sue

WASHINGTON — FBI employees fired for their roles in the investigation of President Trump’s retention of classified documents at his Florida estate sued on Thursday to get their jobs back, calling their terminations unlawful acts of “political retribution.”

The complaint adds to the growing list of legal challenges to the mass terminations under FBI Director Kash Patel of agents who participated in investigations of the Republican president or are seen as opposed to Trump administration interests.

The suit was filed in federal court in Washington on behalf of nine agents, intelligence analysts and staff operations specialists who were fired in February after dismissals of agents who had worked on the investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Patel has said in congressional testimony that employees he has fired had “weaponized” the FBI. But the agents deny that claim in the lawsuit, noting that between them they had more than a century of distinguished and apolitical FBI service that involved responding to the Boston Marathon bombing, hostage recoveries and the investigation into the 2024 assassination attempt of Trump in Butler, Pa.

Their firings, the lawsuit says, create an “immeasurable loss” to “America’s national security.”

“In return for their service, they were fired because they did their jobs, as they always did to follow the facts and law without bias or favor. To this administration, this is an offense. To the rest of us, it is heroic,” said a statement from their attorneys, Margaret Donovan, Abbe Lowell and Rebecca Tinio.

“This lawsuit will prove their unlawful dismissal and hold the administration accountable for this blatant attack on the rule of law,” the statement added.

The Mar-a-Lago investigation produced criminal charges against Trump

The suit lays out a detailed recitation of the allegations against Trump, describing how he improperly stored dozens of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., that he took with him after leaving the White House, showed them off to people not authorized to see them and obstructed FBI efforts to get them back.

The investigation resulted in a dramatic 2022 FBI search of Mar-a-Lago that recovered classified records and later produced an indictment in federal court in Florida charging Trump with dozens of felony counts.

Trump denied wrongdoing, and the case was dismissed in 2024 by a Trump-appointed judge, Aileen Cannon, who ruled that the special counsel who filed the charges, Jack Smith, had been illegally appointed by the Biden administration Justice Department.

The nine fired FBI employees did not volunteer for the investigation but were rather assigned to it as part of their work on specialized counterintelligence and counterespionage squads, according to the lawsuit, which says they were nonetheless terminated because of baseless perceptions that the performance of their law enforcement duties had run “afoul of the political and personal loyalty to Trump that Defendants demanded.”

“By casting Plaintiffs’ work on the Plasmic Echo investigation as ‘politically weaponized,’ Defendants incorrectly presumed to know the personal political convictions of Plaintiffs and took unlawful action based on that presumption,” the lawsuit says, using the FBI code name for the classified documents investigation. “Worse still, Defendants incorrectly concluded that those personal political convictions affected or drove their work.”

The lawsuit seeks, among other remedies, reinstatement to the FBI, an awarding of back pay and a court order declaring that the firings were unlawful.

The suit says the firings were the culmination of a retribution campaign

Lawyers for the fired employees suggest their clients’ “fate was sealed” well before the February terminations, casting the ousters as the culmination of a long-running retribution campaign that kicked into gear once Trump returned to the White House in 2025.

The lawsuit notes how Patel, in his capacity as a conservative podcaster before becoming Trump’s FBI director, had derided the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search as “unlawful” and had accused the agents who had participated in it as being “corrupt government gangsters.”

Days after Trump was inaugurated, a top Justice Department official demanded that the FBI turn over a list of bureau employees who had participated in Trump-related investigations, an order that the then-director, Brian Driscoll, resisted and that was seen within the workforce as a potential prelude to mass firings.

Over the following year, the FBI and the Justice Department fired waves of employees involved in investigations of Trump, without hearings or proper notice that the plaintiffs’ lawyers say are required by law.

The lawsuit says that the Mar-a-Lago agents and analysts were fired in February after Patel disclosed to Reuters that the FBI, as part of the investigation, had subpoenaed his toll records, which show the date, time and length of a phone call but not the content of the communications.

“The Plaintiffs were unlawfully terminated not for any cause or any legitimate reason, but only to satisfy the President’s personal vendetta,” the lawsuit states. “The firings did not follow any internal investigation or disciplinary process within the FBI, and Plaintiffs were not given any notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to appeal.”

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

The Democratic National Committee has filed a lawsuit against United States President Donald Trump over television advertisements that were publicly funded and allegedly used to promote his political policies.

Ken Martin, who heads the Democratic Party’s leadership body, suggested in a statement on Wednesday that the ads were designed to bolster Republican odds in the upcoming November 3 midterm elections.

“Donald Trump is misusing millions of taxpayer dollars to fund pure propaganda ads in a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans in November,” Martin said.

Later that day, Common Cause, a democracy watchdog group, filed a second lawsuit over the same set of ads.

It argued that the ads were “overtly political” and therefore ran afoul of laws that bar public funds from being used for political propaganda.

“These ads are not public-service announcements,” Common Cause said in its lawsuit, citing a justification Trump has offered for the television spots. “They are personal publicity and political propaganda through and through.”

Both lawsuits argue that, to create the ad campaign, Trump directed the White House to repurpose $20m in funds that Congress allocated for commemorative activities related to border security, including for those killed in the line of duty.

That manoeuvre, they argue, violates the separation of powers established in the US Constitution.

“The founders made clear more than 200 years ago that the executive can spend money only according to Congress’s direction,” Common Cause’s lawsuit said.

The two lawsuits also point to a provision Congress includes in its appropriations bills barring the use of taxpayer funds for “publicity or propaganda purposes”.

Both complaints seek to have the ads declared illegal, and the expenditures stopped. They also call for steps to be taken to recover any money already spent on the ads.

The Democrats’ lawsuit was filed in Washington, DC, while the Common Cause complaint will be heard in the Southern District of New York.

Trump has faced mounting criticism over the ads, which began airing in September.

So far, the advertising campaign has cost more than $12m to run, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact.

The $20m Trump tapped for the ads comes from a $175m package Congress assigned to the Department of Homeland Security as part of Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda.

Critics have pointed out that one of the ads appears nearly identical to a television spot Trump used in his 2024 re-election campaign.

Three ads have aired so far. In one, a choir sings “love me” over a montage of Trump as he declares the US will “never be a communist country”. Another uses images of Mount Rushmore as Trump heralds a new “golden age of America”.

The third is darker: Trump walks towards the camera in black and white, warning of a “final battle” against the “deep state” and other perceived enemies.

On Wednesday, the news agency Reuters and the research firm Ipsos released a poll showing the ads are highly unpopular. Some 86 percent of the Americans surveyed, including four out of five Republicans, said it was inappropriate for Trump to have used public money for them.

Trump has defended the ads as “promotion for the country”, and he has argued they were similar to public outreach campaigns put out by previous administrations.

But after a bipartisan backlash, Trump said on Monday that taxpayer funds would no longer be used for future ads.

He did not, however, commit to paying back the money already spent on the existing ads.

Members of Trump’s Republican Party have been among those speaking out against the ad campaign.

Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, said the advertisements resembled something former Hungarian leader Viktor Orban would put out.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, meanwhile, indicated he agreed with the message in one of the advertisements, but he emphasised that “it shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars”.