NEW YORK — The Senate’s top Democrat urged his colleagues Monday to take legal action over the Justice Department’s incremental and heavily redacted release of records pertaining to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced a resolution that, if passed, would direct the Senate to file or join lawsuits aimed at forcing the Justice Department to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted last month that required disclosure of records by last Friday.
“Instead of transparency, the Trump administration released a tiny fraction of the files and blacked out massive portions of what little they provided,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “This is a blatant cover-up.”
In lieu of Republican support, Schumer’s resolution is largely symbolic. The Senate is off until Jan. 5, more than two weeks after the deadline. Even then, the resolution will likely face an uphill battle for passage. But it allows Democrats to continue a pressure campaign for disclosure that Republicans had hoped to put behind them.
The Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis by the end of the year. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring victims’ names and other identifying information. So far, the department hasn’t given any notice when new records arrive.
That approach angered some accusers and members of Congress who fought to pass the transparency act. Records that were released, including photographs, interview transcripts, call logs, court records and other documents, were either already public or heavily blacked out, and many lacked necessary context.
There were few revelations in the tens of thousands of pages of records that have been released so far. Some of the most eagerly awaited records, such as FBI victim interviews and internal memos shedding light on charging decisions, weren’t there.
Nor were there any mentions of some powerful figures who’ve been in Epstein’s orbit, like Britain’s former Prince Andrew.
Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Sunday defended the Justice Department’s decision to release just a fraction of the files by the deadline as necessary to protect survivors of sexual abuse by the disgraced financier.
Blanche pledged that the Trump administration would meet its obligation required by law. But he stressed that the department was obligated to act with caution as it goes about making public thousands of documents that can include sensitive information.
Blanche, the Justice Department’s second-in-command, also defended its decision to remove several files related to the case from its public webpage, including a photograph showing Donald Trump, less than a day after they were posted.
The missing files, which were available Friday but no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one of a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Blanche said the documents were removed because they also showed victims of Epstein. Blanche said the Trump photo and the other documents will be reposted once redactions are made to protect survivors.
“We are not redacting information around President Trump, around any other individual involved with Mr. Epstein, and that narrative, which is not based on fact at all, is completely false,” Blanche told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Blanche said Trump, a Republican, has labeled the Epstein matter “a hoax” because “there’s this narrative out there that the Department of Justice is hiding and protecting information about him, which is completely false.”
“The Epstein files existed for years and years and years and you did not hear a peep out of a single Democrat for the past four years and yet … lo and behold, all of a sudden, out of the blue, Senator Schumer suddenly cares about the Epstein files,” Blanche said. “That’s the hoax.”
Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Kevin Freking in Washington contributed to this report.
After steadily gaining power and influence for more than a decade, the watchdogs that provide civilian oversight of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department face an uncertain future.
A recent leadership exodus has left behind gaps in experience and knowledge, and a succession of legal challenges and funding cuts by the county have left some concerned that long-fought gains in transparency are slipping away.
“It is beginning to look like the idea of effective oversight of the Sheriff’s Department is a pipe dream,” said Robert Bonner, former chairman of the Civilian Oversight Commission, who announced in June that he was being pushed into “involuntarily leaving” before he completed pending work.
Current and former oversight officials have argued that the office of county counsel, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Department have repeatedly undermined efforts to rein in law enforcement misconduct.
The cumulative effect, some advocates worry, is that the public will know less about law enforcement activity, and that there will be fewer independent investigations into deputies and department leaders alike.
“The Sheriff is committed to transparency in law enforcement,” the department said via email. “As we move forward it is essential to strengthen collaboration with the [Civilian Oversight Commission] while ensuring that the rights and safety of our personnel are protected.”
In recent years, oversight bodies have uncovered information about so-called deputy gangs, published reports on inhumane jail conditions and issued subpoenas for records related to on-duty use of force incidents.
Inspector General Max Huntsman’s sudden announcement last week that he was retiring from the position he’s held since its creation more than a decade ago completed a trifecta of departures of top law enforcement oversight officials this year.
In addition to Bonner’s departure, former Civilian Oversight Commission chairman Sean Kennedy stepped down from the body in February in response to what he described as improper county interference in the commission’s activities.
