whistleblower

One civil service whistleblower told ITV filmmakers he was “disgusted” by amount of profits some companies made

Details of how the Tories presided over one of the biggest government spending scandals of all time are to be revealed in a shocking new documentary.

Eye-watering waste running into many billions of pounds resulted from huge Covid contracts for mountains of personal protective equipment and medical tests.

One civil service whistleblower told ITV filmmakers: “I was disgusted at the amount of money that these companies were making. It was just ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching for them.”

Some companies with little or no track record in supplying PPE landed massive contracts, including many introduced by ministers and key government figures via the high-priority VIP lane.

One firm, linked to Baroness Michelle Mone, is being sued by the Department for Health for more than £120 million for allegedly supplying unusable gowns. But the documentary names other previously unknown corporate winners.

Instead of buying four months of PPE stock as planned, within months of lockdown the government stockpiled years’ worth – including enough goggles to last 15 years.

One million pallets of unwanted PPE ended up being incinerated in what Gavin Hayman, of the Open Contracting partnership, says represents “probably the biggest government misspending scandal in the UK of all time”.

As the UK’s expensive Covid-19 inquiry rumbles on largely unnoticed by the public, new ITV documentary Exposures asks how we went from having almost no PPE to having more than we could possibly use.

The Mirror has previously revealed how thousands of ­ventilators bought for £50,000 each during the pandemic were sold off for as little as £100 via online auctions last year.

We also exposed how the NHS flogged 6,000 unused Nightingale hospital beds it had bought for £13million for just £410,000 as they were not suitable for hospitals. When the country went into lockdown in March 2020, the UK’s hospitals were woefully lacking in supplies of PPE.

Boris Johnson set up a new procurement unit run by Matt Hancock ’s Department of Health, with many of its staff coming from Michael Gove ’s Cabinet Office. The government put out public appeals to help source PPE from new suppliers, and the normal tender and competition rules were suspended.

Under pressure to respond quickly, a secret VIP lane was also set up by civil servants to deal with credible offers coming via ministers, MPs or senior officials.

According to the documentary, this is when things started to go wrong. A whistleblower who was working in the department at the time was exasperated that companies with a background in supplying PPE were being sidelined in favour of VIPs.

The source tells the programme: “It was very frustrating because you’ve done a lot of the background work, taking the time to find out about the companies, see who their manufacturer was, so that we could check the manufacturer had the capability of producing as many items as they said, and then to find out none of your deals have gone through.

“The VIP lane was obviously the Premiership, and all the rest of the suppliers were in the second division.” Mr Gove and Mr Hancock say the VIP lane was created by officials to effectively prioritise significant offers, that ministers were not involved in decisions to award contracts and just forwarded promising leads to civil servants. They say their priority at the time was to “save lives and protect the NHS”.

The ITV film shows how two previously unnamed Covid-testing companies, Tanner Pharma and Nationwide Pathology, both made huge profits thanks to their contracts.

Nationwide made £40million over the pandemic, while Tanner was given testing contracts totalling £1.4bn after it contacted a Department of Health official.

Tanner went from a pre-pandemic loss off £678,000 to a cumulative profit over the pandemic of £193m. Its American owner, Banks Bourne, paid himself a £148m dividend, courtesy of the British taxpayer.

Another company called Innova appeared from nowhere in March 2020. It was set up by Charles Huang, who rain a private equity firm in California.

Innova got its contract after it reached out to Dominic Cummings, who was Boris Johnson’s advisor at the time. By the end of the pandemic, Innova had been paid over £5bn by the UK government despite having no track record in supplying medical goods.

By contrast, Arco is a leading UK supplier of PPE with over 50 years’ experience. It sent 750,000 PPE kits to Sierra Leone during the ebola epidemic. But when Covid arrived, nobody was returning their calls.

Arco chairman Thomas Martin tells Exposure: “We used the government portals, we used all of our existing contacts. There would be 50 or 60 attempts every day to break through, and we were coming up against the closed door. I couldn’t understand why anyone in charge would choose to ignore the expertise on tap.

“The safety industry was not mobilised.” In all, the UK spent around £15bn on PPE. The whistleblower adds: “We had so much, but we were still buying when we didn’t need any more. We weren’t able to warehouse it, and it was getting left at docks.”

