justice department

Sept. 23, 2026 1:44 PM PT

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine Democrats on Wednesday assailed U.S. Sen. Susan Collins over a news report that the FBI investigated how much she knew about illegal campaign contributions that sent one of her donors to prison.

The ProPublica report, published Tuesday, states that the FBI in 2024 planned to launch an investigation into Collins’ dealings with Navatek, a Hawaii defense contractor and donor to her campaign. The investigation, which focused on an alleged pay-to-play scheme, failed to commence after President Trump took office after winning the election, according to ProPublica.

The report arrived six weeks before an election in which Collins is seeking a sixth term against Democrat Troy Jackson. Democrats have targeted the seat, in a state that Trump lost in 2024, as the party tries to win control of the Senate, making it one of the most competitive races on the November ballot.

Collins on Tuesday called the entire story “absolutely outrageous” and said it is frustrating and unfair to have such claims made against her so close to the election. Her campaign manager, Steve Abbott, also said Wednesday that the allegation that “we charge people to have meetings” is categorically false and Collins accepting campaign cash for contracts “did not happen.”

Jackson called the allegation “corruption of the highest order.” He was not present Wednesday when a group of Maine Democrats held a news conference near Collins’ Portland office, calling the allegations a betrayal of trust.

“I cannot stress enough here today the seriousness of these allegations. Maine people deserve clear and real answers from Susan Collins right now,” Maine Democratic Party Executive Director Devon Murphy-Anderson said.

FBI says allegations were already investigated

The ProPublica report stated that the head of a Collins super PAC met with executives from defense contractor Navatek in 2019 and asked them for a $500,000 campaign donation. The company’s chief executive, Martin Kao, sent an initial $150,000 donation using a shell company, the report stated. ProPublica reported that it reviewed an internal company email from Kao in which the CEO later told Navatek executives that Collins committed to getting the company $32 million in Navy contracts.

Kao and two other Navatek executives were later indicted on charges of funneling illegal donations to Collins. Kao sought to reduce his prison sentence by revealing to the FBI the full scope of illegal contributions to Collins, ProPublica reported.

Collins said Kao is “a liar” whose story is untrustworthy.

“He has been twice convicted in separate federal court cases. He’s been convicted of money laundering. He’s been convicted of bank fraud. He has been convicted of false submissions to the FEC. He’s being convicted of a lot of crimes,” she said.

An FBI spokesperson said in a statement that the allegations “had already been investigated by the FBI years ago and ultimately found nothing implicating Senator Collins or Senator Collins’ campaign. Any suggestion otherwise is totally false.”

The ProPublica article also states that Trump’s return to the White House left the Justice Department unable to perform the investigation.

Corruption investigations have decreased in Trump’s second term

The number of FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors specializing in corruption investigations plummeted in the first months of the Trump administration. The Justice Department, for instance, decimated its elite Public Integrity Section in early 2025 and the FBI disbanded a white-collar fraud and public corruption squad based out of its Washington field office.

The administration has also fired numerous law enforcement officials who participated in investigations into Trump, including over his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election he lost and his retention of classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.

An email seeking comment was sent to the Justice Department on Wednesday.

Collins said she first learned of the company through the University of Maine because of the research the Navy found to be valuable, which had to do with 3D printing for production.

She said the Justice Department has already reviewed the matter.

“I’m telling you this is completely false,” Collins said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune dismissed the idea that Collins would be implicated in a pay-to-play scheme, calling the allegations “a political hit job.”

Whittle and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. Mascaro reported from Washington. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Eric Tucker in Washington and Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche is blurring traditional boundaries between politics and federal law enforcement with recent speeches at political events that mark a sharp departure from norms meant to protect the Justice Department from the appearance of partisan bias.

Blanche took the stage this week at an event for a Republican Senate candidate in North Carolina days after speaking at a GOP midterm convention, where he praised Trump and touted the administration’s tough-on-crime approach.

Blanche’s participation at the rallies has drawn scrutiny from critics who say it threatens to undermine public faith in law enforcement decisions that are supposed to be made free of political interference. It has added to critics’ concerns about Blanche’s loyalty to Trump and White House influence on Justice Department matters against the backdrop of investigations into numerous perceived foes of the president.

“It lends credence to the arguments that the Justice Department is hopelessly politicized,” said Richard Painter, who was a White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration. “And that’s not where we want to be right now.”

