Staff of Reuters, notably Ned Parker, Linda So, Peter Eisler and Mike Spector

Reuters documented at least 470 targets of retribution under Trump’s leadership – from federal employees and prosecutors to universities and media outlets. The list illuminates the sweeping effort by the president and his administration to punish dissent and reshape the government.

By Peter Eisler, Ned Parker, Linda So and Joseph Tanfani

In his second term, Donald Trump has turned a campaign pledge to punish political opponents into a guiding principle of governance.

What began as a provocative rallying cry in March 2023 – “I am your retribution” – has hardened into a sweeping campaign of retaliation against perceived enemies, reshaping federal policy, staffing and law enforcement.

A tally by Reuters reveals the scale: At least 470 people, organizations and institutions have been targeted for retribution since Trump took office – an average of more than one a day. Some were singled out for punishment; others swept up in broader purges of perceived enemies. The count excludes foreign individuals, institutions and governments, as well as federal employees dismissed as part of force reductions.

The Trump vengeance campaign fuses personal vendettas with a drive for cultural and political dominance, Reuters found. His administration has wielded executive power to punish perceived foes – firing prosecutors who investigated his bid to overturn the 2020 election, ordering punishments of media organizations seen as hostile, penalizing law firms tied to opponents, and sidelining civil servants who question his policies. Many of those actions face legal challenges.

At the same time, Trump and his appointees have used the government to enforce ideology: ousting military leaders deemed “woke,” slashing funds for cultural institutions held to be divisive, and freezing research grants to universities that embraced diversity initiatives.

Reuters reached out to every person and institution that Trump or his subordinates singled out publicly for retribution, and reviewed hundreds of official orders, directives and public records. The result: the most comprehensive accounting yet of his campaign of payback.

The analysis revealed two broad groups of people and organizations targeted for retaliation.

Members of the first group – at least 247 individuals and entities – were singled out by name, either publicly by Trump and his appointees or later in government memos, legal filings or other records. To qualify, acts had to be aimed at specific individuals or entities, with evidence of intent to punish. Reuters reporters interviewed or corresponded with more than 150 of them.

Another 224 people were caught up in broader retribution efforts – not named individually but ensnared in crackdowns on groups of perceived opponents. Nearly 100 of them were prosecutors and FBI agents fired or forced to retire for working on cases tied to Trump or his allies, or because they were deemed “woke.” This includes 16 FBI agents who kneeled at a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020. The rest were civil servants, most of them suspended for publicly opposing administration policies or resisting directives on health, environmental and science issues.

The retribution took three distinct forms.

Most common were punitive acts, such as firings, suspensions, investigations and the revocation of security clearances.

Reuters found at least 462 such cases, including the dismissal of at least 128 federal workers and officials who had probed, challenged or otherwise bucked Trump or his administration.

The second form was threats. Trump and his administration targeted at least 46 individuals, businesses and other entities with threats of investigations or penalties, including freezing federal funds for Democratic-led cities such as New York and Chicago.

Trump openly discussed firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for resisting interest rate cuts, for instance. Last week, he threatened to have six Democratic members of Congress tried for sedition – a crime he said is “punishable by DEATH” – after the lawmakers reminded military personnel they can refuse “illegal orders.” This week, the Defense Department threatened to court-martial one of them, U.S. Senator Mark Kelly, a former Naval officer.

The third form was coercion. In at least a dozen cases, organizations such as law firms and universities signed agreements with the government to roll back diversity initiatives or other policies after facing administration threats of punishment, such as security clearance revocations and loss of federal funding and contracts.

It’s a campaign led from the top: Trump’s White House has issued at least 36 orders, decrees and directives, targeting at least 100 individuals and entities with punitive actions, according to the Reuters analysis.

Trump openly campaigned on a platform of revenge in his latest run for the presidency, promising to punish enemies of his Make America Great Again movement. "For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution," he said in a March 2023 speech. Weeks later, while campaigning in Texas, he repeated the theme. “I am your justice,” he said.

Today, the White House disputes the idea that the administration is out for revenge. It describes recent investigations and indictments of political adversaries as valid course corrections on policy, necessary probes of wrongdoing and legitimate policy initiatives.

“This entire article is based on the flawed premise that enforcing an electoral mandate is somehow ‘retribution.’ It’s not,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. There is no place in government for civil servants or public officials “who actively seek to undermine the agenda that the American people elected the president to enact,” she added. Trump is abiding by campaign promises to restore a justice system that was “weaponized” by the Biden administration, Jackson said, and “ensure taxpayer funding is not going to partisan causes.”

Trump’s actions have been cheered by his staunchest backers. Right-wing commentator and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon told Reuters the use of government power to punish Trump’s enemies is “not revenge at all” but an attempt to “hold people accountable” for what he said were unfair investigations targeting Trump. More is on the way, he said.

“The people that tried to take away President Trump's first term, that accused him of being a Russian asset and damaged this republic, and then stole the 2020 election – they're going to be held accountable and they're going to be adjudicated in courts of law,” he said in an interview. “That's coming. There's no doubt.” There’s no evidence the 2020 election was stolen.

Trump’s allies point to actions former President Joe Biden took upon taking office. After Trump’s supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in a failed bid to overturn his election loss, Biden revoked Trump’s access to classified information, a first for any former president. Biden also won a court battle to dismiss Senate-confirmed directors of independent agencies serving fixed terms, such as the Federal Housing Finance Authority, and removed scores of Trump-era appointees from unpaid advisory boards.

Yet the scale and systematic nature of Trump’s effort to punish perceived enemies marks a sharp break from long-standing norms in U.S. governance, according to 13 political scientists and legal scholars interviewed by Reuters. Some historians say the closest modern parallel, though inexact, is the late President Richard Nixon’s quest for vengeance against political enemies. Since May, for instance, dozens of officials from multiple federal agencies have been meeting as part of a task force formed to advance Trump’s retribution drive against perceived enemies, Reuters previously reported.

“The main aim is concentration of power and destruction of all checks against power,” said Daron Acemoglu, Nobel laureate in economics and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which faces an ongoing federal investigation for embracing diversity and equity programs. “Retribution is just one of the tools.”

Dozens of Trump’s targets have challenged their punishments as illegal. Fired and suspended civil servants have filed administrative appeals or legal challenges claiming wrongful termination. Some law firms have gone to court claiming the administration exceeded its legal authority by restricting their ability to work on classified contracts or interact with federal agencies. Most of those challenges remain unresolved.

Investigating foes of Trump

The administration has moved aggressively against officials in the government’s legal and national security agencies, institutions central to investigations of Trump’s alleged misconduct during and after his first term.

At least 69 current and former officials were targeted for investigating or sounding alarms about Russian interference in U.S. elections. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded soon after the 2016 election that Moscow sought to tilt the race toward Trump, a finding later affirmed by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in August 2020. Acts of retribution tied to the Russia probe include the September 25 indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, a break from Justice Department norms meant to shield prosecutions from political influence.