L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna, right, talks with Sean Kennedy during an event on April 5 in Baker. Kennedy left his position on the Civilian Oversight Commission earlier this year.
(William Liang / For The Times)
Kennedy and others have said the Sheriff’s Department has refused to comply with multiple subpoenas by the commission for personnel files and records related to deputy misconduct.
“The attack on integrity and on oversight capacity is threatening all of us in Los Angeles County,” Hans Johnson, who took over as chairman of the Civilian Oversight Commission following Bonner’s departure, said at a recent public meeting. “We look forward to making sure that oversight is preserved and protected and not muzzled and not unplugged or sabotaged.”
The Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors said in a statement that it maintains a “long-standing commitment to strong oversight.”
The Sheriff’s Department said only one request it has received from oversight officials this year remains pending.
“The Department remains committed to working cooperatively to provide all requested information as required by law,” the statement said.
On the state level, reform advocates recently scored what they described as a victory for transparency.
In October, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill known as AB 847, which granted civilian oversight bodies across California the ability to view confidential law enforcement records in private sessions. L.A. County officials had previously balked at sharing certain sensitive files on sheriff’s deputies, and some reformers worry the new law may not go far enough.
Dara Williams, chief deputy of the Office of the Inspector General, said at a July public meeting that the Sheriff’s Department has a history of being “painfully slow” to respond to requests for records related to homicides by deputies. In one instance, she said, Huntsman’s office served the department with a subpoena in October 2024 “and we are still waiting for documents and answers.”
The Sheriff’s Department said it has hired an outside attorney who is “conducting an independent review” of its records to determine if “those materials actually exist and can be found.”
The department’s statement said it will abide by the law and that protecting confidential information “remains of the utmost importance.”
Some involved in oversight have also become the subject of probes themselves.
In June, the Office of the County Counsel said it was investigating Kennedy for alleged retaliation against a sergeant who had worked for a unit that had been accused of pursuing cases for political reasons during Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s tenure.
Kennedy has denied the allegations, telling The Times in June, “I was just doing my job as an oversight official.”
Budget cuts — some already instituted, others threatened — are also a concern.
Huntsman said earlier this year that the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors was reassigning or eliminating a third of his staff.
Former L.A. County Inspector General Max Huntsman listens during a hearing at Loyola Law School’s Advocacy Center on Jan. 12, 2024.
(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
He too left amid acrimony with county officials.
“The County has made it very clear over the past couple of years that they are not going to enforce the state oversight laws,” Huntsman told The Times. “Instead the county supports the sheriff limiting the flow of information so as to restrict meaningful oversight.”
The Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors said the changes implemented this year have had a “minimal” impact that “neither limits OIG’s responsibility nor their capacity.”
The possibility of eliminating the Sybil Brand Commission, which monitors L.A. County jails, was discussed in an August report to the Board of Supervisors. County officials said it would save about $40,000 annually.
Sybil Brand commissioner Eric Miller told The Times in September that he believes “the county is attempting to limit oversight of the Sheriff’s Department … to avoid lawsuits.” The department, he said, “is a powerful constituency within the county.”
In September, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta launched a state lawsuit over what he described as a “humanitarian crisis” inside L.A. County jails.
There are even concerns that the Sheriff’s Department is seeking greater control over local groups that facilitate conversations between deputies and members of the public — often some of the only opportunities for community concerns to be heard.
In the Antelope Valley, the Palmdale Sheriff’s Station Community Advisory Committee has been roiled by allegations that a local Sheriff’s Department captain appointed a new member without other members’ approval.
The chair of the committee, Georgia Halliman, resigned in October and committee member Sylvia Williams has alleged that the Sheriff’s Department captain tried to force her out.
“I was going to leave, but they need someone who’s real in there,” Williams told The Times. “You have to have an overseer.”
The department said it is reviewing the situation.
Melissa Camacho, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, said the county is at a crossroads.
“The main question right now is what is the county going to do?” she said. “Is this going to be a moment when the Board of Supervisors decides to actually invest in oversight?”
Kitsch Liao, associate director at the Atlantic Council Global China Hub, says Beijing’s reaction to the largest US arms sale to Taiwan is an information warfare tactic.