By March 2022, the UK had 300 pieces of unused PPE for every person in the country. Companies that were hired to supply PPE were now being rewarded again to store it. Much of it ended up incinerated. The whistleblower concludes: “We were wasting so much money.”

Tanner Pharma said: “Tanner Pharma was selected to provide lateral flow tests because they were determined by UKHSA to have high specificity and sensitivity. We were not referred to the high-priority lane and delivered over 480m reliable, accurate testing kits.”

Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, Michelle Mone and Nationwide Pathology all declined to comment.

* The Covid Contracts: Follow the Money is on Sunday night on ITV at 10.15pm.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Exposing years-old concerns about California’s resilience to wildfires, a government whistleblower and other witnesses in a recent state trial alleged that cleanup operations after some of the largest fires in state history were plagued by mismanagement and overspending — and that toxic contamination was at times left behind in local communities.

Steven Larson, a former state debris operations manager in the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, failed to convince a jury that he was wrongly fired by the agency for flagging those and other issues to his supervisors. After a three-week trial in Sacramento, the jury found Larson was retaliated against, but also that the agency had other, legitimate reasons for dismissing him from his post, according to court records.

Still, the little-discussed trial provided a rare window into a billion-dollar public-private industry that is rapidly expanding — and becoming increasingly expensive for taxpayers and lucrative for contractors — given the increased threat of fires from climate change.

It raised serious questions about the state’s fire response and management capabilities at a time when the Trump administration says it is aggressively searching for “waste, fraud and abuse” in government spending, proposing cuts to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and clashing with state leaders over the best way to respond to future wildfires in California.

The allegations raised in the trial also come as FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers are overseeing similar debris removal work — by some of the same contractors — following the wildfires that destroyed much of Pacific Palisades and parts of Altadena in January, and as fresh complaints arise around that work, as The Times recently reported.

Steve Larson poses for a portrait at Elk Grove Park on Sept. 1. Larson, who was a former state debris operations manager in the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, is a whistleblower alleging widespread problems in California fire cleanups.

(Andri Tambunan / For The Times)

During the trial, Larson and other witnesses with direct knowledge of state fire contracts raised allegations of poor oversight and sloppy hiring and purchasing practices by CalRecycle, the state agency that oversaw multiple major cleanup contracts for CalOES; overcharging and poor record-keeping by contractors; toxic contamination being left behind on properties meant to have been cleared; and insufficient responses to those problems from both CalOES and FEMA officials.

The claims were buttressed at trial by the introduction into evidence of a previously unpublished audit of cleanup operations for several large fires in 2018. They were mostly rejected by attorneys for the state, who acknowledged some problems — which they said are common in fast-paced emergency responses operations. They broadly denied Larson’s allegations as baseless, saying he was an inexperienced and disgruntled former employee who was fired for poor performance.

The allegations were also dismissed by CalOES and by Burlingame-based Environmental Chemical Corp., which was the state’s lead contractor on the 2018 fires and is now the Army Corps of Engineer’s lead contractor on cleanup work for the Palisades and Eaton fires, which is nearing completion.

Anita Gore, a spokeswoman for CalOES, defended the agency’s work in a statement to The Times. While acknowledging some problems in the past, she said the agency is “committed to protecting the health and safety of all Californians, including in the aftermath of disasters, and is unwavering in its desire to maintain a safe and inclusive workplace where everyone can feel respected and thrive.”

In its own statement to The Times, ECC said it followed the directives and oversight of state and federal agencies at all times, and “is proud of its work helping communities recover from devastating disasters.”

“We approach each project with professionalism, transparency, and a commitment to delivering results under extraordinarily challenging conditions,” the company said.

Maria Bourn, one of Larson’s attorneys, told The Times that while her client lost at trial — which they are appealing — his case marked a “win for government accountability and the public at-large” by revealing “massive irregularities by wildfire debris removal contractors” who continue to work in the state.

“The state’s continued partnership with these companies when such widespread irregularities were identified by one of its own should alarm every taxpayer,” Bourn said.

