The Justice Department (DOJ) during Donald Trump’s presidency faced significant scrutiny for its handling of investigations involving journalists, lawmakers, and congressional staffers. A detailed report from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has shed light on procedural lapses and questionable practices that sparked widespread debate about the balance between national security and civil liberties.
Uncovering Procedural Lapses in Investigations
According to the inspector general’s report, the DOJ during Trump’s first term failed to adhere to its internal protocols while investigating leaks of classified information. This included obtaining phone and email records of journalists, congressional staffers, and even Democratic lawmakers without proper high-level review or approval.
The records sweep impacted 43 congressional staffers, including those working for two Democratic House members. Despite the gravity of these actions, federal prosecutors did not inform then-Attorney General Bill Barr or seek his express approval. Additionally, the DOJ did not disclose to courts that these subpoenas targeted lawmakers and their aides, raising concerns about potential overreach and infringement on congressional oversight.
Horowitz emphasized the potential chilling effect of such actions on Congress’s ability to oversee the executive branch. These findings highlight a lack of safeguards that could have prevented the overreach.
Implications for Journalists and Freedom of the Press
The investigations extended to journalists from prominent outlets such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN. The DOJ subpoenaed their phone and email records in an effort to identify sources of leaked classified information. Although Bill Barr approved these subpoenas, the department failed to convene the mandatory internal panel designed to evaluate such requests.
Inspector General Horowitz criticized this deviation from policy, stating that it undermined the vital role of a free press in a democracy. President Joe Biden condemned the practice, calling it “simply wrong,” and Attorney General Merrick Garland later formalized a ban on such actions to protect journalistic freedom.
Political Implications of the Investigations
The DOJ’s decision to target Democratic lawmakers, including Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, was based on allegations from a Democratic staffer. However, the report found no credible evidence supporting these allegations. It also concluded that political or retaliatory motives were absent in the decisions made by career prosecutors.
This lack of evidence has led critics to question the necessity and impartiality of these investigations. Kash Patel, a former House Intelligence Committee aide and Trump ally, has also raised concerns. Patel claimed that the DOJ’s investigation into his communications was retaliatory, although his subsequent lawsuit against the DOJ was dismissed.
Justice Department’s Handling of Subpoenas and Gag Orders
The report highlighted the DOJ’s use of gag orders to prevent companies like Apple and Google from informing targets about the subpoenas. These practices faced criticism for bypassing transparency and accountability. Although new policies now require high-level approvals for subpoenas targeting lawmakers, the report revealed that gaps remain, allowing prosecutors to pursue such records without exhausting alternative investigative avenues.
Revised Policies and Future Outlook
In response to the inspector general’s findings, the DOJ has implemented stricter policies for subpoenas targeting journalists and lawmakers. These include requiring prosecutors to inform judges when a request involves congressional members or their staff. However, these measures may face challenges as the Trump administration has signaled intentions to roll back these protections if reelected.
Legislation like the PRESS Act seeks to safeguard journalistic integrity, but its future remains uncertain amidst political opposition. Trump has urged Republican lawmakers to oppose such measures, raising concerns about the potential erosion of media protections and civil liberties.
Key Cases and Their Outcomes
Notably, most leak investigations did not result in criminal charges. However, James Wolfe, the former Senate Intelligence Committee Security Director, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his interactions with journalists. Wolfe was sentenced to two months in prison, highlighting the limited success of these invasive investigations.
The Broader Context of DOJ Investigations
The DOJ under Trump also faced scrutiny for its actions surrounding the January 6 Capitol attack. An upcoming report from Horowitz’s office is expected to provide further insights into the department’s preparedness and response during that critical period.
The release of these reports underscores the ongoing tension between maintaining national security and upholding constitutional protections. Horowitz’s findings serve as a reminder of the importance of accountability and transparency in government actions.
Conclusion
The DOJ’s handling of investigations during Trump’s presidency raises significant concerns about procedural integrity, the protection of press freedom, and the balance of power between government branches. While recent policy changes aim to address these issues, ongoing political dynamics and potential rollbacks threaten to undermine these safeguards.
As the nation grapples with these challenges, maintaining robust oversight and advocating for legislative protections like the PRESS Act will be critical in preserving democratic values.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What did the DOJ Inspector General’s report reveal?
The report revealed procedural lapses in how the DOJ pursued phone and email records of journalists, lawmakers, and congressional staffers. It highlighted a lack of high-level approvals and transparency, raising concerns about overreach and accountability.
2. Why were journalists targeted in these investigations?
Journalists were targeted to identify sources of leaked classified information. However, the DOJ’s failure to follow its own policies undermined press freedom and drew widespread criticism.
3. Were any lawmakers targeted for political reasons?
The report found no evidence that Democratic lawmakers like Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell were targeted due to their political views. Allegations against them lacked credible evidence and were deemed baseless.
4. What changes have been made to DOJ policies?
The DOJ has implemented stricter policies requiring high-level approvals for subpoenas targeting journalists and lawmakers. These changes aim to improve transparency and protect constitutional rights.
5. Could these protections be rolled back in the future?
Yes, the incoming Trump administration has signaled intentions to roll back these protections. Legislation like the PRESS Act could provide safeguards, but its passage remains uncertain amidst political opposition.