Comey, who led the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign, was charged after Trump demanded his prosecution. The Justice Department has cast the case as a corruption crackdown. Comey and his lawyers said in court documents that the case was “vindictive” and motivated by “personal animus.” Comey, who pleaded not guilty, declined to comment. A federal judge dismissed the case on Monday, ruling that Trump’s handpicked prosecutor had been unlawfully appointed

At least 58 acts of retribution have targeted people Trump viewed as saboteurs of his election campaigns, including Chris Krebs, the top cybersecurity official during his first term. Trump fired him in 2020 for disputing claims that the election was rigged. In April, Trump stripped Krebs’ security clearance and ordered a federal investigation into his tenure. Krebs, still asserting that Trump’s defeat was valid, has vowed to fight the probe. He did not respond for this story.

Reuters documented 112 security clearances revoked from current and former U.S. officials, law firms and state leaders – credentials needed for work that involves classified information. In August, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced she was revoking 37 clearances.

In a response to Reuters posted on X, an agency spokesperson said Gabbard and Trump are working “to ensure the government is never again wielded against the American people it is meant to serve.” She added: “President Trump said it best, ‘Our ultimate retribution is success.’”

Leon Panetta, CIA director and defense secretary under former President Barack Obama, had his security clearance revoked in January along with others who signed an October 2020 letter suggesting Russia may have been behind reports about emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop. At the time, Joe Biden – Hunter’s father – was Trump’s Democratic rival in the 2020 election. An executive order Trump signed in January claimed: "The signatories willfully weaponized the gravitas of the Intelligence Community to manipulate the political process and undermine our democratic institutions." Panetta has said he stands by signing the letter.

Panetta told Reuters he had already surrendered his clearance after leaving government nearly a decade ago. Trump’s retribution campaign is hurting CIA morale and wrecking the bipartisan trust that allows Washington to function, Panetta said. “What I worry about is that our adversaries will look at what’s happening and sense weakness,” he said. “This kind of political retribution leads to a loss of trust, which ultimately leads to a failure of governing.” The CIA did not respond to a request for comment.

The revenge effort also reaches deep into the civil service, punishing employees who speak out against Trump’s policies and turning forms of dissent that were tolerated by past administrations into grounds for discipline.

This summer, hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency staffers wrote an open letter protesting deep cuts to pollution control and cleanup programs. The fallout was swift. More than 100 signers who attached their names were placed on paid leave. At least 15 senior officials and probationary employees were told they would be fired. The rest were informed they were under investigation for misconduct, leading to at least 69 suspensions without pay. Many remained out of work for weeks.

“They followed all the rules” of conduct for civil servants, said Nicole Cantello, one of the signers and an officer with the American Federation of Government Employees, a union that represents many affected workers. She called the punishments an attempt to “quell dissent,” stifle free speech and “scare the employees.” In a statement, the EPA said it has “a zero-tolerance policy for career officials using their agency position and title to unlawfully undermine, sabotage, and undercut” administration policy.

At the Federal Emergency Management Agency, about 20 staffers were put on leave and now face misconduct investigations after signing a letter criticizing the agency’s decision to scrap bipartisan reforms adopted years ago to speed disaster relief. Cameron Hamilton, a Republican who served briefly as acting head of FEMA, was fired in May, a day after telling Congress he didn’t believe the agency should be shut down, contradicting the administration.

Hamilton told Reuters he still supports Trump. But he said too many senior officials are firing people in the name of retribution, trying to impress the White House. “They want to find ways to really launch themselves to prominence and be movers and shakers, to kick ass and take names,” said Hamilton. “They’re trying to show the president ‘look at what I am doing for you.’”

In a statement to Reuters, the Department of Homeland Security, which includes FEMA, said it is building a “new FEMA” to fix “inefficiency and outdated processes.” Employees “resisting change” are “not a good fit,” the statement said.

Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, former head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, sees her firing in October – three weeks after filing a whistleblower complaint alleging politicization of research and vaccine policy – as a warning shot. She told Reuters the administration’s purge of dissenting health officials is breeding “anticipatory obedience” – a reflex to comply before being asked. “People know if they push back … this is what happens,” she said. The effect, she says, is an ecosystem of fear: those who stay in government self-censor; those who speak out are branded “radioactive, too hot to handle.”

The Department of Health and Human Services, the agency that oversees NIAID, did not respond to a request for comment.

Federal agency leaders have dismissed a wide array of officials they deemed out of step with Trump’s MAGA agenda, including employees involved in diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and those working on transgender issues.

David Maltinsky, a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, says he was fired by Director Kash Patel for displaying a Pride flag at work – one of at least 50 bureau personnel dismissed on Patel’s watch. Maltinsky sued the FBI and Justice Department, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and seeking reinstatement. The Justice Department has yet to file a formal response.

In his 2023 book, “Government Gangsters,” Patel named 60 people that he said were members of an “Executive Branch deep state” that opposed Trump, including former Democratic government officials and Republicans who served in Trump’s first administration but eventually broke with him. He called for firings and said that anybody who abused their authority should face prosecution. In his 2025 confirmation hearing before Congress, Patel denied that it was an “enemies list.”

Reuters found that at least 17 of the 60 people on Patel’s list have faced some sort of retribution, including firings and stripping of security clearances. The FBI did not respond to a request for comment.

Against perceived foes in the private sector, the administration has wielded financial penalties as leverage. At least two dozen law firms faced inquiries, investigations or restrictions on federal contracting, often for employing or representing people tied to past cases against Trump. Eight struck deals to avoid further action.

Nine media organizations have faced federal investigations, lawsuits, threats to revoke their broadcast licenses and limits on access to White House events. Trump has also suggested revoking broadcast licenses for networks whose coverage he dislikes.

The targets include universities, long cast by the president and his allies as bastions of left-wing radicals.

Officials froze more than $4 billion in federal grants and research funding to at least nine schools, demanding policy changes such as ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs, banning transgender athletes from women’s sports and cracking down on alleged antisemitism amid pro-Palestinian protests. Five universities have signed agreements to restore funding. Harvard University successfully sued to block a freeze on $2.2 billion in federal aid for the school, which Trump accused of “pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired” dogma. Harvard declined to comment.

The administration has described the funding freezes and other efforts to force policy changes at colleges and universities as a necessary push to reverse years of leftward drift in U.S. education. “If Reuters considers restoring merit in admissions, reclaiming women’s titles misappropriated by male athletes, enforcing civil rights laws, and preventing taxpayer dollars from funding radical DEI programs 'retribution,' then we’re on very different planes of reality,” said Julie Hartman, a spokesperson for the U.S. Education Department.

A historical parallel: Nixon’s enemies

It’s impossible to predict, of course, how far the Trump revenge campaign will go, or whether it will be affected by a recent slide in popular support. Trump has been hurt by public frustration with the high cost of living and the investigation into late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Nixon resigned in 1974 over the Watergate scandal, in which aides to his re-election campaign broke into Democratic Party headquarters and the president himself later directed a cover-up. While in office, he kept a list of more than 500 enemies. But while Trump has conducted his retribution campaign in the open, historians note, Nixon’s enemies list was conceived as a covert tool.

