By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Monday released a sweeping report examining former Attorney General Merrick Garland’s 2021 directive involving threats against school officials, concluding that senior Biden administration officials pressed federal law enforcement to pursue parents protesting school policies despite significant concerns inside the FBI and Justice Department about constitutional rights and the lack of a clear federal crime.
The 273-page report, including roughly 250 pages of exhibits and internal communications, was issued by the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group under Attorney General Todd Blanche.
The department said its review found that White House officials, senior Justice Department leadership and the National School Boards Association coordinated around concerns involving increasingly contentious school board meetings in 2021, while career government personnel repeatedly questioned whether federal prosecutors had legitimate jurisdiction over much of the conduct.
The department titled its review the “Report to Expose the Weaponization of Government Against Parents in Schools”.
Blanche said the records confirm that the federal government sought potential ways to prosecute people engaged in protests over school policies and that officials considered involving national-security authorities despite objections from employees who warned of constitutional problems.
“Five years ago, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued an infamous memorandum at the urging of the National School Boards Association and White House officials, directing the FBI and United States Attorneys to consider looking for a federal hook to prosecute parents exercising their right to free speech,” Blanche wrote Monday on X.
“Today, we are releasing the ‘Report to Expose the Weaponization of Government Against Parents in Schools’ which details Weaponization of the Department against these parents — from attempting to get the National Security Division involved to ignoring repeated warnings from employees that leadership’s actions could be unconstitutional.”
Blanche said the newly released records establish the extent of cooperation between the Biden White House, Garland’s Justice Department and the National School Boards Association.
“Along with the report, we’ve released hundreds of exhibits and emails that make official and verify what many Americans had guessed: the Garland DOJ worked hand in hand with WH officials and the National School Boards Association to chill free speech and parental rights while they threatened to prosecute parents and label them domestic terrorists.”
The report traces the controversy to the summer of 2021, when parents across the country were increasingly confronting school boards over COVID-19 restrictions, critical race theory, curriculum decisions and transgender policies.
According to the report, the National School Boards Association, or NSBA, acknowledged that it was communicating with the Department of Education as early as July 2021 to develop “talking points and push back on critics regarding critical race theory (‘CRT’) and transgender policies that are creating ‘hostile situations for school board members.’”
Those discussions preceded a Sept. 29, 2021, letter the NSBA sent to President Joe Biden asking the federal government to intervene.
The organization cited confrontations and threats directed toward school board members and education officials and stated that some conduct “could be equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”
The letter sought federal law-enforcement assistance and raised the possible use of federal statutes, including laws associated with domestic terrorism.
The new DOJ report says White House officials had been communicating with NSBA leadership before the letter was sent.
According to records included in the report, NSBA officials discussed their concerns with White House personnel and were asked to provide additional information about specific incidents.
The NSBA later acknowledged that coordination publicly.
Five days after the letter was sent, Garland issued an Oct. 4, 2021, memorandum directing the FBI and U.S. attorneys to coordinate with federal, state and local officials concerning threats against school administrators, board members, teachers and staff.
Garland wrote that the Justice Department had observed “a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence.”
The memorandum instructed U.S. attorneys and the FBI to convene meetings with law enforcement and education officials around the country and develop strategies for addressing threats.
The new report argues that Garland’s directive went further than was justified by the evidence presented to the department.
The Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group said many attorneys and FBI personnel reviewing the issue found little indication of widespread federal criminal conduct.
“The records the Weaponization Working Group reviewed show that the Garland Memorandum arose from discussions between Slaven and White House officials regarding the NSBA Letter,” the report states, referring to then-NSBA interim executive director and CEO Chip Slaven.
“The Garland Memorandum was the product of pressure by high-ranking Biden Administration officials at the White House and ODAG,” the report states, referring to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.
According to the findings, attorneys across multiple DOJ components were skeptical that school board protests or anger over local school policy provided a basis for federal prosecution.
The report says some government lawyers viewed the disputes as matters for state and local law enforcement unless specific federal crimes could be identified.
Internal comments released with the report reveal unusually blunt opposition.
Employees described the initiative in terms including “stupid, stupid, stupid,” “ridiculous,” “horrible,” “very messy and political” and “nothing remotely federal.”
One internal comment warned officials were entering “potentially dangerous ground.”
Another said the approach was “challenging from a First Amendment perspective.”
One employee warned that the effort could “tarnish reputation as an apolitical law enforcer.”
Another said it “look[s] political.”
One internal critic described it as “a partisan exercise aimed at those who do not support the Administration.”
Another remarked that officials “might as well rename the damn thing the Anti-MAGA Task Force.”
Despite those objections, Garland issued the memorandum.
The report says officials subsequently created a task force intended to examine possible federal enforcement options and that the FBI opened 25 Guardian assessments connected to the initiative.
