US Justice Department 'weaponization' reviews spark calls to drop prosecutions

FILE PHOTO: United States Department of Justice logo and U.S. flag are seen in this illustration taken April 23, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
WASHINGTON - As the federal public corruption prosecution of former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada neared trial this spring, his lawyers made one last effort to kill the case, by petitioning senior Justice Department officials that it was "weaponization," according to three people familiar with the matter.
Under President Donald Trump, the department in February created a "Weaponization Working Group" meant to identify improper politically motivated cases, a response to what the Republican says without evidence was the misuse of prosecutorial resources against him under his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden.
In court filings, prosecutors said that Casada's lawyers met with a senior Justice Department official on March 24, where they alleged the "Deep State" had initiated a "weaponized" prosecution and they sought dismissal of the charges.
The plan almost worked, according to three people familiar with the matter.
With the Deputy Attorney General's office poised to kill the case, prosecutors in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section pushed back, reviewing their evidence with the higher-ups, the sources said, adding that the Nashville U.S. Attorney's office and the Criminal Division also supported the case.
The request was rejected the next week, according to court filings. Both Casada and the DOJ declined to comment.
The case is among at least seven Reuters identified where defense attorneys or Justice Department officials have sought to have prosecutions reviewed for possible dismissal, citing Trump's "weaponization" argument or making other arguments about weaknesses in the cases.
In a Tuesday speech, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Galeotti urged defense attorneys to be "conscientious about what, when and how" they appeal prosecutors' decisions.
"Seeking premature relief, mischaracterizing prosecutorial conduct, or otherwise failing to be an honest broker actively undermines our system," Galeotti said.
The increase in lobbying started not long after the Weaponization Working Group was created, and after the department's February decision to dismiss criminal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, six sources familiar with the dynamic told Reuters.
To date, the Adams case is the only one to be dismissed over 'weaponization,' three of those sources told Reuters.
The lobbying wave comes as the Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, reduced the size of its foreign bribery unit and advised department attorneys that tax enforcement is "not a priority," two of the people familiar with the matter said.
A department spokesman said the DOJ will "continue to enforce our nation's tax laws."
Trump has said the changes are necessary to root out Justice Department lawyers he derides as 'hacks and radicals' for prosecuting him and some supporters while he was out of power.
NEW GROUP HAS BROAD REMIT
The working group is empowered to review any 'civil or criminal enforcement authority of the United States' exercised under Biden.
A lawyer for Robert Burke, a former Navy admiral who was convicted in May on bribery charges, wrote to the department ahead of trial raising concerns about witness credibility, which failed to convince prosecutors to drop the case.
Now the lawyer, Tim Parlatore -- a former Trump defense lawyer -- plans to seek a pardon.
"I would be crazy not to at least inquire about a pardon," Parlatore said.
Another example is a case involving billionaire Britannia Financial Group founder Julio Martín Herrera-Velutini, who is facing an August trial alongside Puerto Rico's former governor on bribery charges.
Herrera-Velutini is represented by former Trump defense attorney Chris Kise, who has sought to convince the Justice Department to dismiss or reduce the charges, though the outcome of such efforts is unclear, three people familiar with the case told Reuters. Kise did not return requests for comment, and Reuters could not determine what arguments he has made to the department about the case.
WEAPONIZATION REVIEW
While many of the reviews of cases are spurred by aggressive lobbying, some requests are coming from within the DOJ.
In early February, prosecutors in the department's Tax Division were ordered by senior Justice Department officials to write a memo explaining why the prosecution of Paul Walczak was not an example of "weaponization," two of the people familiar with the matter told Reuters.
Walczak, of Florida, pleaded guilty in November to not paying employment taxes and not filing his individual income tax returns, and the trial team was preparing for his sentencing.
Prosecutors were baffled, the people said, and only discovered after a few Google searches that Walczak's mother Elizabeth Fago was a Trump donor who, according to a New York Times report, hosted a political fundraiser where portions of a diary written by Biden's daughter Ashley were circulated.
The department let the case proceed, and Walczak was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Trump in April spared him any prison with a pardon, which according to the New York Times, was handed down shortly after Fago attended a $1 million fundraising dinner for Trump.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the pardon.
An attorney for Walczak said he was unaware of any interactions by the defense team with the Weaponization Working Group. In a statement, the Fago and Walczak families said media reports have painted an "incomplete and inaccurate" picture of the pardon application, and that Trump had "ample grounds to grant the pardon on the merits."
Although no criminal prosecutions have been dismissed, prosecutors are bracing for impact since Trump in May named Ed Martin, a supporter of Trump's false claims that his 2020 election defeat was the result of fraud, to lead the working group and serve as pardon attorney.
Martin has already successfully encouraged Trump to approve pardons for some of the president's supporters, according to his social media posts.
Casada, who was convicted at trial in May on multiple counts of fraud, money laundering and bribery, is now expected to seek a pardon, a person familiar with the matter said.
"We've also been getting more folks coming forward within the government as well as outside, saying, 'Can you look at this? Can you look at that?'" Martin recently told reporters.
"It's a problem that seems to be growing faster than we can capture it." REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Straits Times

