infiltrates Democracy Partners
A lawsuit in Washington, D.C., between two advocacy organizations came out in favor last week of a conservative group that infiltrated a political rival and published results of its undercover operation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned a $120,000 jury verdict against Project Veritas and two of its journalists in a lawsuit brought by Democracy Partners.
The court said the $120,000 damages award violated the First Amendment.
Democracy Partners is a Washington-based political consulting and advocacy firm that provides communications, organizing and campaign services to Democratic and liberal organizations.
It was infiltrated by an agent of Project Veritas, a conservative activist organization that conducts undercover investigations, often using hidden cameras and deceptive identities, to expose what it characterizes as misconduct by political, media and other groups.
In Democracy Partners’ case, Project Veritas reporter Allison Maass used a false identity and resume to obtain an unpaid internship at Democracy Partners' Washington office. She was investigating what Project Veritas described as voter fraud.
Maass worked there for eight days while secretly recording conversations and meetings with a camera concealed on her clothing. Some of the conversations involved the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
Project Veritas subsequently published a three-part video series called "Rigging the Election."
Democracy Partners sued Project Veritas in federal court, alleging that Maass' deception constituted fraudulent misrepresentation and that her secret recordings violated federal and D.C. wiretapping laws.
The unanimous judgment of the Circuit Court, written by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, said the jury's damages award was improper because the Project Veritas report was speech protected by the First Amendment.
Maass’ deception was not the main issue, the appellate court ruling said.
The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 1982 decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., which held that when constitutionally protected activity is mixed with unlawful conduct, courts must carefully distinguish between unlawful conduct and protected expression.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
D.C. Police Employees Charged in $441,000 Overtime Fraud Scheme
Six current and former Washington Metropolitan Police Department employees are facing fraud and theft charges after prosecutors accused them of collecting $441,137 in overtime pay they did not earn during 2024.
Prosecutors allege the six falsified overtime records and forged supervisory approvals.
The biggest claim is against Sgt. Frantz Fulcher, who received $174,915 in overtime pay prosecutors say was fraudulent. Six of the defendants were police officers, one was a civilian employee.
The charges followed an investigation launched by MPD’s Internal Affairs Division after investigators noticed unusually high volumes of claimed overtime. They also spotted discrepancies between employees’ reported hours and independent information on time they actually worked.
The information was taken from body-worn-camera footage, radio and GPS data and travel records.
In some cases, they allegedly used their administrative positions to process or approve fraudulent claims. Some of the allegedly false overtime was submitted when the employees were on annual leave or traveling outside Washington, prosecutors said.
“These six officers abused their positions of power, exploiting the District and the residents they took an oath to serve and protect,” D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb said in a statement. “No one is above the law, especially those trusted with enforcing it.”
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro joined in the criticism, saying her office would hold the accused employees accountable.
The case comes amid broader scrutiny of overtime spending by the District’s public safety agencies. A recent D.C. auditor’s report found that the city spent nearly $220 million on overtime last fiscal year among the police department, fire and emergency medical services, the 911 call center and the Department of Corrections.
MPD alone accounted for about $134 million, with overtime representing roughly one-third of all hours worked by police personnel during fiscal 2025.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.