Blanche has brushed aside norms

Attorneys general have typically stayed away from political rallies and at arm’s length from the White House to prevent the appearance of law enforcement interference in elections and to protect the perception of impartiality in prosecutions.

Blanche, a former personal lawyer for Trump, has brushed aside such norms and fiercely defended the president’s interests in the department, which brought two criminal cases against Trump under President Joe Biden. Blanche has rejected allegations that the Trump administration has politicized the agency and accusations that the White House is improperly involved in department matters.

Blanche has used his speeches at the rallies to promote the administration’s efforts to bring down violent crime, illegal border crossings and drug trafficking as Republicans put their tough-on-crime policies at the center of the midterm elections. In another unusual move, he held a press briefing at the White House this week, fielding questions from reporters on a host of matters including the Iran war.

At an event Wednesday in North Carolina for Republican Senate nominee Michael Whatley, Blanche told the crowd, “More of your family, more of your friends, more of your community members, more of your loved ones are safer than they were just two years ago.”

“And that’s President Trump and Vice President Vance delivering on a promise that they made to you,” said Blanche, calling Trump “the greatest president of our generation.” His speech also veered into topics outside his law enforcement portfolio such as the stock market, inflation and wage growth.

Blanche says he is not endorsing candidates at political events

The Justice Department said Blanche’s appearances at political events are made in his personal capacity, and noted that his speeches have addressed the administration’s efforts broadly but do not get into agency policies or official business.

“His appearances are reviewed and cleared by the Department’s ethics officials,” spokesperson Kiersten Pels said in an email Thursday. “Travel expenses are reimbursed by the Attorney General in accordance with federal law, regulations, and policies.”

In a recent interview with The Associated Press, Blanche dismissed criticism about his appearance at a Long Island event where Trump sought to boost Republican candidates in closely contested races.

The watchdog group Public Citizen filed a complaint accusing Blanche of violating a law that limits political activity by government workers by participating in that event alongside Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, the Trump-endorsed Republican challenging Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul.

“I will always say yes to speak when the president of the United States asks me to,” Blanche told the AP last month. “I was there purely thanking cops, law enforcement, for doing their jobs. The idea that that’s turned into somehow criticism is laughable.” Blanche said he was not endorsing political candidates but instead “talking about the great work that President Trump is doing.”

Federal law and Justice Department policy limit political activity

The Hatch Act prohibits government officials from using their official positions to influence elections. That includes supporting candidates while acting in their official capacities. Watchdog groups have long complained that the law isn’t a strong deterrent and enforcement has been inadequate and uneven.

The Justice Department under Biden in 2022 tightened its restrictions on employees’ attendance at political events after then-Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins attended a fundraiser that featured first lady Jill Biden. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was fired by Trump in April, later rescinded those restrictions.

Rollins’ attendance at the fundraiser sparked an outcry from Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, who sought an investigation and wrote a letter asserting that U.S. attorneys are supposed to act as nonpartisan law enforcement officials rather than as partisan politicians. Rollins resigned in 2023 after the Justice Department’s internal watchdog accused her of broad misconduct.

Before those changes, longstanding department policy had allowed political appointees — who are hired under presidential administrations rather than making long careers at the agency — to attend political events in their personal capacities if they participated “passively” and obtained prior approval.

Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, barred their attendance at fundraisers and other campaign events altogether, saying it was necessary to ensure that politics “both in fact and appearance” won’t affect how the law is enforced or inquiries are carried out.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 11, 2026 5:29 PM PT

WASHINGTON — An Afghan woman who was accused of supporting an Islamic State-inspired plot in the United States and whose case was the first for an obscure and long-dormant court has been deported, the Justice Department said Friday.

Nazira Haji Zada, 47, was arrested in July at her Fort Worth home and brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court on a Justice Department application to deport her from the U.S. On Friday, the department said that she had waived her rights to challenge her detention and had agreed to be deported to Afghanistan.

Haji Zada’s attorneys said her decision to consent to removal “should not be seen as an endorsement of this court’s legitimacy.”

“Dragging lawful permanent residents into court but refusing to show them or their attorneys the evidence that will be used against them is a plain violation of due process,” the defense lawyers said in a statement Friday. “We are confident that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will be struck down as unconstitutional as soon as a judge is asked to address the issue.”

Court filings about Haji Zada’s deportation, including a judge’s Aug. 20 removal order, remained under seal until after she reached her destination.