24 minutes ago

• Straits Times

Tesla expected to launch long-discussed robotaxi service

The long-awaited launch follows the dramatic meltdown earlier this month in relations between Mr Musk and Mr Trump, which saw a cascade of bitter attacks from both men. PHOTO: REUTERS NEW YORK - Tesla is expected to begin offering robotaxi service on June 22 in Austin, an initial step that Mr Elon Musk's backers believe could lead to the company's next growth wave. The launch – which comes as Mr Musk refocuses on his business ventures following a controversial stint in Mr Donald Trump's administration – will employ the Model Y sport utility vehicle rather than Tesla's much-touted Cybercab, which is still under development. The long-awaited launch follows the dramatic meltdown earlier this month in relations between Mr Musk and Mr Trump, which saw a cascade of bitter attacks from both men. Since then, Mr Musk has publicly expressed regret for some of his statements, while his company's Texas operation has readied the Austin push – part of a major drive on autonomous technology and artificial intelligence that Tesla bulls believe will yield huge profits. This group includes Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives, who said autonomous technology could be a catalyst for potentially US$1 trillion (S$1.29 trillion) in additional market value or more. 'There are countless skeptics of the Tesla robotaxi vision with many bears thinking this day would never come,' said Mr Ives, who predicted that Trump's administration would clear roadblocks for Tesla and pivot from the recent 'soap opera'. 'The golden era of autonomous for Tesla officially kicks off on Sunday in Austin,' Mr Ives said in a note on June 20 . Business-friendly Texas But the unveiling in the Texas state capital comes amid questions about how Tesla will try to overcome criticism of Mr Musk's activities for Mr Trump. Tesla saw profits plunge 71 per cent in the first quarter following poor sales in several markets. In picking Austin for the debut of the autonomous vehicle (AV) service, Mr Musk is opting for a US state known for its company-friendly approach to regulation. 'Texas law allows for AV testing and operations on Texas roadways as long as they meet the same safety and insurance requirements as every other vehicle on the road,' the Texas Department of Transportation told AFP. An Austin website listed six autonomous vehicle companies at various stages of operation: ADMT (Volkswagen), AVRide, Tesla, Zoox (Amazon), Motional (Hyundai) and Waymo (Alphabet/Google). But the Texas legislature this year enacted a new bill that requires prior authorisation from the state's Department of Motor Vehicles before companies can operate on a public street without human drivers, a group of seven Democratic lawmakers said in a June 18 letter to Tesla. Citing the enhanced system, the lawmakers asked Tesla to delay testing until after the law takes effect September 1. If Tesla proceeds with the launch this weekend, 'we request that you respond to this letter with detailed information demonstrating that Tesla will be compliant with the new law,' the letter said. Starting slow Mr Musk had initially planned the launch for June 12, before pushing back, saying he was being 'super paranoid' about safety. 'We want to deliberately take it slow,' Mr Musk said in a May 20 interview on CNBC, telling the network that Tesla would probably only operate 10 autonomous vehicles the first week. But that number will rise to perhaps 1,000 'within a few months', Mr Musk told CNBC. 'And then we will expand to other cities.... San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Antonio.' The service will be offered from 6am until midnight and will be available to 'early access' users on an invitation-only basis in a geo-fenced area, Tesla owner Sawyer Merritt said on June 20 on Mr Musk's X platform, adding that Tesla had given him permission to release the information. Mr Musk last fall unveiled the Cybercab, which has no steering wheel or pedals. But production is not expected to begin on the vehicle until 2026. Tesla's robotaxi launch comes well after Waymo's offering of commercial robotaxi service, with more US cities gradually added. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in October 2024 opened a probe into Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after receiving four reports of crashes. The NHTSA on May 8 asked Tesla for additional information on its technology in light of the Austin launch. But the NHTSA does not 'pre-approve' new technologies, the agency told AFP. 'Rather, manufacturers certify that each vehicle meets NHTSA's rigorous safety standards, and the agency investigates incidents involving potential safety defects,' the NHTSA said. AFP Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Straits Times