A Malibu home lies in ruins after the Woolsey fire. Many questions were raised about the response.

(Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

Camp, Woolsey and Hill fires

The allegations centered in large part around the state-run cleanup efforts following the Camp fire in Northern California, which killed 85 people and all but erased the town of Paradise in November 2018, and the contemporaneous Woolsey and Hill fires in Southern California, which ripped through Malibu and other parts of Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

FEMA has reimbursed the state more than $1 billion for costs associated with those cleanup efforts.

In a July 28, 2019, email entered as evidence in the trial, Larson wrote to CalOES chief of internal audits Ralph Zavala that he wanted to talk to him about “potential fraud” by Camp fire contractors, including ECC.

“I cannot say for sure, but something sure smells fishy,” Larson wrote in the email. “Either their contract was not in fact the lowest bid or they are creating fraud in the way they collect debris.”

Larson wrote in the same email that ECC was “supposedly the lowest bidder” but was “costing more” than the lower bids, which he wrote “doesn’t make sense.” At trial, Larson and his attorneys repeatedly claimed that instead of properly investigating his claims, his supervisors turned against him.

Other current and former state officials testified that they had raised similar concerns.

Todd Thalhamer, a former Camp fire area commander and operations chief who still works for CalRecycle, testified during the trial that he’d told Larson he believed ECC had low-balled its bid to win the work, then overcharged the state by millions of dollars. He said he had “dug very deep into the tonnage cost that they were charging, how they were charging, how they were cleaning it up,” and believed that ECC had been able to “game the system” by reporting that it was hauling out more of the debris types for which it could charge the most.

ECC denied manipulating bids or overcharging the state, and said that “all debris types and volumes are 100% inspected by and determined by CalRecycle and its monitoring representatives and systems, not by ECC or its subcontractors.”

Thalhamer testified that he’d sent an “email blast” out to top CalOES and CalRecycle officials telling them of his findings. He said that led to internal discussions and some but not all issues being resolved.

Further concerns were raised in records obtained by Larson’s attorneys from the prominent accounting firm EY, formerly known as Ernst & Young, which the state paid nearly $4 million to audit the Camp, Woolsey and Hill fire cleanup work.

According to those records, which were cited at trial, EY found that CalRecycle was “unable to produce documentation that fully supports how the proposed costs were determined to be reasonable when evaluating contractor proposals,” and didn’t appear to have “appropriate controls or oversight over the contractor’s performance.”

EY flagged $457 million charged by the contractors through 89 separate “change orders” — or additional charges not contemplated in their initial bids. It said the state lacked an adequate approval process for determining whether to accept such orders, couldn’t substantiate them and risked FEMA rescinding its funding if it didn’t take “immediate corrective action.”

EY specifically flagged $181 million in change orders for the construction of two “base camps” near the burn areas, from which the contractors would operate. It said the state only had invoices for $91 million of that spending, and that even those invoices were not itemized. EY executive Jill Powell testified that the firm believed such large contract changes were likely to be flagged as questionable by FEMA.

ECC — one of two contractors EY noted as having made the base camp change orders — defended its work.

The company said change orders are a necessary part of any cleanup operation, where the final cost “depends on the final quantities of debris that the Government directs the Contractors to remove and how far the material has to be transported for recycling or disposal.”

Such quantities can change over the course of a contract, which leads to changes in cost, it said.

As for the base camps, ECC said the state had explicitly stated in its initial request for proposals that it would “develop the requirements” and negotiate their cost through change orders, because details about their likely location and size were still being worked out when the bids were being accepted.

“Bidders could not know at the time of bid, which area of Paradise they would be assigned, how many properties would be assigned to the bidder, and therefore the exact size of the workforce that the Government would want housed in a Base Camp,” ECC said.

ECC said it “submitted invoices with supporting documentation in the format requested” by CalRecycle for all expenditures, and was “not aware of any missing invoices.”

“We cannot speak to what EY was provided from the State’s files or how the State provided those materials for EY’s review,” the company said. “Any gap in what EY reviewed should not be interpreted as meaning ECC failed to submit documentation.”

ECC said state officials only ever complimented the company for its work on the 2018 fires. And it said it continues to work in Southern California “with the same professionalism and care we bring to every project.”