The swift resolution averts what could have been a protracted legal fight testing the authority of the court, which was established in 1996 but until July had not received any petitions, as well as the strength of allegations against Haji Zada.

Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said the case’s outcome is “a win for national security and the rule of law.”

“Those who support and condone terrorism should not be living in the United States, and this first-ever case before the [court] shows how the Department will use every tool at its disposal to protect our country,” Blanche said in a statement.

The Justice Department has described Haji Zada as a supporter of the Islamic State and identified her at the time as the mother and mother-in-law of two Afghan men who were convicted in Oklahoma of plotting an attack in the U.S. on election day in 2024. The plans were foiled before any attack took place.

Her lawyers at the time of the deportation had been pressing the court to force the Justice Department to share information and other evidence to support the allegations in the case.

The court has specific authority to conduct deportation proceedings for people whom the Justice Department classifies as “alien terrorists.” The court is composed of five federal judges from different districts across the country who are appointed by the U.S. chief justice.

“Those who plot acts of terrorism against the United States have no place in our country,” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement. “We will find them, and we will use every lawful tool available to remove them.”

On July 30, Judge Joan Ericksen presided over the first hearing for the court’s first case since its creation 30 years ago.

One of Haji Zada’s attorneys argued at the hearing that the Trump administration’s activation of the court violates her constitutional rights. Attorney Matthew Farley urged the judge to dismiss the case and immediately release his client.

An FBI memo dated July 15 said it “developed information” that Haji Zada is an Islamic State supporter who had her children pledge their loyalty to the terrorist group. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, was sentenced in November to 15 years in prison and court records show he previously agreed to be removed from the U.S. after his release.

Her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, previously worked as a security guard for an American military installation in Afghanistan. He pleaded guilty to conspiring and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State group. Prosecutors have said he took steps to advance his attack plans by ordering AK-47 rifles, liquidating his family’s assets and buying one-way tickets for his wife and child to travel home to Afghanistan.

Tucker and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is demanding testimony before a Florida grand jury in an investigation aiming to establish an intelligence community conspiracy against President Trump, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

New subpoenas being issued to former government officials represent an escalation in the yearlong investigation as the Justice Department pursues a loosely defined theory that members of the intelligence community who scrutinized Trump over the last decade, including over Russian interference in the 2016 election, conspired against him and violated his rights.

Investigators in recent days contacted some defense lawyers for witnesses advising them of forthcoming grand jury subpoenas. It was not clear how many, as of Tuesday, had received a subpoena or were still waiting to receive one, and the identities of the witnesses receiving subpoenas were also not immediately clear. The people who confirmed the subpoenas spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a secretive grand jury investigation.

The investigation has focused in large part on the Trump-Russia probe

The contours of the conspiracy investigation aren’t fully known, but agents and prosecutors over the last several months have focused intensely on one of Trump’s chief grievances: the U.S. government response to Russian interference in 2016 and an intelligence community assessment that Moscow meddled on Trump’s behalf at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump, who spent much of his first term shadowed by an investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Russia to sway the outcome of the election, has for years lashed out at the intelligence community finding and cast it as a “deep state” conspiracy to undermine the legitimacy of his win.

Investigators searching for potential crimes in connection with the intelligence community response have conducted numerous voluntary interviews, but the subpoenas prepared for witnesses in recent days represent an apparent effort to lock down sworn testimony before a grand jury.

It remains unclear whether anyone will be charged or for what offense, though lawyers for former CIA Director John Brennan have said they have been informed that he is a target as investigators examine whether he falsely testified to Congress — something he has repeatedly denied. The Justice Department last spring subpoenaed witnesses before a Washington grand jury as part of an investigation into Brennan but swiftly withdrew the subpoenas in favor of voluntary interviews.

The investigation is being run out of Florida, with the Justice Department in April bringing back into government service a top prosecutor from the Reagan administration, Joe diGenova, to serve as a counselor to the attorney general and help lead a team of agents and prosecutors.

DiGenova, who had previously asked then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to appoint him to the job and has openly and repeatedly claimed Trump was the victim of an intelligence community conspiracy, declined to comment Wednesday when reached by the Associated Press.

In an indication of the wide-ranging nature of the investigation, the AP reported last month that DiGenova’s team has sought interviews with law enforcement officials involved in the 2022 FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Fla., which recovered a trove of classified documents.