43 minutes ago

• Straits Times

Strikes on Iran mark Trump's biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble

U.S. President Donald Trump walks after delivering an address to the nation at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025, following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool WASHINGTON - With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, U.S. President Donald Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic U.S. strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump, who insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks, could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking U.S. military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against American and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. Such moves could escalate into a broader, more protracted conflict than Trump had envisioned, evoking echoes of the 'forever wars' that America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he had derided as 'stupid' and promised never to be dragged into. 'The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities,' said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Democratic and Republican administrations. 'But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond... This is not going to end quick.' In the lead-up to the bombing that he announced late on Saturday, Trump had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were 'the right thing to do.' Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a 'high probability of success,' the official said – a determination reached after more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities paved the way for the U.S. to deliver the potentially crowning blow. NUCLEAR THREAT REMAINS Trump touted the "great success" of the strikes, which he said included the use of massive "bunker-buster bombs" on the main site at Fordow. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes. 'In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy,' the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan U.S.-based organization that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. 'Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge. The strikes will set Iran's program back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities,' the group said. Eric Lob, assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, said Iran's next move remains an open question and suggested that among its forms of retaliation could be to hit 'soft targets' of the U.S. and Israel inside and outside the region. But he also said there was a possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table – 'though they would be doing so in an even weaker position' – or seek a diplomatic off-ramp. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its 'national industry' to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every U.S. citizen or military member in the region would not be legitimate targets. Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on X: 'Trump indicated this is now the time for peace. It's unclear and unlikely the Iranians will see it the same way. This is more likely to open a new chapter of the 46-year-old US-Iran war than conclude it.' 'REGIME CHANGE' Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking 'regime change' if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. That, in turn, would bring additional risks. 'Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratization campaigns,' said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. 'You'll find the bones of many failed U.S. moral missions buried in Middle East sands.' Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in 'disproportionate attacks' if it felt its survival was imperiled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential U.S. inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump, who faced no major international crisis in his first term, is now embroiled in one just six months into his second. Even if he hopes U.S. military involvement can be limited in time and scope, the history of such conflicts often carries unintended consequences for American presidents. Trump's slogan of 'peace through strength' will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. 'Trump is back in the war business,' said Richard Gowan, U.N. director at the International Crisis Group. 'I am not sure anyone in Moscow, Tehran or Beijing ever believed his spiel that he is a peacemaker. It always looked more like a campaign phrase than a strategy." REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Business Times