Guardian assessments are preliminary FBI investigative tools used to evaluate tips and determine whether information warrants further investigative action.
According to the Justice Department, one FBI whistleblower previously said a mother became subject to an assessment in part because she “is a gun owner” and belonged to what was described as a “right-wing mom’s group.”
The report maintains that such examples illustrate how activity protected by the First and Second Amendments could become incorporated into federal investigative records.
It also says officials explored whether the Justice Department’s National Security Division could become involved.
That possibility drew particular concern internally because the NSBA letter’s reference to “domestic terrorism” risked associating ordinary political protest with national-security investigations.
The Garland memorandum itself did not formally declare parents domestic terrorists.
The phrase originated in the NSBA letter, which stated that certain threatening or violent conduct “could be equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”
The distinction became central to the political dispute that followed.
Garland repeatedly told Congress that his memorandum was aimed at violence and threats of violence, not parents exercising protected speech.
He denied directing the FBI to treat parents as domestic terrorists.
Republican lawmakers countered that Garland’s memorandum followed directly from the NSBA letter and created a nationwide federal response despite limited evidence supporting the organization’s most sweeping assertions.
The new DOJ report adopts that criticism, concluding that federal pressure risked chilling lawful parental speech even where no prosecution resulted.
The NSBA itself backed away from its original language within weeks.
On Oct. 22, 2021, its board apologized for the letter and acknowledged there “was no justification for some of the language included in” it.
The organization subsequently conducted its own review of how the letter was developed.
The controversy continued for years through congressional investigations, Freedom of Information Act litigation and whistleblower disclosures.
Monday’s report was produced pursuant to President Donald Trump’s January 2025 Executive Order 14147, “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government.”
The order established “the policy of the United States to identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to the weaponization of law enforcement and the Intelligence Community.”
The Justice Department says its investigation fulfills both Trump’s directive and a subsequent order to review the Garland memorandum.
The department also announced several corrective actions Monday.
Parents and other school board participants who became subjects or targets of FBI Guardian assessments arising from the Garland memorandum will be offered an opportunity to review those records, according to DOJ.
The FBI will add a disclaimer to Guardian assessments associated with the initiative explaining that the Garland memorandum raised constitutional concerns.
Most of those assessments have already been closed or discontinued.
The Justice Department will also review individual investigative files to determine whether constitutional rights were violated.
If officials conclude that a violation occurred, DOJ says it will issue a formal apology and consider additional internal safeguards.
The department is also directing new funding toward training regarding parental rights.
Through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, DOJ said it is providing $1.5 million to the National Association of School Resource Officers to develop training for school resource officers concerning parents’ rights in public education.
Additional Justice Department funding will support resources and training for teachers and school personnel about First Amendment protections and parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
The department and Department of Education also sent letters Monday to attorneys general in all 50 states addressing parental rights.
The findings reignite a controversy that became one of the most contentious education and civil-liberties disputes of the Biden administration.
At the time, the country was experiencing heated confrontations at school board meetings over pandemic mandates, race-related curriculum and policies involving sex and gender.
Some incidents included explicit threats and physical confrontations, which federal officials said justified increased law-enforcement coordination.
But critics argued the federal government blurred the distinction between genuinely threatening conduct and constitutionally protected political opposition.
The newly released documents indicate that similar concerns existed inside the government itself.
Career officials repeatedly questioned whether the Justice Department had an appropriate federal role and warned that the initiative could appear partisan or infringe protected speech.
The report’s authors ultimately concluded that those warnings were overridden as senior officials sought an enforcement strategy following pressure from the White House and NSBA.
The report states that the Biden administration “wrongly weaponized the Department of Justice against parents.”
That conclusion represents the current Trump Justice Department’s assessment of its predecessor’s actions rather than a judicial finding that Garland or other officials committed a crime.
No court has ruled that Garland’s memorandum itself was criminal.
The documents, however, provide new evidence about the internal debate surrounding its creation and implementation.
They show federal employees warning about First Amendment implications, questioning the existence of federal jurisdiction and objecting to the political appearance of an initiative launched shortly after the NSBA asked Biden for assistance.
For Blanche, those records demonstrate why the investigation was necessary.
The attorney general said the department is now attempting to ensure that parents who peacefully challenge school policies are not treated as potential federal law-enforcement targets solely because of their political views or participation in public meetings.
The Justice Department said Monday it remains committed to protecting “Constitutionally protected civil liberties, especially the First Amendment rights of all Americans.”
Five years after the controversy began, the newly released emails and investigative records offer the most detailed official account yet of the government’s internal disagreements — and of how a school-board association’s request to the White House ultimately developed into a nationwide Justice Department initiative that even some federal employees feared had crossed constitutional and political lines.
Original article
Comments