John Dean, chief counsel in the Nixon White House, wrote a confidential memo in 1971 addressing "how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies." The planned methods included tax audits, phone-tapping, the cancellation of contracts and criminal prosecution. Yet the execution faltered: IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander refused to conduct mass audits, and most targets escaped serious punishment.

Other recent presidents, to be sure, have been accused of seeking to punish opponents, though on a smaller scale. The Obama administration pursued “aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information,” the Committee to Protect Journalists said in a 2013 report. Two IRS employees alleged they were retaliated against during the Biden administration for raising concerns about the handling of the tax-compliance investigation of Hunter Biden.

Nixon’s plotting remained a secret until the Watergate hearings exposed it, turning his enemies list into a symbol of presidential abuse. The secrecy reflected a political culture in which retaliation was whispered, not broadcast, and where institutional checks blunted many of Nixon’s ambitions.

Trump’s approach reverses that pattern, historians say. He has openly named his perceived enemies, urged prosecutions in public and framed vengeance as a campaign vow. Some say today’s “enemies list” politics are in that sense farther‑reaching than Nixon’s, possibly signaling a shift toward a normalization of retribution in American political life.

Corey Brettschneider, a political science professor at Brown University who has written a book on power grabs by American presidents, said Nixon was ultimately checked and forced to resign by Congress, including members of his own Republican Party. “That's just not happening now,” he said.

Federal officials

Lisa Cook

Governor, U.S. Federal Reserve

Aug 15: Criminal referral made to U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleging mortgage fraud

Aug 22: Threatened with firing by Trump

Aug 25: Firing ordered by Trump

Sep 4: DOJ opens criminal investigation, mortgage fraud allegations

Adam Schiff

U.S. Senator, California, Democrat

May 27: Referred for DOJ investigation, mortgage fraud allegations

Jul 20: Threatened by Trump with criminal prosecution

Aug 8: DOJ criminal investigation revealed, mortgage fraud allegations

Aug 13, Sep 20: Threatened by Trump again with criminal prosecution

Chuck Schumer

U.S. Senate Minority Leader

Jan 21: Subject of DOJ inquiry

Colleen Shogan

Archivist of the United States

Feb 7: Fired

Robert Garcia

U.S. Representative, California, Democrat

Feb 17: Subject of DOJ inquiry

Elizabeth “Liz” Oyer

Pardon Attorney, DOJ

Mar 7: Fired, later filed legal complaint alleging she was dismissed after refusing to recommend restoration of gun rights to actor Mel Gibson, a Trump supporter convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence

Erez Reuveni

Acting Deputy Director, DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation

Apr 11: Fired after being put on administrative leave by the DOJ, accused of not forcefully defending the administration’s wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego

Jerome Powell

Chairman, U.S. Federal Reserve

Apr 17: Threatened by Trump with “termination”

Aug 12: Threatened by Trump with “major lawsuit”

Carla Hayden

Librarian of Congress

May 8: Fired

Cameron Hamilton

Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

May 8: Fired

Mike Collins

Acting Chair, National Intelligence Council

May 13: Fired

Maria Langan-Riekhof

Vice Chair, National Intelligence Council

May 13: Fired

LaMonica McIver

U.S. Representative, New Jersey, Democrat

May 19: Charged with assaulting, interfering with federal officer at immigrant holding facility

Kim Sajet

Director, National Portrait Gallery

May 30: Trump said he was firing Sajet; she resigned two weeks later

Michael Gordon

Assistant U.S. Attorney, Former Senior Trial Counsel, Capitol Siege Section, DOJ

Jun 27: Fired

Patricia Hartman

Supervisory Public Affairs Specialist, DOJ

Jul 7: Fired

Michele Beckwith

Acting U.S. Attorney - Eastern District of California

Jul 15: Fired

Maurene Comey

Assistant U.S. Attorney - Southern District of New York

Jul 16: Fired

Carolyn Feinstein

Auditor, Office of the U.S. Trustee, DOJ

Jul 18: Fired

Desiree Leigh Grace

First Assistant U.S. Attorney - District of New Jersey

Jul 22: Fired

Dr. Erika McEntarfer

Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Aug 1: Fired by Trump after her office reported a decline in U.S. job growth

Spencer Evans

Special Agent in Charge, FBI Las Vegas Field Office

Aug 8: Fired, later filed legal complaint alleging he was dismissed as part of “campaign of retribution” by the Trump administration

Walter Giardina

Special Agent, FBI Washington Field Office

Aug 8: Fired, previously worked on cases related to January 6th and Special Counsel probes

Oct 29: Threatened by Trump with federal investigation as part of group associated with Special Counsel probes into Trump and his associates

Brian Driscoll Jr.

Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Aug 8: Fired, later filed legal complaint alleging he was dismissed as part of “campaign of retribution” by the Trump administration

Steven Jensen

Assistant Director in Charge, FBI Washington Field Office

Aug 8: Fired, later filed legal complaint alleging he was dismissed as part of “campaign of retribution” by the Trump administration

Corinne Graff

Former Official, U.S. Institute of Peace; Former Staff, White House National Security Council (NSC)

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Thomas W. West

Senior Staff, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Former Staff, NSC

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Vinh X. Nguyen

Chief Responsible AI Officer, National Security Agency (NSA)

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Erik Siebert

US Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia

Sep 19: Resigned after Trump publicly demanded his dismissal

David Maltinsky

New Agent Trainee - FBI Academy Quantico (formerly FBI Operations Specialist Los Angeles)

Oct 1: Fired, later filed legal complaint alleging he was dismissed for displaying Pride flag at desk

Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo

Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

Oct 1: Fired by Trump administration shortly after filing whistleblower complaint alleging politicization of public health policy; had been on administrative leave since March 2025

Dr. Susan Monarez

Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Aug 27: Fired, testified in Congress that she was dismissed for refusing to fire senior scientists and sign off in advance on vaccine recommendations

Marjorie Taylor Greene

U.S. Representative, Georgia, Republican

Nov 14: Trump threatens Greene’s political career, rescinding his support after she advocated for the release of DOJ files on the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein

Eric Swalwell

U.S. Representative, California, Democrat

Nov 12: Criminal referral to DOJ alleging mortgage fraud

Mark Kelly

U.S. Senator, Arizona, Democrat

Nov 20: Threatened by Trump with arrest for sedition after appearing in video reminding military personnel they can refuse “illegal orders;” Trump says sedition is “punishable by DEATH!”

Nov 24: Pentagon announces review of “allegations of misconduct” by Kelly, threatening to recall the retired Navy captain back to active duty for court-martial proceedings over the senator’s recent video

Elissa Slotkin

U.S. Representative, Michigan, Democrat

Nov 20: Threatened by Trump with arrest for sedition after appearing in video reminding military personnel they can refuse “illegal orders;” Trump says sedition is “punishable by DEATH!”