Concerns from defense lawyers about a ‘favored’ judge

Investigators have set up shop in Fort Pierce, Fla., the home court of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump-appointed jurist who repeatedly appeared skeptical of the classified documents case against him and ultimately dismissed it after concluding that the prosecutor who filed the charges was illegally appointed.

Lawyers for Brennan last year asked the chief judge of the federal court in Florida to prevent the investigation from being steered to Cannon, whom they described as a “favored” Trump judge. They have since sued the Trump administration, demanding a court order requiring prosecutors to preserve records from the investigation so that Brennan could challenge any potential prosecution of him as vindictive.

Trump came to office in 2017 under scrutiny from the intelligence and law enforcement community about whether his successful campaign had colluded with Russia, which stole politically damaging Democratic emails and orchestrated their release through WikiLeaks as part of a wide-ranging interference scheme.

The FBI and Justice Department investigated but found insufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, though investigators did find the campaign eagerly hoped to benefit from Moscow’s help.

Subsequent investigations by an inspector general and Justice Department prosecutors identified errors by agents who conducted the Russia probe but found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by senior law enforcement officials or an anti-Trump conspiracy like what prosecutors are now hoping to prove.

Deeply frustrated by those outcomes, Trump has amplified his demands for retribution, which the Justice Department heeded last year by directing that prosecutors utilize a grand jury. Last year, Bondi directed prosecutors to put evidence before a grand jury after the release of documents aimed at calling into question the legitimacy of the Trump-Russia inquiry.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 4, 2026 8:41 AM PT

MCALLEN, Texas — A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer falsely told investigators he was being attacked with a broom and shovel before he shot and wounded a Venezuelan man during the Minnesota immigration crackdown last winter, according to a federal indictment unsealed Friday.

Christian Castro is charged with six counts of making false statements to investigators in the first Justice Department prosecution of a federal officer for actions taken during this year’s massive Operation Metro Surge. The operation brought thousands of agents to the Twin Cities and led to sweeping protests, arrests and the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal officers.

The allegations in the federal indictment mirror those brought by Minnesota officials, who have separately charged Castro with assault and false reporting of a crime related to the nonfatal shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in January.

Castro turned himself into federal authorities Thursday evening following his release from jail last week because Texas’ governor refused to immediately sign an extradition warrant to hand him over to Minnesota authorities.

According to the federal indictment, Castro told an FBI agent that a man grabbed a red broom off the front porch and began hitting him with it. Castro also claimed that another man hit him with a snow shovel. Castro said he opened fire while on the ground as the men ran away.

The indictment alleges that Castro had a short “physical interaction” with Sosa-Celis and another man, before the two ran into a home with a 1-year-old child inside. Castro then fired a shot through the front door while standing as the men began to close it, hitting Sosa-Celis in the leg, the indictment says.

“No person struck” Castro “with a broom as he described, and no persons wielded the broom and snow shovel as he described,” the indictment says.

No attorney is listed for Castro in the case brought by Minnesota and it was not immediately clear if he had a lawyer to speak on his behalf.

Federal prosecutors had initially charged Sosa-Celis and the other man, Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna, with assault but dropped the charges after video evidence showed the officer may have lied about the encounter. Castro was suspended from ICE in February while authorities pursued an investigation.

The federal investigation into Castro created turmoil inside the Justice Department, with a prosecutor on the case accusing higher ups of blocking efforts to bring more serious civil rights charges.

In an email obtained by ProPublica, the prosecutor told lawyers for Sosa-Celis and others that Castro would be charged only with making false statements over his “strongest objections,” adding the decision was “being directed by the Main Justice and the US Attorney.”

A person familiar with the investigation, however, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the civil rights probe is ongoing and that additional charges could still be brought.

The prosecutor, Matthew Evans, has since been fired and the Justice Department is now investigating whether he broke any laws during his handling of the case, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not publicly authorized to discuss ongoing investigations.

An automatic email response from Evans’ Justice Department account said he was on leave, and other attempts to reach him were not immediately successful.

Sosa-Celis’ lawyer is pressing for Castro to face stiffer charges, saying in a statement on Thursday that Castro’s statements were made to “cover up the fact that he shot my client through the door of an occupied house without a self-defense justification.”

“Mr. Sosa Celis wants Mr. Castro to be held fully accountable for his crimes,” said the attorney, Robin Wolpert. The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota said Thursday that Sosa-Celis also plans to seek damages from the federal government.

Gonzalez and Richer write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington.