WASHINGTON — Four Justice Department attorneys who prosecuted cases involving anti-abortion activists have been terminated by the Trump administration, which alleges the previous Biden administration misused federal laws meant to safeguard abortion facilities from blockades and intimidation.
These dismissals represent another round of employee removals targeting those connected to cases that drew conservative criticism or who were viewed as inadequately committed to President Donald Trump’s policies. The terminations occurred alongside the publication of a report claiming the Biden administration conducted biased prosecutions under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as the “FACE Act.”
“This Department will not tolerate a two-tiered system of justice,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated. “No Department should conduct selective prosecution based on beliefs. The weaponization that happened under the Biden Administration will not happen again, as we restore integrity to our prosecutorial system.”
This marks the initial report from the Justice Department’s “Weaponization Working Group,” established by former Attorney General Pam Bondi to examine federal prosecutions of Trump and additional cases that conservatives have challenged.
Former Attorney General Merrick Garland and Special Counsel Jack Smith, who led Trump’s prosecution, have maintained they based their decisions solely on facts, evidence and legal standards. Trump administration critics argue that Bondi — recently dismissed by Trump — and Blanche have actually politicized the department through unprecedented actions that raise concerns about using the institution to further Trump’s personal and political objectives.
Under Biden’s leadership, the administration pursued cases against numerous defendants using the FACE Act, which criminalizes physically blocking access or threatening force to intimidate individuals seeking reproductive healthcare services, while also prohibiting property damage at abortion facilities and related centers. The legislation became law in 1994 during a period of increased clinic demonstrations and blockades, following violent incidents against abortion providers including the murder of Dr. David Gunn.
According to the Trump administration’s report, Biden-era prosecutors frequently “ignored and downplayed” attacks targeting pregnancy resource centers and religious institutions, which also receive protection under the statute. The report further alleges that the Biden administration sought more severe penalties for anti-abortion activists compared to cases involving abortion-rights defendants. Trump previously pardoned anti-abortion activists convicted of blocking clinic entrances, describing them as “peaceful pro-life protesters.”
Kristen Clarke, who directed the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during the Biden administration, stood by the prosecutions, stating the attorneys “enforced the law even-handedly and put public safety at the center of this work.”
“The Civil Rights Division brought law enforcement leaders, crisis pregnancy center representatives, faith leaders, and reproductive health care staff together to address the real violence, threats of violence, and obstruction that too many people face in our country when it comes to reproductive health care,” Clarke said in an emailed statement on Tuesday.
These dismissals are part of a wider staff overhaul that has disrupted career Justice Department attorneys who traditionally remain protected from administrative changes through established civil service safeguards.
Justice Connection, an organization of former department staff members, characterized the agency leadership’s actions as showing “cruelty and hypocrisy are on full display in this report.”
“They insist on zealous advocacy by career staff in advancing the President’s priorities, while shaming and firing those who did just that in the prior administration,” said Stacey Young, a former department attorney who established Justice Connection. “They’ve put career employees on notice: if they do their jobs, they face potential termination if future political leadership disagrees with the policy goals of prior leadership.”