Jason Crow

U.S. Representative, Colorado, Democrat

Nov 20: Threatened by Trump with arrest for sedition after appearing in video reminding military personnel they can refuse “illegal orders;” Trump says sedition is “punishable by DEATH!”

Chris Deluzio

U.S. Representative, Pennsylvania, Democrat

Nov 20: Threatened by Trump with arrest for sedition after appearing in video reminding military personnel they can refuse “illegal orders;” Trump says sedition is “punishable by DEATH!”

Chrissy Houlahan

U.S. Representative, Pennsylvania, Democrat

Nov 20: Threatened by Trump with arrest for sedition after appearing in video reminding military personnel they can refuse “illegal orders;” Trump says sedition is “punishable by DEATH!”

Maggie Goodlander

U.S. Representative, New Hampshire, Democrat

Nov 20: Threatened by Trump with arrest for sedition after appearing in video reminding military personnel they can refuse “illegal orders;” Trump says sedition is “punishable by DEATH!”

Ana Reyes

U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia

Feb 21: DOJ files misconduct complaint alleging “hostile and egregious misconduct” during hearings on Trump transgender military ban; Complaint later dismissed

James Boasberg

Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Jul 28: DOJ files misconduct complaint alleging judge made improper comments about the Trump administration during a judicial conference

Former federal officials

John Brennan

Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); Former White House Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Jul 9: Unspecified criminal investigation

Jul 18: Among several Obama administration officials named by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in a report alleging they conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

Jul 23: DOJ creates “strike force” to investigate allegations that senior Obama administration officials conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

James Comey

Former Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

May 15: Placed under U.S. Secret Service investigation over alleged hostile social media post about Trump

Jul 9: New, unspecified DOJ criminal investigation

Sep 20: Threatened by Trump with criminal prosecution

Sep 25: Criminally charged by DOJ, allegations of making false statements to Congress; A federal judge later dismissed the charges

Dr. Anthony Fauci

Former Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

Jan 24: Security detail removed

James Clapper

Former Director of National Intelligence

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Jul 18: Among several Obama administration officials named by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in a report alleging they conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

Jul 23: DOJ creates “strike force” to investigate allegations that senior Obama administration officials conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

Michael Hayden

Former Director, CIA; Former Director, NSA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Leon Panetta

Former Director, CIA; Former Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked*

Thomas Fingar

Former Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis; Former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Richard Ledgett

Former Deputy Director, NSA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Aug 19: Second order revoking security clearance*

John McLaughlin

Former Acting Director, CIA; Former Deputy Director, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Michael Morell

Former Acting Director, CIA; Former Deputy Director, CIA; Former Director of Analysis, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Michael Vickers

Former Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; Former Operations Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Douglas Wise

Former Deputy Director, Defense Intelligence Agency; Former Senior Operations Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Nicholas Rasmussen

Former Director, National Counterterrorism Center

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Russell Travers

Former Acting Director, National Counterterrorism Center; Former Deputy Director, National Counterterrorism Center; Former Analyst of the Soviet Union and Russia, Defense Intelligence Agency

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Andrew Liepman

Former Deputy Director, National Counterterrorism Center; Former Senior Intelligence Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

John Moseman

Former Chief of Staff, CIA; Former Minority Staff Director, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Larry Pfeiffer

Former Chief of Staff, CIA; Former Director, White House Situation Room

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Rodney Snyder

Former Chief of Staff, CIA; Former Director of Intelligence Programs, NSC; Chief of Station, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Glenn Gerstell

Former General Counsel, NSA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

David Buckley

Former Inspector General, CIA; Former Democratic Staff Director, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Former Counterespionage Case Officer, U.S. Air Force

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Nada Bakos

Former Analyst and Targeting Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

James Bruce

Former Senior Intelligence Officer, CIA; Former Senior Intelligence Officer, National Intelligence Council

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

David Cariens

Former Intelligence Analyst, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Janice Cariens

Former Operational Support Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Paul Kolbe

Former Senior Operations Officer, CIA; Former Chief, Central Eurasia Division, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Peter Corsell

Former Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Roger Z. George

Former Intelligence Analyst, Senior Analytic Service, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Steven L. Hall

Former Senior Intelligence Officer, CIA; Former Chief of Russian Operations, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Kent Harrington

Former National Intelligence Officer for East Asia, CIA; Former Director of Public Affairs, CIA; Former Chief of Station, CIA; Former Analyst, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Don Hepburn

Former Deputy Assistant Director of International Operations, FBI; Former Senior Intelligence Service Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Timothy D. Kilbourn

Former Dean, Sherman Kent School of Intelligence Analysis, CIA; Former military analyst, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Ronald Marks

Former Officer, CIA; Twice Former Staff of the Republican Majority Leader

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Jonna H. Mendez

Former Technical Operations Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Emile Nakhleh

Former Founding Director, Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program, CIA; Former Senior Intelligence Analyst, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Gerald A. O’Shea

Former Senior Operations Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

David Priess

Former Analyst and Manager, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Marc Polymeropoulos

Former Senior Operations Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Chris Savos

Former Senior Intelligence Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Nick Shapiro

Former Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the Director, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

John Sipher

Former Senior Operations Officer, CIA; Former Deputy Chief of Russian Operations, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Stephen Slick

Former Senior Director for Intelligence Programs, NSC; Former Senior Operations Office, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked*

Cynthia Strand

Former Deputy Assistant Director for Global Issues, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Greg Tarbell

Former Deputy Executive Director, CIA; Former Analyst of the Soviet Union and Russia, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

David Terry

Former Chairman of the National Intelligence Collection Board; Former Chief of the President’s Daily Brief (PDB), CIA; Former PDB Briefer to Vice President Dick Cheney, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Gregory Treverton

Former Chair, National Intelligence Council

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

John Tullius

Former Senior Intelligence Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

David A. Vanell

Former Senior Operations Officer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Winston Wiley

Former Director of Analysis, CIA; Former Chief, Counterterrorism Center, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

Kristin Wood

Former Senior Intelligence Officer, CIA; Former President’s Daily Brief (PDB) Briefer, CIA

Jan 20: Security clearance revoked

John Bolton

Former National Security Advisor

Jan 21: Security detail removed

Mark Esper

Former Secretary, DOD

Feb 5: Security detail removed

Hillary Clinton

Former Secretary of State; Democratic Presidential Candidate

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities

Aug 13: Threatened by Trump with criminal prosecution

Kamala Harris

Former Vice President

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities

Liz Cheney

Former U.S. Representative, Wyoming, Republican

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities

Andrew Weissmann

Former Prosecutor, DOJ

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities

Oct 15: Trump threatens federal investigation for “massive political crime”

Oct 29: Threatened again by Trump with investigation

Antony Blinken

Former Secretary, U.S. State Department

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities

Jacob Sullivan

Former National Security Advisor

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities

Lisa Monaco

Former Deputy Attorney General, DOJ

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities

Oct 15: Trump threatens federal investigation for “massive political crime”

Oct 29: Threatened again with investigation, as part of group associated with Special Counsel probes into Trump

Adam Kinzinger

Former U.S. Representative, Illinois, Republican

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities*

Fiona Hill

Former Staff, NSC

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities

Chris Krebs

Former Director, U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

Apr 9: Security clearance revoked; Placed under federal investigation

Miles Taylor

Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Author of anonymous op-ed criticizing Trump

Apr 9: Security clearance revoked; Placed under federal investigation

Joe Biden

Former President

Jun 4: Federal investigation, allegations that Biden aides exercised presidential powers while he was hampered by mental and physical health problems in office

Barack Obama

Former President

Jul 18: Named with other officials from his administration in a report by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard alleging they conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

Jul 22: Threatened by Trump with federal investigation

Jul 23: DOJ creates “strike force” to investigate allegations that Obama and senior members of his administration conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

Susan Rice

Former National Security Advisor

Jul 18: Among several Obama administration officials named by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in a report alleging they conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

Jul 23: DOJ creates “strike force” to investigate allegations that senior Obama administration officials conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

John Kerry

Former Secretary of State

Jul 18: Among several Obama administration officials named by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in a report alleging they conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

Jul 23: DOJ creates “strike force” to investigate allegations that senior Obama administration officials conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

Loretta Lynch

Former Attorney General, DOJ

Jul 18: Among several Obama administration officials named by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in a report alleging they conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

Jul 23: DOJ creates “strike force” to investigate allegations that senior Obama administration officials conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

Andrew McCabe

Former Deputy Director, FBI

Jul 18: Among several Obama administration officials named by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in a report alleging they conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

Jul 23: DOJ creates “strike force” to investigate allegations that senior Obama administration officials conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency

Jack Smith

Former Special Counsel, DOJ

Aug 2: Federal investigation launched for alleged violations of Hatch Act

Oct 15: Trump threatens federal investigation for “massive political crime”

Oct 29: Threatened again by Trump with investigation

Brett Holmgren

Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research; Former Acting Director, National Counterterrorism Center

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Charles Kupchan

Former Senior Director for European Affairs, NSC

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked*

Christopher Centner

Former Agent, CIA

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Dilpreet Sidhu

Former Deputy Chief of Staff, NSC

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Edward Gistaro

Former Chief Strategy Officer, CIA

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Emily Horne

Former Spokesperson and Senior Director for Press, NSC

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Harry Hannah

Former Analyst, CIA

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Jamia Jowers

Former Staffer, NSC

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked*

Joel Willett

Former Officer, CIA; Current Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Kentucky

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Loren DeJonge Schulman

Former Senior Advisor to National Security Advisor Susan Rice

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Luke Hartig

Former Senior Director of Counterterrorism, NSC

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Mark B Feierstein

Former Principal Advisor to the USAID Administrator

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked*

Michael P. Dempsey

Former Acting Director of National Intelligence; Former Deputy Director of National Intelligence

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Sarah S. Farnsworth

Former Director of Protocol and Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Stephanie O’Sullivan

Former Principal Deputy Director, National Intelligence; Former Associate Deputy Director, CIA

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

William J. Tuttle

Former Official, NSC; Former Political Officer, U.S. State Department

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked

Yael Eisenstat

Former White House Advisor, Former Intelligence Officer, CIA

Aug 19: Security clearance revoked*

Jay Bratt

Former Counterintelligence Chief, DOJ; Former Counselor to Special Counsel, DOJ

Oct 29: Threatened by Trump with investigation for his Special Counsel work related to classified documents at Mar-a-Lago

Christopher Wray

Former Director, FBI

Oct 29: Threatened by Trump with investigation as part of group associated with Special Counsel probes into Trump and his associates

Merrick Garland

Former Attorney General

Oct 29: Threatened by Trump with investigation related to authorizing Special Counsel probes

Thomas Windom

Former Prosecutor, DOJ; Senior Assistant Special Counsel, DOJ

Oct 29: Threatened by Trump with investigation for work related to Special Counsel probes

Bill Clinton

Former President

Nov 14: Trump orders DOJ investigation into ties with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein

Larry Summers

Former Secretary, U.S. Treasury

Nov 14: Trump orders DOJ investigation into ties with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein

* individual says they had no security clearance or it already was inactive.

Democratic-led states, cities and their elected officials

Democratic-led states, cities and their elected officials

Ras J. Baraka

Mayor of Newark, New Jersey

May 9: Charged with trespassing at immigrant holding facility; Charges later dropped

Letitia James

Attorney General, New York State

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities*

Apr 18: Referred to DOJ for investigation of mortgage fraud allegations

Aug 8: DOJ investigation of James’ successful civil prosecutions of Trump and the National Rifle Association; probe focused on whether the cases deprived defendants of their civil rights

Sep 20: Threatened by Trump with criminal prosecution

Oct 9: Criminal charges brought by DOJ, mortgage fraud allegations; A federal judge later dismissed the charges

Janet Mills

Governor, Maine

Feb 21: Trump threatens cuts to state’s federal funding

State of California

State Government

Jan 24: Trump threatens to withhold federal aid for wildfire response

May 27: Trump threatens to cut state’s federal funding

Jul 16: Canceled funding

State of Maine

State Government

Feb 21: U.S. Education Dept. opens investigation into Maine’s policies on accommodating transgender students

Mar 10: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) freezes $100 million in grants to the University of Maine, citing policies on accommodating transgender students; Freeze lifted after Maine Republican U.S. Senator Susan Collins consults with administration

Apr 2: USDA freezes administrative funds for child nutrition programs, citing policies on accommodating transgender students; freeze blocked by federal court, action later dropped by USDA

Alvin Bragg

District Attorney, Manhattan

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities

Phil Murphy

Governor, New Jersey

Apr 10: Placed under DOJ investigation

Matt Platkin

Attorney General, New Jersey

Apr 10: Placed under DOJ investigation

Los Angeles

City

Jun 15: Trump threatens expanded immigration enforcement in Los Angeles and other cities run by “Radical Left Democrats”

New York City

City

Jun 15: Trump threatens expanded immigration enforcement in New York and other cities run by “Radical Left Democrats”

Oct 1: $18 billion in federal infrastructure funding frozen, “DEI principles” cited

Chicago

City

Jun 15: Trump threatens expanded immigration enforcement in Chicago and other cities run by “Radical Left Democrats”

Oct 3: $2.1 billion in federal transportation funding frozen, alleged racial preferences in contracting

Zohran Mamdani

Mayor-elect, New York City

Jul 1: Threatened by Trump with arrest, citizenship probe

Nov 3: Trump threatens to withhold federal funds from city if Mamdani elected mayor

Brandon Johnson

Mayor, Chicago

Oct 8: Threatened by Trump with arrest

JB Pritzker

Governor, Illinois

Oct 8: Threatened by Trump with arrest

Public figures, political family members and student activists

Chris Christie

Former Governor, New Jersey

Aug 24: Threatened by Trump with investigation

Hunter Biden

Son of former President Joe Biden

Mar 17: Security detail removed

Mahmoud Khalil

Graduate Student, Columbia University

Mar 8: Detained; Released on court order; Faces deportation proceedings

Ashley Biden

Daughter of former President Joe Biden

Mar 17: Security detail removed

Rümeysa Öztürk

PhD Student, Tufts University

Mar 25: Detained after co-writing pro-Palestinian editorial; Released on court order