SPSG, the second contractor EY flagged as being involved in the base camp change orders, did not respond to a request for comment.

Attorney James F. Curran, who represented the state at trial, said in his closing arguments that the work was not “running perfect” but was coming in on schedule and under budget. He said state officials were not ignoring problems, just cataloging non-pressing issues in order to address them when the dust cleared, as is common in emergency operations.

Curran said many of Larson’s complaints were based on his unfamiliarity with such work and his refusal to trust more experienced colleagues. He said Larson was fired not for flagging concerns, but because of “misconduct, arrogance, communication style problems, and performance problems.”

Gore, the CalOES spokeswoman, said CalRecycle awarded the contracts “through an open, competitive procurement process with oversight from CalOES and FEMA,” and that CalOES worked to address problems with contractors before Larson ever voiced any concerns.

Gore said CalOES hired EY to identify any potential improvements in the contracting and reimbursement process, and changed its policy to pay contractors per parcel of land cleared rather than by volume of debris removed in part to address concerns about potential load manipulation.

She said the agency could not answer other, detailed questions from The Times about the debris removal process and concerns about mismanagement and alleged overcharging because the Larson case “remains pending and subject to appeal,” and because CalOES faces “other, active litigation” as well.

The EY audit also flagged issues with several other contractors, including Tetra Tech and Arcadis, according to draft records obtained from EY by Larson’s attorneys and submitted as evidence at trial.

The EY records said Tetra Tech filed time sheets for unapproved costs, without sufficient supporting information, with questionable or excessive hours, with digital alterations that increased hourly rates, and without proper supervisor approvals. It said it also charged for work without providing any supporting time sheets.

The EY records said the company also used inconsistent procedures for sampling soil and testing for asbestos, used billing rates that were inconsistent between its contract and its invoices, charged for “after hours” work without supporting documentation, filed questionable, per-hour lodging costs, appeared to have digitally edited change orders after they were signed and dated, and relied inappropriately on questionable digital signatures for approving change orders.

Tetra Tech did not respond to a request for comment.

The EY records said Arcadis filed change orders for costs that appeared to be part of the “normal course of business,” filed invoices for work that began before the company’s state contract was signed, and relied inappropriately on digital signatures.

Arcadis referred all questions to CalRecycle. CalRecycle provided a copy of its own “targeted” audit of Arcadis’ work, which found the company had complied with the requirements of its nearly $29-million contract with the state. CalRecycle otherwise referred The Times back to CalOES.

A recovery team searches for human remains after the Camp fire.

(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

North Bay fires

Concerns about cleanup work following major fires in Sonoma, Santa Rosa and other North Bay counties in 2017 — under both CalOES and the Army Corps of Engineers — also arose at the trial.

Sean Smith, a former 20-year veteran of CalOES and a prominent figure in California debris removal operations to this day, alleged in an email submitted at trial that ECC and other contractors hired to clear contaminated debris and soil from those fires over-excavated sites in order “to boost loads to get more tonnage and money.”

ECC denied Smith’s claims, saying it “does not perform excessive soil removal” and that it followed “the detailed debris removal operations plan requirements” of the Army Corps of Engineers, which had its own quality assurance representatives monitoring the work.

In a deposition, Smith also testified that, in the midst of spending more than $50 million to repair that over-excavation, state officials identified lingering contamination at “what would be considered hazardous waste levels.”

“They hadn’t finished the cleanup in all spots, and we found it, and we recorded it,” he said.

Smith testified that those findings were presented to high-ranking CalOES and FEMA officials during a meeting in San Francisco in October 2018. At that meeting, CalOES regional manager Eric Lamoureux laid out all the state’s contamination findings in detail, “but nobody wanted to hear it,” Smith said.

During his deposition, Smith alleged that the “exact words” of one FEMA attorney in attendance were, “We have to find out how to debunk the state’s testing” — which he said he found surprising, given the testing was based on federal environmental standards.

“I don’t know how you’d debunk such a thing,” Smith said.

FEMA officials did not respond to requests for comment. CalOES also did not answer questions about the alleged meeting.

