By Emmanuel Bobby
More than a year after Attorney General Pam Bondi launched a controversial “Weaponization Working Group” to investigate what the Trump administration has described as politically motivated prosecutions, the Justice Department is now racing to produce a formal report, according to people familiar with the group’s work. The internal push comes amid growing frustration within the White House and upheaval inside the working group itself.
Ed Martin, a conservative activist appointed to lead the group in May, was removed from the role last week without public explanation. Since his departure, senior Justice Department leaders have reportedly pressured the team to deliver tangible findings, with members planning to meet daily in the coming weeks to address investigative priorities outlined by Bondi. Sources say the group is expected to release its first report soon.
“The Justice Department is actively looking into the areas outlined in Attorney General Bondi’s ‘Day One’ memo,” a department spokesperson said. “The Weaponization Working Group is diligently working to restore integrity to the Department of Justice and is utilizing resources across the entire agency to fulfill this effort.”
White House Frustration and Political Pressure
The renewed urgency follows reports that President Donald Trump has privately complained about Bondi’s leadership, describing her as insufficiently aggressive in targeting what he views as political adversaries. According to a White House official with direct knowledge of the comments, Trump expressed frustration with the lack of visible results from the initiative. Justice Department officials working on the group were also reportedly criticized for their slow progress.
Despite the criticism, Bondi is not believed to be at risk of losing her position. Trump has publicly reiterated his support for her, praising her efforts and accusing political opponents of election-related misconduct. Other senior administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, have also issued statements defending Bondi’s leadership.
The working group was created after Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending the Weaponization of the Government,” directing federal agencies to investigate alleged abuses by law enforcement and prosecutors during previous investigations into him and his allies.
Origins and Scope of the Working Group
Bondi’s Feb. 5, 2025, memo outlined the group’s mandate: to review actions taken by federal and state officials involved in investigations that the administration claims were politically motivated. Trump has long argued that criminal and civil cases against him were part of a coordinated “witch hunt.”
Those cases included federal charges related to his handling of classified documents and efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, both of which were dropped or dismissed after he returned to office. Trump was also convicted in a New York hush-money case and found liable in a civil fraud lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, though he is appealing those rulings and a New York appeals court has dismissed the civil fraud penalty.
Trump has continued to pressure Bondi publicly and privately to pursue investigations into political rivals, posting messages on social media urging action against perceived opponents.
Criticism From Career Prosecutors and Legal Experts
To many current and former federal prosecutors, the working group represents an unprecedented politicization of the Justice Department. Critics argue that the administration itself is weaponizing federal law enforcement for political purposes while accusing previous officials of the same behavior.
“They basically succeeded in creating the starkest example of this administration’s hypocrisy by naming a working group that was created to weaponize the Department of Justice the ‘Weaponization Working Group,’” said Stacey Young, a former Justice Department official who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations and now leads the nonprofit Justice Connection.
Young and others argue that the administration has launched legally questionable investigations against political opponents, including probes targeting sitting Democratic senators, the governor of Minnesota, and the mayor of Minneapolis. Several cases have already been dismissed by judges due to procedural or legal defects, raising questions about the legitimacy of the investigations.
Investigations and Legal Setbacks
The working group’s mandate includes seven areas of focus, ranging from investigations led by former special counsel Jack Smith to alleged abuses in Jan. 6 prosecutions, school board threat memos, enforcement of the FACE Act, and alleged retaliation against whistleblowers. According to people familiar with the group’s internal deliberations, progress has been slow, particularly in reviewing the special counsel investigations.
Some participants and potential witnesses say they have had little contact with the group. Brian Mock, a Jan. 6 defendant now running for state office in Minnesota, said he met once with the group’s former leader but has not heard from them since. Former FBI agent Steve Friend, who has claimed whistleblower status, said he expected outreach but has received none.
At the same time, the Justice Department is pursuing FACE Act charges in new cases involving nonviolent protests, including a high-profile church demonstration in Minnesota, even as the working group reviews whether the law has been misused against activists.
Unclear Leadership and Controversial Membership
The current leadership structure of the working group remains unclear following Martin’s removal. The team has reportedly included officials and advisors from across the federal government, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, the IRS, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Some individuals involved in the project have been controversial figures, including a Jan. 6 defendant and a former judge suspended for ethical violations. Martin, before his removal, had vowed to publicly “name and shame” individuals not charged with crimes, a departure from long-standing Justice Department norms.
As the department races to produce its first report, legal experts and civil rights advocates warn that the initiative could further erode public trust in the impartiality of federal law enforcement.
“The administration is running roughshod over institutional norms that kept the Justice Department honest and unbiased,” Young said, calling the current situation “dangerous and unprecedented.”
With internal pressure mounting and political scrutiny intensifying, the working group’s forthcoming report is expected to become a major flashpoint in the broader debate over the politicization of the U.S. justice system.
Original article
Comments