The U.S. Justice Department is suing four more states as part of its effort to collect detailed voting data and other election information across the country.
The department filed federal lawsuits against Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Nevada on Thursday, accusing them of “failing to produce statewide voter registration lists upon request.” So far, 18 states have been sued, including California, along with Fulton County in Georgia, which was sued over records related to the 2020 election, which President Trump continues to falsely claim he won.
The Trump administration has characterized the lawsuits as part of an effort to ensure the security of elections, and the Justice Department says the states are violating federal law by refusing to provide the voter lists and information about ineligible voters.
The lawsuits have raised concerns among some Democratic officials and voting rights advocates who question exactly how the data will be used, and whether the department will follow privacy laws to protect the information. Some of the data sought include names, dates of birth, residential addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.
“States have the statutory duty to preserve and protect their constituents from vote dilution,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a press release. “At this Department of Justice, we will not permit states to jeopardize the integrity and effectiveness of elections by refusing to abide by our federal elections laws. If states will not fulfill their duty to protect the integrity of the ballot, we will.”
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, said her office declined to provide unredacted voter data.
“We will not hand over Coloradans’ sensitive voting information to Donald Trump. He does not have a legal right to the information,” Griswold said Thursday after the lawsuit was filed. “I will continue to protect our elections and democracy, and look forward to winning this case.”
Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, also a Democrat, said the Justice Department hasn’t provided clear answers about how the data will be used, and he has a duty to follow state law and protect voters’ sensitive information and access to the ballot.
“While these requests may seem like normal oversight, the federal government is using its power to try to intimidate states and influence how states administer elections ahead of the 2026 cycle,” Aguilar said in a news release. “The Constitution makes it clear: elections are run by the states.”
In a Sept. 22 letter to the Justice Department, Hawaii Deputy Solicitor Gen. Thomas Hughes said state law requires that all personal information required on a voter registration district other than a voter’s full name, voting district or precinct and voter status must be kept confidential. Hughes also said the federal law cited by the Justice Department doesn’t require states to turn over electronic registration lists, nor does it require states to turn over “uniquely or highly sensitive personal information” about voters.
An Associated Press tally found that the Justice Department has asked at least 26 states for voter registration rolls in recent months, and in many cases asked states for information on how they maintain their voter rolls. In addition to California, other states being sued by the Justice Department include Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Nearly all the states are Democrat-led, and several are crucial swing states.
The bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 5 to 1 on Thursday against turning over unredacted voter information to the Trump administration. The lone dissenter was Republican commissioner Robert Spindell, who warned that rejecting the request would invite a lawsuit. But other commissioners said it would be illegal under Wisconsin law to provide the voter roll information, which includes the full names, dates of birth, residential addresses and driver’s license numbers of voters.
Boone writes for the Associated Press. AP writerScott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.
A former Los Angeles Police Department commander who authorities said tipped off CBS to a rape allegation against the network’s top executive will not face criminal charges, with two LAPD detectives claiming department leaders undermined the investigation, according to documents obtained by The Times.
The L.A. County district attorney’s office decided in April it would not prosecute Cory Palka for warning CBS executives in 2017 that a woman had walked into the LAPD’s Hollywood station and accused then-Chief Executive Les Moonves of sexual assault, according to a document provided to The Times in response to a public records request.
Although heavily redacted, the declination memo includes details and a timeline that match up with the findings of a 2022 New York state attorney general’s office investigation that first revealed Palka’s relationship with Moonves. The TV executive’s career ended in disgrace after dozens of women came forward to accuse him of sexual harassment and abuse in 2018.
Palka has not disputed that he improperly disclosed information to CBS, but denied any improper benefit from his relationship with Moonves when reached for comment by The Times this week.
The former LAPD chief who led the department during the investigation, Michel Moore, called allegations the matter was not properly handled “absolutely false.”
Representatives for CBS and Moonves declined to comment.
The Moonves affair drew significant attention at the height of the #MeToo movement, but the fate of Palka has remained a question mark in the years since. The newly uncovered documents shed light on both the outcome of the investigation and tensions within the police department over scrutinizing one of its own.
Palka, a former station captain who retired as a commander in 2021, was often referred to as “Capt. Hollywood” and known for mingling with stars, scoring a bit part in the TV series “Bosch.”