ECC said that Smith, who managed and signed its contracts with CalOES, gave ECC “a very positive performance review” when it completed the Sonoma and Santa Rosa work — describing its work as “exceptional.”

Smith said he quit his post working on those fires after the San Francisco meeting, though he continued working for the agency in other roles for a couple more years. Smith more recently formed his own debris removal consulting firm — which has been involved in soil testing for the state after other recent fires.

CalOES did not respond to questions about Smith’s claims or separation from the agency.

July 27 (UPI) — A second whistleblower has come forward in the appointment of Emil Bove to a lifetime appellate court judgeship, saying Bove directed attorneys to give false information and defy court orders.

Bove, a former member of President Donald Trump‘s criminal defense team in his fraud case in New York, is the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States. Trump nominated him for Third Circuit Court of Appeals judge in Philadelphia.

The second whistleblower, who is not named, is a career Department of Justice attorney and is represented by Whistleblower Aid, a non-profit legal organization that helps public- and private-sector workers report and expose wrongdoing. They disclosed evidence to the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General that corroborates the first whistleblower’s claims that Bove and other senior DOJ officials were “actively and deliberately undermining the rule of law,” Whistleblower Aid said.

“What we’re seeing here is something I never thought would be possible on such a wide scale: federal prosecutors appointed by the Trump Administration intentionally presenting dubious if not outright false evidence to a court of jurisdiction in cases that impact a person’s fundamental rights not only under our Constitution, but their natural rights as humans,” Whistleblower Aid Chief Legal Counsel Andrew Bakaj said in a statement.

“What this means is that federal career attorneys who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution are now being pressured to abdicate that promise in favor of fealty to a single person, specifically Donald Trump. Loyalty to one individual must never outweigh supporting and protecting the fundamental rights of those living in the United States,” he said.

The DOJ defended Bove.

“Emil Bove is a highly qualified judicial nominee who has done incredible work at the Department of Justice to help protect civil rights, dismantle Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and Make America Safe Again,” spokesperson Gates McGavick told CNN. “He will make an excellent judge — the Department’s loss will be the Third Circuit’s gain.”

Bove has contradicted the complaints.

“I don’t think there’s any validity to the suggestion that that whistleblower complaint filed … calls into question my qualifications to serve as a circuit judge,” Bove told the Senate the committee during his confirmation hearing.

“I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” Bove said.

As Trump’s personal attorney, Bove defended him in his federal criminal cases, which were dismissed after his reelection. He also represented Trump in his New York hush-money case. In that case, he was found guilty of all 34 charges.

The previous whistleblower Erez Reuveni provided documents earlier this month saying that Bove is the person who gave the Trump administration the directive to ignore a court order to stop flights taking migrants to a Salvadoran prison. Bove allegedly said to prepare to tell the courts “f- you.” Bove told Congress he doesn’t remember using the F-word and sidestepped other questions about the incident.

Reuveni was fired from his job as the acting deputy director for the Office of Immigration Litigation after he disclosed that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported in error. He worked for the DOJ for 15 years.

The Senate gave its preliminary approval for Bove’s appointment.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said “Even if you accept most of the claims as true, there’s no scandal here. Government lawyers aggressively litigating and interpreting court orders isn’t misconduct – it’s what lawyers do.”

WASHINGTON — A top Justice Department official nominated to become a federal appeals court judge said Wednesday that he never told department attorneys to ignore court orders, denying the account of a whistleblower who detailed a campaign to defy judges to carry out President Trump’s deportation plans.

Emil Bove, a former criminal defense attorney for the Republican president, forcefully pushed back against suggestions from Democrats that the whistleblower’s claims make him unfit to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Bove’s nomination has come under intense scrutiny after the whistleblower, a fired department lawyer, claimed in a complaint made public Tuesday that Bove used an expletive when he said during a meeting that the Trump administration might need to ignore judicial commands.

“I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” Bove told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He added: “I don’t think there’s any validity to the suggestion that that whistleblower complaint filed yesterday calls into question my qualifications to serve as a circuit judge.”

Bove was nominated last month by Trump to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, Bove was on the defense team during Trump’s New York hush money trial and defended Trump in the two federal criminal cases brought by the Justice Department.