an hour ago

• Business Times

Trump makes dramatic about-face with plunge into Middle East war

US President Donald Trump has long advocated for keeping the US out of Middle Eastern wars. By joining Israel's offensive against Iran, he is making a dramatic geopolitical u-turn. After days of deliberation and mixed messages, Trump launched a strike against three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday (Jun 21), bolstering Israel's efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear programme and drawing the US into a heated regional conflict. The bombings, which struck sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, came just days after he suggested he would wait for as much as two weeks to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. Speaking from the White House late on Saturday, Trump argued that Iran must be prevented from having an atomic bomb and said the US fulfilled its objective of destroying their nuclear sites. Trump also pressured Iran to return to the negotiating table, threatening more attacks if they don't work toward an agreement – or retaliate against the US. 'This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' the president said in an address to the nation. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Consequential choice While Trump has approved military action in the past, this moment marks a consequential choice for a leader who rose to power with an anti-war stance and was welcomed by voters weary of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He hardened that posture in his 2024 campaign with attacks on then-President Joe Biden's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. He also has eschewed military action at times – calling off a strike on Iran in 2019 that was designed as retaliation for shooting down a US drone, saying he did not see it as proportionate. In his second inaugural address in January, Trump pledged to measure success 'not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' And since taking office five months ago, Trump's focus on the Middle East has largely been on deals that bring US investment rather than military expansion. During a glitzy trip through the region in May, he proclaimed he wants its future to be 'defined by commerce, not chaos'. The strikes injected further anxiety into the global economy following the scattershot rollout of Trump's global tariffs. Around a fifth of the world's daily oil supply goes through the Strait of Hormuz, which lies between Iran and its Gulf Arab neighbours. Global crude oil traders have been on edge. In an extreme scenario in which the Strait of Hormuz were shut, oil could surge beyond US$130 a barrel, weighing on global growth and driving consumer prices higher, according to a Bloomberg Economics analysis. In the days leading up to the strike, Trump and his advisers had suggested that any action would be limited. Republicans emphasised that idea on Saturday – before the president threatened further attacks. 'This is not the start of a forever war,' Senator Jim Risch, the Idaho Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a post on X. 'There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran. This was a precise, limited strike, which was necessary and by all accounts was very successful.' For Trump and many of his supporters, the hope is that this military action will echo the assassination of a top Iranian general in 2020. After the US strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, Trump stressed that he did not want a wider war. An Iranian response resulted in no casualties, and the situation did not escalate. Signs that Trump was becoming more open to the possibility of military action emerged last week when he abruptly departed the Group of Seven leaders summit in Canada to deal with the Middle East conflict. After months of trying to talk Tehran into making a nuclear deal, negotiations with special envoy Steve Witkoff had made little progress and Israel launched its initial attack. Trump held open the possibility of reopening discussions with his two-week ultimatum. But by Friday, Trump dismissed talks between three European nations and Iran that failed to deliver a breakthrough. And he said his patience with Tehran had just about run out. The question going forward is what the Iranian response will be and whether the US could be drawn into a longer conflict. Members of Congress have indicated they could challenge Trump's authority to unilaterally wage war on Iran without their approval. Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who co-sponsored legislation that would force a vote on any US war with Iran, raised that prospect on Saturday, saying lawmakers should vote on the bill 'to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war'. A handful of Republicans also questioned the constitutionality of the move. 'This is not Constitutional,' said Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who co-sponsored the war powers measure. The US Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war but the War Powers Resolution allows the president to insert US forces into a conflict without a vote, as long as lawmakers are notified within 48 hours and the engagement must end within 60 days unless lawmakers allow otherwise. The potential for US engagement opened up a rift recently among Trump's supporters inside and outside the White House. Foreign policy hawks embraced an attack as an opportunity to show strength and deny Iran a nuclear weapon, while isolationists argued US should stay out of the fight and focus on issues like immigration. 'This was the right call. The regime deserves it,' said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and longtime proponent of attacking Iran. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, has been on the other side, saying in a post on X: 'This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.' Trump was drawn into the fray, clashing with conservative media personality Tucker Carlson, who has called on the US to stay out of the conflict. On Jun 18, he downplayed any issues, saying 'my supporters are for me' and adding that Carlson 'called and apologised the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong'. Longtime time Trump ally Steve Bannon said on his podcast on Saturday that Trump will need to explain himself, but that he thinks his base will ultimately remain loyal. 'There are a lot of MAGA (Make America Great Again) that's not happy about this,' he said. 'I believe he will get MAGA on board, all of it, but he's got to explain exactly and go through this.' BLOOMBERG