In 2022, the New York state attorney general’s office released a report that revealed Palka left a voicemail for a CBS executive in November 2017, shortly after an 81-year-old woman walked into his station and accused Moonves of sexually assaulting her on two occasions in the late 1980s.
“Somebody walked in the station about a couple hours ago and made allegations against your boss regarding a sexual assault,” he said in a voicemail message left for Ian Metrose, who was then CBS’ senior vice president for talent relations, according to reports made public by prosecutors. “It’s confidential, as you know, but call me.”
For months, Palka gave Moonves and other CBS leaders inside information about the rape investigation and slipped the network a copy of the accuser’s report, according to the New York attorney general’s office. At one point, Palka and Moonves met in person and the executive told the captain he “wanted the LAPD investigation closed.”
Ultimately, prosecutors could not bring a rape case because the statute of limitations had long expired. The accuser, Phyllis Golden-Gottlieb, was a television development executive who previously told The Times that Moonves assaulted her in 1986 and 1988. Those dates match an alleged victim described in the L.A. County district attorney’s office’s memo on Palka. Golden-Gottlieb died in 2022.
Former television executive Phyllis Golden-Gottlieb talks about alleged sexual abuse at the hands of Les Moonves in the law offices of Gloria Allred in L.A. on Sept. 11, 2018. Golden-Gottlieb, who died in 2022, worked with Moonves in the 1980s.
(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
After hearing from Palka, top CBS executives “began investigating the victim’s personal circumstances and that of her family,” according to the New York attorney general’s report, which was produced as part of an investigation into the TV network’s leaders for selling stock and allegedly misleading investors while not disclosing the allegations against Moonves.
The district attorney’s office said in the memo obtained by The Times that it declined to bring charges, in part, because the statute of limitations on one of the potential charges against Palka had run out.
The LAPD claimed it didn’t learn of Palka’s alleged misconduct until 2022, but a whistleblower complaint filed in late 2023 by Det. Jason Turner alleges Moore knew of the issue much earlier and ignored it, allowing Palka to escape accountability.
Turner also alleged he found evidence that Palka told at least two other LAPD employees about his relationship with Moonves, but said he was barred from interviewing them, according to the complaint, which was filed with the LAPD’s Office of the Inspector General in November 2023.
“Chief Moore’s failure to initiate a complaint circa 2018-2021 against Palka compromised the investigation and allowed Palka to avoid criminal charges,” Turner wrote in the complaint obtained by The Times.
The LAPD declined to comment. Moore unequivocally denied Turner’s allegations, but did not elaborate further in response to questions about the handling of the investigation. Moore announced his retirement from the LAPD in January 2024.
“It is absolutely baseless,” Moore said of Turner’s claim, adding that the Office of the Inspector General had determined the complaint was unfounded.
A spokesperson for the inspector general’s office said they could not discuss the status of Turner’s complaint.
Michel Moore announces his retirement as LAPD chief at a press conference with Mayor Karen Bass at L.A. City Hall on Jan. 12, 2024.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)
The ex-chief described the whistleblower complaint as a “distraction” from Palka’s “terrible actions.”
“It was a disservice. It lacked integrity. It tarnished the badge. It was wrong,” Moore said of Palka.
Turner declined a request to comment through his lawyer Thursday. .
In September 2023 — 10 months after the allegations against Palka became public — a different LAPD internal affairs detective presented a case for L.A. County prosecutors to consider against Palka, according to a memo explaining the decision to decline charges. Prosecutors weighed charges of bribery, obstruction and disclosing information from a criminal investigation for financial gain.
LAPD detectives “suspected Palka had possibly engaged in bribery,” according to the document. While there was no evidence Palka was paid directly for leaking the information about Moonves, he received $500 annually to be part of Moonves’ security detail at the Grammy Awards, according to the New York attorney general’s report.
After leaving the LAPD, Palka was hired as chief of security to billionaire hedge fund manager Michael Milken, according to public records and testimony given by Moonves in a deposition for a civil lawsuit reviewed by The Times. Palka is still employed by Milken today, the records show.
Moonves said in the deposition that he recommended Palka for the job.