The White House said Bove “is unquestionably qualified for the role and has a career filled with accolades, both academically and throughout his legal career, that should make him a shoo-in for the Third Circuit.”

“The President is committed to nominating constitutionalists to the bench who will restore law and order and end the weaponization of the justice system, and Emil Bove fits that mold perfectly,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in an email.

The whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, was fired in April after conceding in court that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who had been living in Maryland, was mistakenly deported to an El Salvador prison. Reuveni sent a letter on Tuesday to members of Congress and the Justice Department’s inspector general seeking an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by Bove and other officials in the weeks leading up to his firing.

Reuveni described a Justice Department meeting in March concerning Trump’s plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act over what the president claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Reuveni says Bove raised the possibility that a court might block the deportations before they could happen. Reuveni claims Bove used profanity in saying the department would need to consider telling the courts what to do and “ignore any such order,” Reuveni’s lawyers said in the letter.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche called the allegations “utterly false,” saying that he was at the March meeting and “at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed.”

“Planting a false hit piece the day before a confirmation hearing is something we have come to expect from the media, but it does not mean it should be tolerated,” Blanche wrote in a post on X on Tuesday.

Bove has been at the center of other moves that have roiled the Justice Department in recent months, including the order to dismiss New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ federal corruption case. Bove’s order prompted the resignation of several Justice Department officials, including Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor, who accused the department of acceding to a quid pro quo — dropping the case to ensure Adams’ help with Trump’s immigration agenda.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

A former lawyer with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has published a whistleblower complaint accusing officials of intentionally ignoring court orders that might impede US President Donald Trump’s campaign for mass deportation.

On Tuesday, representatives for Erez Reuveni filed a 35-page letter of complaint detailing the lawyer’s allegations against the Trump administration.

It offers a look at the debates and divisions unfolding behind the scenes at the Justice Department, as it defends Trump’s efforts to arrest and rapidly deport non-citizens, a process that has spurred concern about rights violations.

Members of the Trump administration have “engaged in unlawful activity, abused their authority, [and] created substantial and specific threat to health and safety”, according to the letter.

As a result, it says, “Mr Reuveni is exercising his rights … to report wrongdoing”.

The letter was addressed to members of Congress, as well as the inspector general for the Justice Department, who investigates allegations of misconduct within the bureau. Reuveni was ultimately fired in April.

One administration official who features prominently in his allegations is Emil Bove, who formerly served as Trump’s personal lawyer. Bove helped to defend Trump against criminal charges last year in New York, where he was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business documents.

Trump has since named Bove to be part of his administration in his second term as president. For the first three months of Trump’s term, Bove was acting attorney general at the Justice Department. And this week, he faces a Senate confirmation hearing for his nomination to join the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals as a judge.

Scrutiny on deportation flights

One incident allegedly occurred on March 14, when Trump was weighing whether to use a wartime law — the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — to pave the way for expedited removals from the country.

According to Reuveni’s account, Bove told Justice Department lawyers that Trump would soon sign an order to invoke the law, which had only been used three times in US history, all during periods of war.

Bove added that planes would imminently take off, deporting individuals under the law’s authority.

But as Reuveni recalled, Bove anticipated pushback from the courts. He said that Bove “stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what” and that the Justice Department “would need to consider telling the courts ‘f*** you’”.

The room fell silent, according to Reuveni, who observed “awkward, nervous glances” among his colleagues.

“Mr Reuveni was stunned by Bove’s statement because, to Mr Reuveni’s knowledge, no one in DOJ leadership — in any Administration — had ever suggested the Department of Justice could blatantly ignore court orders, especially with a ‘f*** you’,” the complaint said.

It added that the Justice Department typically advises its government clients to follow court orders, not ignore them.

The very next day, on March 15, the government’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was challenged in a US district court in Washington, DC, led by Judge James Boasberg.

When questioned by Boasberg, a high-ranking Justice Department lawyer denied knowing whether any deportation flights were taking off imminently. In his complaint, Reuveni said that statement was false.

Later that day, Boasberg issued a court injunction that barred any removals under the Alien Enemies Act and required any US planes carrying out such deportations to return to the country.

Reuveni said he emailed the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State multiple times in the hours afterwards to ensure they complied with Boasberg’s order. But he said he received no reply.

The flights ultimately landed in El Salvador, where hundreds of deported immigrants were sent to a prison called the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT.

“Mr Reuveni anticipated that the government would be held in contempt of court for deplaning those on the flight,” the complaint reads.

Boasberg has since indicated that he has found probable cause for contempt on the part of the Trump administration, though an appeals court has temporarily paused proceedings on the matter.

Inside the Abrego Garcia case

In a second instance detailed in the complaint, Reuveni said he tried to alert the Trump administration that it may be in violation of another court injunction — only to be “told to stop asking questions”.

Further, Reuveni alleged that he received advice to “communicate by phone only where possible”, presumably to avoid leaving a paper trail.

A third episode outlined in the complaint sheds light on Reuveni’s participation in the high-profile case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who had a protection order allowing him to remain in the US.

Abrego Garcia was nevertheless deported on March 15, in what officials admitted was an “administrative error”.

The Trump administration has nevertheless defended its actions by accusing Abrego Garcia of membership in a gang, MS-13.

Despite a court order, upheld by the Supreme Court, to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, the Trump administration left him in Salvadoran custody for more than two months. Only on June 6 did it return him to the US, on the premise that he would face criminal charges for human trafficking.

In the complaint, Reuveni said that, at first, he thought Abrego Garcia’s return to the US would be “straightforward”.

But then he said he was stonewalled and told to “cease making requests” and “stop asking for facts supporting any possible defence of the case”. He was also discouraged from making “asks” of El Salvador’s government.

Reuveni later made headlines for conceding in court that Abrego Garcia should not have been removed from the country. He also said he did not have “satisfactory” answers for questions from the judge in the case, Paula Xinis.

That incident was perceived as a black eye for the Trump administration.

Behind closed doors, Reuveni’s boss asked him why he did not accuse Abrego Garcia of being “a member of a terrorist organisation” during the court hearing, according to the complaint. Reuveni said he responded that the government had not provided evidence or submitted briefs to support that argument.

When the Trump administration circulated an appeal on April 4 advancing those arguments, Reuveni reportedly said he could not sign it because the allegations “were not supported by law or the record”.

“Mr Reuveni responded, ‘I didn’t sign up to lie,’” the complaint said.

Professional fallout

By April 11, Reuveni was fired from his position with the Justice Department, after nearly 15 years of service.

Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a statement at the time accusing him of failing to “zealously advocate on behalf of the United States”, as is expected of a government lawyer. But Reuveni’s complaint disputes that accusation.

“Discouraging clients from engaging in illegal conduct is an important part of the role of lawyer,” it reads. “Mr Reuveni tried to do so and was thwarted, threatened, fired and publicly disparaged for both doing his job and telling the truth to the court.”

The complaint notes that Reuveni had previously received “stellar” evaluations for his work on immigration policy, including during Trump’s first term.

Still, as the news of the complaint circulated on US media, members of the Trump administration sought to frame Reuveni’s claims as those of a “disgruntled former employee”.

“I was at the meeting described in the article and at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed,” said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in a statement on social media.

He accused Reuveni and media outlets like The New York Times, which published a copy of Reuveni’s complaint, of attempting to sabotage Bove’s chances of being confirmed as a circuit court judge.

“This is disgusting journalism,” he wrote. “Planting a false hit piece the day before a confirmation hearing is something we have come to expect from the media, but it does not mean it should be tolerated.”

Democrats, meanwhile, seized the complaint as evidence of malfeasance in the Trump administration.

“Emil Bove has no respect for the rule of law and court orders. He does not belong on the federal bench,” Senator Cory Booker wrote on social media.

Senator Dick Durbin, meanwhile, released a statement praising Reuveni for coming forward as a whistleblower. He said the Senate had an obligation to act on the “serious allegations” raised about Bove.

“I want to thank Mr Reuveni for exercising his right to speak up and bring accountability to Mr Bove,” Durbin wrote. “And I implore my Senate Republican colleagues: do not turn a blind eye to the dire consequences of confirming Mr Bove to a lifetime position as a circuit court judge.”