A separate complaint to the inspector general’s office obtained by The Times shows another internal affairs detective made allegations that echoed Turner’s. In that complaint, the second detective said LAPD supervisors blocked attempts to interview Moonves, Milken and Metrose, the CBS vice president that Palka purportedly first tipped off about the rape case.
“It is my belief that the refusal by our supervisors to permit us to interview these key individuals jeopardized the integrity of the investigation and was done for improper motives,” wrote the detective, who requested anonymity, fearing professional repercussions.
The April memo from L.A. County prosecutors said there was substantial evidence Palka had improperly disclosed information from a criminal case, but they lacked proof that “Palka gained financially,” so charges of bribery and disclosure of confidential information for financial gain could not be filed.
Asked whether Moonves helping Palka land a high-level security job would be considered financial gain, a district attorney’s office spokesman said prosecutors “could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Palka disclosed confidential information in return for financial gain, which is an essential element of the crime of bribery.”
In an email to The Times, Palka did not address questions about the alleged bribery or the district attorney’s charging decision, but challenged the idea that there was any link between Moonves’ recommendation for his current job and the leak of information to CBS.
“My post retirement employment was not considered until I completed my career and fully separated from the LAPD,” Palka said.
Les Moonves, former chairman and CEO of CBS Corporation, poses at the premiere of the new television series “Star Trek: Discovery” in Los Angeles on Sept. 19, 2017.
(Chris Pizzello / AP)
Caleb Mason, a partner at Brown White & Osborn LLP in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor, said charges related to Palka’s post-LAPD work would be challenging to prove in court.
“I think a lot of prosecutors would get anxious about filing a case where the theory was simply he had this relationship and after he retired the relationship would get him a job,” Mason said.
In his complaint to the inspector general, Turner said department executives knew of the Hollywood captain’s links to CBS much earlier than has been publicly reported.
CBS attorneys questioned Palka about his relationship with Moonves in 2018, while performing an audit connected to the rape allegations, according to the detective’s complaint. At that time, Palka demanded that the LAPD Command Officers Assn., the union that represents officers above the rank of captain, provide him an attorney, according to the complaint.
“Chief Moore was the Chief at the time and had to have been aware that one [of] his Captains was being interviewed in his official capacity by CBS attorneys for misconduct,” the complaint read. “However, Chief Moore did not initiate a complaint/internal investigation into Cory Palka.”
Muna Busilah, the attorney who Turner claimed represented Palka, declined to say whether or not she was involved in the case. She confirmed she did work with the Command Officers Assn. in 2018, and said there was no requirement to formally notify Moore if a member of the command staff sought legal counsel through the union.
Turner’s complaint accused Moore and LAPD Det. Jason De La Cova, an internal affairs division supervisor, of obstructing justice and dissuading an investigation. De La Cova was the detective who presented a case to the district attorney’s office, according to the declination memo.
“The Chief doesn’t want heads to roll,” De La Cova said to Turner when blocking one of his requests to interview another member of the LAPD, according to the whistleblower complaint.
When reached on Wednesday, De La Cova declined to comment.
A district attorney’s office spokesperson would not say if prosecutors were aware of the misconduct allegations levied against Moore and De La Cova while reviewing Palka’s case. The allegations of obstruction made against the ex-chief and De La Cova in Turner’s complaint have never been presented for consideration of criminal charges, the spokesman said.
De La Cova was previously named in another complaint filed by Tuner.
In 2023, Turner and another detective alleged they were ordered to launch an investigation into Mayor Karen Bass’ receipt of a scholarship from the University of Southern California at Moore’s behest. When both refused, the case was taken over by De La Cova.
Moore has repeatedly denied the allegations. Moore was later cleared of wrongdoing by the department’s inspector general, which concluded in June 2024 after a months-long probe that the detective’s claims were “unfounded.”
Dec. 12 (UPI) — The State Department is offering a $5 million reward for information leading to the arrest or conviction of Francisco Manuel Bermudez Cagua, an alleged leader of the Ecuadorian Los Choneros cartel who is wanted in the United States on drug trafficking charges.
The reward, announced Thursday, is being offered under the Narcotics Rewards Program of the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.
Bermudez Cagua, also known as Churron, is the alleged leader of Los Choneros, which was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization and a Specially Designated Global Terrorists by the Trump administration in September amid President Donald Trump‘s crackdown on illegal drugs and immigration.
Federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York indicted Bermudez Cagua, along with Jose Adolfo Macias Villamar, the principal leader of the Los Choneros, in a superseding indictment unsealed June 27, 2025, charging him with international cocaine distribution conspiracy, international cocaine distribution and use of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking offenses.
“As alleged, Bermudez Cagua is a top lieutenant within the leadership of Los Choneros, an extremely violent foreign terrorist organization responsible for pumping drugs into the United States, causing harm to our communities, and wreaking havoc in his homeland of Ecuador,” U.S. Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr. said in a statement.
According to the State Department, the 29-year-old Bermudez Cagua reports to Macias Villamar and became his right-hand man while in prison. Once they both escaped, Bermudez Cagua became Macias Villamar’s spokesperson.
“Bermudez Cagua regularly participated in the decisions Macias Villamar made related to the organization’s drug and weapons trafficking and served as an intermediary, relaying critical information between Macias Villamar and their associates,” according to the State Department website.
Los Choneros is considered one of Ecuador’s most violent criminal organizations and is linked to the infamous Sinaloa Cartel of Mexico. Ecuador designated the group as a terrorist organization in 2024, and the U.S.’ Treasury imposed sanctions against it that same year.
WASHINGTON — Justice Department leadership has directed the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism” by the start of next year, and to establish a “cash reward system” that incentivizes individuals to report on their fellow Americans, according to a memo reviewed by The Times.
Law enforcement agencies are directed in the memo, dated Dec. 4, to identify “domestic terrorists” who use violence, or the threat of violence, to advance political and social agendas, including “adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity.”
Although the memo does not mention protests against President Trump’s immigration crackdown directly, it says that problematic “political and social agendas” could include “opposition to law and immigration enforcement, extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders.”
The memo, sent by Atty, Gen. Pam Bondi to federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies, follows on a presidential memorandum signed by Trump in the immediate aftermath of the killing of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative figure, that gave civil rights groups pause over the potential targeting of political activists, donors and nonprofits opposed to the president.
The memo also outlines what it says are causes of domestic terrorist activity, including “hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality.”
“Federal law enforcement will prioritize this threat. Where federal crime is encountered, federal agents will act,” the memo states.
Some national security experts said the memo represents a dramatic operational shift, by directing federal prosecutors and agents to approach domestic terrorism in a way that is “ideologically one-sided.” At worst, critics said, the memo provides legal justification for criminalizing free speech.
“I think this causes a chilling impact, because it definitely seems to be directing enforcement toward particular points of view,” Mary McCord, a former acting assistant attorney general for national security, said in an interview.
The memo, for example, primarily focuses on antifa-aligned extremism, but omits other trends that in recent years have been identified as rising domestic threats, such as violent white supremacy. Since Trump resumed office, the FBI has cut its office designated to focus on domestic extremism, withdrawing resources from investigations into white supremacists and right-wing antigovernment groups.
The memo’s push to collect intelligence on antifa through internal lists and public tip lines also raised questions over the scope of the investigative mission, and how wide a net investigators might cast.
“Whether you’re going to a protest, whether you’re considering a piece of legislation, whether you’re considering undertaking a particular business activity, the ambiguity will affect your risk profile,” Thomas Brzozowski, a former counsel for domestic terrorism at the Justice Department, said in an interview.
“It is the unknown that people will fear,” he added.
Protesters in 1980s style aerobic outfits work out during a demonstration dubbed “Sweatin’ Out the Fascists” on Sunday in Portland, Ore.
(Natalie Behring / Getty Images)
Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have expressed alarm over the new policy, which could be used by the Justice Department to target civil society groups and Democratic individuals and entities with burdensome investigations.
But the White House argues that Democratic appointees under the Biden administration targeted conservative extremists in similar ways.
Members of Trump’s team have embraced political retribution as a policy course. Ed Martin, the president’s pardon attorney, has openly advocated for Justice Department investigations that would burden who Trump perceives as his enemies, alongside leniency for his friends and allies.
“No MAGA left behind,” Martin wrote on social media in May.
Law enforcement agencies are directed in the memo to “zealously” investigate those involved in what it calls potential domestic terrorist actions, including “doxing” law enforcement. Authorities are also directed to “map the full network of culpable actors” potentially tied to crime.
Domestic terrorism is not an official designation in U.S. law. But the directive cites over two dozen existing laws that could substantiate charges against domestic extremists and their supporters, such as conspiracy to injure an officer, seditious conspiracy and mail and wire fraud.
Only in a footnote of the memo does the Justice Department acknowledge that the U.S. government cannot “investigate, collect, or maintain information on U.S. persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment.”
“No investigation may be opened based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States,” the footnote says.
Some tension could arise when citizens report what they believe to be suspected domestic terrorism to the FBI.
The memo directs the FBI online tip line to allow “witnesses and citizen journalists” to report videos, recordings and photos of what they believe to be suspected acts of domestic violence, and establish a “cash reward system” for information that leads to an arrest.
“People will inform because they want to get paid,” Brzozowski said. He added that some information could end up being unreliable and likely be related to other Americans exercising their constitutional rights.
State and local law enforcement agencies that adhere to the Justice Department directive will be prioritized for federal grant funding.
A man dressed as a bee participates in the No Kings Day of Peaceful Action in downtown Los Angeles on Oct. 18.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
One of the directives in the memo would require the FBI to disseminate an “intelligence bulletin on Antifa and Antifa-aligned anarchist violent extremist groups” early next year.
“The bulletin should describe the relevant organizations structures, funding sources, and tactics so that law enforcement partners can effectively investigate and policy makers can effectively understand the nature and gravity of the threat posed by these extremist groups,” the memo states.
The mission will cross several agencies, with the FBI working alongside joint terrorism task forces nationwide, as well as the Counterterrorism Division and the National Threat Operations Center, among others, to provide updates to Justice Department leadership every 30 days.
WASHINGTON — Foreigners who are allowed to come to the United States without a visa could soon be required to submit information about their social media, email accounts and extensive family history to the Department of Homeland Security before being approved for travel.
The notice published Wednesday in the Federal Register said Customs and Border Protection is proposing collecting five years worth of social media information from travelers from select countries who do not have to get visas to come to the U.S. The Trump administration has been stepping up monitoring of international travelers and immigrants.
The announcement refers to travelers from more than three dozen countries who take part in the Visa Waiver Program and submit their information to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA, which automatically screens them and then approves them for travel to the U.S. Unlike visa applicants, they generally do not have to go into an embassy or consulate for an interview.
The Department of Homeland Security administers the program, which currently allows citizens of roughly 40 mostly European and Asian countries to travel to the U.S. for tourism or business for three months without visas.
The announcement also said that CBP would start requesting a list of other information, including telephone numbers the person has used over the last five years or email addresses used over the last decade. Also sought would be metadata from electronically submitted photos, as well as extensive information from the applicant’s family members, including their places of birth and their telephone numbers.
The application that people are now required to fill out to take part in ESTA asks a more limited set of questions such as parents’ names and current email address.
The public has 60 days to comment on the proposed changes before they go into effect, the notice said.
CBP officials did not immediately respond to questions about the new rules.
The announcement did not say what the administration was looking for in the social media accounts or why it was asking for more information.
But the agency said it was complying with an executive order that Republican President Trump signed in January that called for more screening of people coming to the U.S. to prevent the entry of possible national security threats.
Travelers from countries that are not part of the Visa Waiver Program system are already required to submit their social media information, a policy that dates to the first Trump administration. The policy remained during Democratic President Biden’s administration.
But citizens from visa waiver countries were not obligated to do so.
Since January, the Trump administration has stepped up checks of immigrants and travelers, both those trying to enter the U.S. as well as those already in the country. Officials have tightened visa rules by requiring that applicants set all of their social media accounts to public so that they can be more easily scrutinized and checked for what authorities view as potential derogatory information. Refusing to set an account to public can be considered grounds for visa denial, according to guidelines provided by the State Department.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services now considers whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, “endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused” anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views.
The heightened interest in social media screening has drawn concern from immigration and free speech advocates about what the Trump administration is looking for and whether the measures target people critical of the administration in an infringement of free speech rights.