Kilmar Abrego

Salvadoran immigrant

Aug 25: Detained by immigration agents after a court ordered his release

Rodric Bray

State Senate President, Indiana, Republican

Nov 16: Threatened by Trump on Truth Social with primary challenge for failing to support redistricting plan

Greg Goode

State Senator, Indiana, Republican

Nov 16: Threatened by Trump on Truth Social with primary challenge for failing to support redistricting plan

Universities

Columbia University

Mar 7: $400 million in federal funding frozen by Trump administration

Jul 23: Settlement with Trump administration to resolve antisemitism allegations

Harvard University

Apr 14: $2.2 billion in federal funding frozen by Trump administration; action blocked by federal court

Apr 15: Trump threatens revocation of university’s tax exempt status

Apr 17: Trump threatens to cancel university’s federal funding

May 2: Trump again threatens revocation of university’s tax exempt status

May 26: Trump threatens to cut $3 billion in federal grants

Jun 4: Presidential proclamation bars Harvard’s newly admitted foreign students from entering U.S.; action blocked by federal judge, administration appeal pending

University of Pennsylvania

Mar 19: Trump administration freezes $175 million in federal funding based on school’s policies on transgender athletes

Apr 9: Security clearances revoked, based on school’s association with Miles Taylor, former Trump administration staffer turned critic

Jul 1: University agrees to settlement with Trump administration, changes policies on transgender athletes

Princeton University

Apr 1: $210 million in federal funding frozen by Trump administration

Brown University

Apr 3: Trump administration freezes federal funding, saying $510 million affected; Brown estimates $50 million

Jul 30: Funds released under settlement; Brown agrees to commit $50 million to Rhode Island workforce development, improve campus climate for Jews, and submit anonymized admissions data to Trump administration

Cornell University

Apr 8: Trump administration freezes federal funding, saying more than $1 billion affected; Cornell estimates $250 million

Nov 7: Funding released under settlement; Cornell to pay $30 million to government, invest $30 million on research to support US farmers, and submit anonymized admissions data to Trump administration for three years

Northwestern University

Apr 8: $790 million in federal funding frozen by Trump administration

University of Virginia

Apr 11: DOJ letter of inquiry demands documentation showing race not used in admissions

Jun 16: DOJ accuses UVA president of actively defying inquiry into racial discrimination in admissions and DEI policies; threatens legal action and federal funding cuts

Oct 22: UVA agrees to adopt DOJ’s DEI guidance in exchange for a pause on federal investigations and continued funding eligibility

James E. Ryan

President, University of Virginia

Jun 27: Resigned under pressure amid DOJ threats of legal action and funding cuts related to inquiry into university’s admissions and DEI policies

Duke University

Jul 29: $108 million in federal funding frozen by Trump administration

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

Jul 31: $584 million in federal funding frozen by Trump administration

Democratic fundraisers and anti-Trump activists

ActBlue

Democratic Fundraising Platform

Apr 24: Trump orders federal investigation of political fundraising platforms, alleges illegal donations to ActBlue

The Lincoln Project

Political Action Committee

Aug 24: Threatened with lawsuit by Trump lawyers over online criticism of Trump

George Soros

Founder, Open Society Foundations

Aug 27: Threatened by Trump with charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO

Sep 25: Threatened by Trump with federal investigations into alleged funders of “left-wing political violence”

Alex Soros

Board of Directors Chair, Open Society Foundations

Aug 27: Threatened by Trump with RICO charges

Reid Hoffman

LinkedIn and Manas AI co-founder, tech investor

Sep 25: Threatened by Trump with federal investigations into alleged funders of “left-wing political violence”

Nov 14: Trump orders DOJ investigation into ties with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein

Military officials

General Charles Q. Brown Jr.

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

Feb 21: Fired

Admiral Linda Fagan

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

Jan 21: Fired

General Mark Milley

Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

Jan 28: Security detail removed

Jan 28: Security clearance revoked

Jan 28: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directs Pentagon Inspector General to investigate Milley, allegations of undermining chain of command during first Trump administration

Admiral Lisa Franchetti

Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy

Feb 21: Fired

Alexander Vindman

Former European Affairs Director, NSC; Retired Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities

Corporations and executives

Intel Corporation

Semiconductor Manufacturing Company

Aug 7: Trump demands resignation of Intel Corporation CEO Lip-Bu Tan

Aug 22: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel; Announcing the deal, Trump said Tan “walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States”

Elon Musk

CEO, SpaceX, Tesla

Jun 5: Trump threatens cancellation of federal contracts and subsidies for Musk’s companies

Penguin Random House

Book Publisher

Oct 16: Named as a defendant in refiled defamation lawsuit filed by Trump

Microsoft

Technology Company

Sep 26: Trump threatens scrutiny of company’s federal contracts amid demands that it fire its head of global affairs, Lisa Monaco, a former Deputy Attorney General in the Biden administration

JPMorgan Chase

Bank

Nov 14: Trump orders DOJ investigation into bank as part of probe of prominent Democrats’ ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein

SentinelOne

Cybersecurity company, employer of Trump critic Chris Krebs

Apr 9: Security clearances suspended for all individuals associated with Krebs at SentinelOne

Law firms and lawyers

Covington & Burling LLP

Law Firm

Feb 25: White House orders review of federal contracts and revokes security clearances for lawyers who aided Special Counsel Jack Smith

Milbank LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Apr 2: Reached agreement with the administration, ending inquiry by EEOC

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison

Law Firm

Mar 14: Security clearance revoked; Access to federal offices restricted; Federal contracting restricted

Mar 20: Settled with administration to avoid punitive executive order

Peter Koski

Attorney, Covington & Burling LLP

Feb 25: Security clearance revoked for work with Special Counsel Jack Smith

Perkins Coie LLP

Law Firm

Mar 6: Trump order suspending security clearances for firm’s lawyers and restricting their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting (order struck down by federal judge; administration appeal pending)

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

A&O Shearman

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Apr 11: Reached agreement with the administration, ending inquiry by EEOC

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Cooley LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Freshfields LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Goodwin Procter LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Hogan Lovells LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Apr 11: Reached agreement with the administration, ending inquiry by EEOC

Latham & Watkins LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Apr 11: Reached agreement with the administration, ending inquiry by EEOC

McDermott Will & Emery

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Reed Smith

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Ropes & Gray LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Sidley Austin LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

WilmerHale

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Mar 27: Trump order suspending security clearances for firm’s lawyers and restricting their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting (order struck down by federal judge; administration appeal pending)

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Mar 28: Reached agreement with administration to avoid punitive actions, including loss of security clearances; committed to ending “DEI discrimination”

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Apr 11: Reached agreement with the administration, ending inquiry by EEOC

White & Case LLP

Law Firm

Mar 17: Received inquiry from EEOC seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies

Marc Elias and Elias Law Group

Election Law Attorney, Law Firm

Mar 22: Threatened in presidential memorandum with federal investigation, sanctions

Mark Zaid

National Security Lawyer, Whistleblower Attorney

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities

Norm Eisen

Attorney; Co-Founder of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington); Former White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform

Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities

Oct 29: Threatened by Trump with investigation

Jenner & Block LLP

Law Firm

Mar 25: Trump order suspending security clearances for firm’s lawyers and restricting their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting (order struck down by federal judge; administration appeal pending)

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Law Firm

Apr 1: Reached agreement with administration to avoid punitive executive orders

Susman Godfrey LLP

Law Firm

Apr 9: Trump order suspending security clearances for firm’s lawyers and restricting their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting (order struck down by federal judge; administration appeal pending)

Media and media watchdogs

CBS/Paramount

Television Network

Jan 22: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reopens previously dismissed complaint alleging political bias

Jul 2: Agreed to settle Trump lawsuit amid regulatory pressure

NBC/Comcast

Television Network

Jan 22: FCC reopens previously dismissed complaint alleging political bias

Feb 11: Placed under FCC investigation

Apr 16: Threatened with investigation by Trump-appointed FCC chairman

Jul 26: Trump threatens revocation of broadcast license

Jul 29: FCC investigation into broadcast affiliate relationships

Aug 24: Threatened by Trump again with revocation of broadcast license

National Public Radio (NPR)

Public Broadcasting Radio Network

Jan 29: Placed under FCC investigation, allegations of airing commercial advertising

May 1: Trump cancels NPR’s federal funding by executive order after referring to NPR and PBS as “radical left ‘monsters’”

Jun 3: White House requests “rescission” by Congress of $1.1 billion in federal funding for NPR, PBS and other public broadcasters (proposal later approved)

ABC/Disney

Television Network

Jan 22: FCC reopens previously dismissed complaint alleging political bias

Mar 27: FCC opens investigation into ABC/Disney’s DEI policies

Jul 26: Trump threatens revocation of broadcast license

Aug 24: Threatened by Trump again with revocation of broadcast license

Sep 17: Network suspends late night host Jimmy Kimmel hours after Trump’s FCC chairman threatens regulatory action over Kimmel’s comments about the killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk

Nov 18: Trump threatens to have the network’s federal broadcast license revoked after complaining about questions from an ABC News reporter

Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)

Public Broadcasting Television Network

Jan 29: Placed under FCC investigation, allegations of airing commercial advertising

May 1: Trump cancels PBS’s federal funding by executive order after referring to NPR and PBS as “radical left ‘monsters’”

May 2: U.S. Department of Education terminates “Ready to Learn” grant funding PBS’ children’s programming

Jun 3: White House requests “rescission” by Congress of $1.1 billion in federal funding for NPR, PBS and other public broadcasters (proposal later approved)

KCBS

Radio Station

Feb 5: Placed under FCC investigation

Associated Press

News Agency

Feb 11: White House officials inform AP it will be blocked from participating in press events at the Oval Office unless it begins referring to the Gulf of Mexico as the ‘Gulf of America,’ Trump’s preferred name for it; Two AP reporters are blocked from press events that day

Feb 18: Trump says he will block the AP from the Oval Office and Air Force One until the news agency starts referring to the ‘Gulf of America’

Media Matters for America

Media Watchdog Organization

May 20: Placed under investigation by U.S. Federal Trade Commission

The Wall Street Journal

Media Organization

Jul 18: Lawsuit filed by Trump over article linking him to Jeffrey Epstein

Jul 21: Access restricted to federal offices, officials

The New York Times

Media Organization

Oct 16: Named as a defendant in refiled defamation lawsuit filed by Trump

Peter Baker

Journalist, New York Times

Oct 16: Named as a defendant in refiled defamation lawsuit filed by Trump

Russ Buettner

Journalist, New York Times

Oct 16: Named as a defendant in refiled defamation lawsuit filed by Trump

Susanne Craig

Journalist, New York Times

Oct 16: Named as a defendant in refiled defamation lawsuit filed by Trump

Michael Schmidt

Journalist, New York Times

Sep 15: Named as a defendant in defamation lawsuit filed by Trump, but later dropped when Trump refiled the suit on Oct 16

Jimmy Kimmel

Late Night Talk Show Host

Sep 17: Kimmel’s show pulled off the air by ABC/Disney after Trump’s FCC chairman threatened regulatory action against the network over Kimmel’s remarks about the killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk

Broadcast networks with evening news shows

Television Networks and Broadcasters

Sep 18: Threatened by Trump with broadcast license revocation for negative coverage

The View

ABC Daytime Talk Show

Sep 18: Threatened with investigation by Trump-appointed FCC chairman

How Reuters tracked and analyzed acts of retribution, coercion, and threats in the Trump administration

To track how the Trump administration wielded government power against perceived opponents, Reuters grouped its findings into three categories: punitive acts, threats and coercion. “Punitive acts” referred to the use of government power to harm or penalize perceived enemies. “Threats” referred to statements that raised the prospect of punishment, whether or not it occured. “Coercion” described situations when a business or institution changed policies or management in response to – or anticipation of – threats or punitive acts.

Acts of retribution had to be aimed at specific individuals, businesses, institutions or other entities with intent to punish or pressure a perceived opponent or critic. Threats were counted only when they signaled a clear intent to use the machinery of government for punishment, rather than capturing every instance of hostile or intimidating rhetoric. Coercion required a demonstrable change in behavior by the targeted party, such as a university altering its admissions policies or a law firm changing its pro bono commitments.

Some subjects faced multiple acts of retribution across all three categories.

Reuters also divided targets of retribution into two groups: those singled out publicly for punishment and those swept up in purges of perceived enemies. Job losses or reassignments stemming from broad measures, such as shutting down diversity programs across the government, were not considered retribution, except in cases where individuals or organizations were explicitly targeted for punishment. Cases in which federal workers accepted early retirement offers to avoid layoffs also were not counted as retribution. However, Reuters’ tally includes about a half-dozen instances in which federal officials who resisted administration policies chose to retire after being targeted for dismissal.

A dozen people whom the Trump administration publicly targeted for punishment asked for their names not to be published, citing fears of threats and harassment. Their requests were honored.

Reuters only named individuals who were publicly singled out by the administration for retribution or publicly identified in court records or other government documents. Unpaid members of federal advisory boards dismissed by the administration were excluded from the count. Lawsuits filed by President Donald Trump in his capacity as a private citizen were counted as acts of retribution if they were initiated during his time in the White House. Suits filed while he was not in office were not counted.

Reuters’ accounting is a snapshot in time of a retribution landscape that is evolving constantly.  It includes cases documented as of Tuesday, November 25.

Two months after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a government-backed campaign has led to firings, suspensions, investigations and other action against more than 600 people. Republican officials have endorsed the punishments, saying that those who glorify violence should be removed from positions of trust.

By Raphael Satter and A.J. Vicens

When Lauren Vaughn, a kindergarten assistant in South Carolina, saw reports that right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk had been shot at an event in Utah, she opened Facebook and typed out a quote from Kirk himself.

Gun deaths, Kirk said in 2023, were unfortunate but “worth it” if they preserved “the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given Rights.” Following the quote, Vaughn added: “Thoughts and prayers.”

Vaughn, a 37-year-old Christian who has taken missionary trips to Guatemala, said her call for prayer was sincere. She said she hoped reading Kirk’s words in the context of the shooting might prompt her friends to rethink their opposition to gun control.

“Maybe now they’ll listen,” she recalled thinking.

A few days later, Vaughn lost her job. She was one of more than 600 Americans fired, suspended, placed under investigation or disciplined by employers for comments about Kirk’s September 10 assassination, according to a Reuters review of court records, public statements, local media reports and interviews with two dozen people who were fired or otherwise disciplined.

Some were dismissed after celebrating or mocking Kirk’s death. At least 15 people were punished for allegedly invoking “karma” or “divine justice,” and at least nine others were disciplined for variations on “Good riddance.” Other offending posts appeared to exult in the killing or express hope that other Republican figures would be next. “One down, plenty to go,” one said.

Others, like Vaughn, say they simply criticized Kirk’s politics.

In the pro-Kirk camp, at least one academic was put on administrative leave after threatening to “hunt down” those celebrating the assassination.

This account is the most comprehensive to date of the backlash against Kirk’s critics, tracing how senior officials in President Donald Trump’s administration, local Republican lawmakers and allied influencers mobilized to enforce the Trump movement’s views. The story maps the pro-Trump machinery of retaliation now reshaping American political life, detailing its scale and tactics, ranging from shaming on social media to public pressure on employers and threats to defund institutions. Earlier reports by Reuters have documented how Trump has purged the federal government of employees deemed opponents of his agenda and cracked down on law firms defending people in the administration’s crosshairs.

Americans sometimes lose their jobs after speaking out in heated political moments. Twenty-two academics were dismissed in 2020, the year George Floyd was murdered by a Minneapolis police officer, most for comments deemed insensitive, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free-speech advocacy group. In 2024, the first full year following the outbreak of the latest Israel-Gaza war, more than 160 people were fired in connection with their pro-Palestinian advocacy, according to Palestine Legal, an organization that protects the civil rights of American supporters of the Palestinian cause.

The backlash over comments about Kirk’s shooting stands apart because of its reach and its public backing from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other top government officials. It represents a striking about-face for Republicans, who for years castigated the left for what they called “cancel culture” – the ostracism or punishment of those whose views were deemed unacceptable.

Supporters of the firings say that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Standards of behavior should be high for people like doctors, lawyers, teachers or emergency workers who are in positions of public trust, they said.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said: “President Trump and the entire Administration will not hesitate to speak the truth – for years, radical leftists have slandered their political opponents as Nazis and Fascists, inspiring left-wing violence. It must end.” She added: “no one understands the dangers of political violence more than President Trump” after he survived two assassination attempts.

Turning Point USA, the youth movement Kirk founded in 2012, said in a statement that it supported the right to free speech, “including that of private employers to determine when a bright line has been crossed and an employee deserves to be terminated.” The organization, however, cautioned that while celebrating or gloating over Kirk’s death was “evil and disqualifying behavior, respectfully disagreeing with his ideas, statements, or values is every American’s right.”

Vaughn is challenging her dismissal in a federal lawsuit filed September 18, seeking reinstatement. As part of the case, she submitted a letter she received from the Spartanburg County School District superintendent that described her remarks as “inflammatory, unprofessional, and inappropriate.” Responding to the lawsuit, the district said Vaughn’s post “appeared to endorse Mr. Kirk’s murder or indicate that it was ‘worth’ him losing his life to protect Americans’ constitutional rights.”

The district declined further comment.

The punishments have often been driven by social media campaigns that circulate screenshots of the offending remarks, along with the names and phone numbers of employers, and appeals such as, “Internet, do your thing.” What typically follows are hundreds of angry or threatening messages, Reuters found. Several individuals who were targeted said in interviews they were inundated with phone calls. One recalled receiving a call every minute for an entire day. At least two said the harassment was so intense they plan to sell their homes.

Julie Strebe, a sheriff’s deputy in Salem, Missouri, lost her job after posting comments on Facebook about the shooting, including “Empathy is not owed to oppressors.” She later said she viewed Kirk as an oppressor because, in her words, he sought to marginalize vulnerable groups and used his platform to rally conservative white Christians behind “racist, sexist, hateful views.” She said her bosses were besieged with calls for her dismissal and that, at one point, a hand-drawn sign appeared across from her home reading, “Julie Strebe Supports the Assassination of Charles Kirk.”

Strebe said she installed five surveillance cameras at her home and now fuels her car only at night to avoid neighbors. Moving from Salem would mean leaving extended family, but she said the small city has grown too hostile to stay. “I just don’t feel like I could ever let my guard down,” she said in an interview. Strebe’s former employer, the Dent County Sheriff’s Office, declined to comment.

Many Republican officials have embraced the punitive campaign. Some have proposed extraordinary measures, including lifetime bans from social media for those deemed to be revelling in Kirk’s death. The U.S. State Department revoked visas for six foreigners who the agency said “celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk.” Speaking on a special episode of Kirk’s podcast on September 15, Vice President JD Vance urged his listeners to inflict consequences on those celebrating Kirk’s death.

“Call them out, and, hell, call their employer,” Vance said. Vance’s office pointed Reuters to comments made earlier this year in which the vice president said, “where I draw the line is encouraging violence against political opponents.”

Some academics compared the backlash to the “Red Scare,” the anti-Communist purge that peaked in the 1950s, when officials, labor leaders and Hollywood figures were accused of Communist ties. Thousands were investigated in a climate of fear that shaped U.S. politics and culture for a generation. There are “very disturbing parallels,” said Landon Storrs, a University of Iowa history professor.

Several prominent Republicans have voiced unease at the clampdown, especially after the Federal Communications Commission openly pressured broadcaster ABC to suspend talk show host Jimmy Kimmel following a monologue in which he suggested that Kirk’s assassin hailed from the political right. Police haven’t fully detailed the findings of their investigation into suspect Tyler Robinson and his motives. Robinson hasn’t entered a plea to the murder and other charges against him.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz warned on his podcast that letting government decide “what speech we like and what we don’t” sets a dangerous precedent. Silencing voices like Kimmel’s might feel good, he said, but “when it’s used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it.” His spokesperson declined further comment.

‘MASSIVE PURGE OF THESE EVIL PSYCHOS’

The campaign to punish Kirk’s critics began almost immediately.

About 30 minutes after Trump’s announcement that Kirk had died, right-wing influencers mobilized. Among the first was Chaya Raichik, operator of the widely followed Libs of TikTok account, which had posted on X, “THIS IS WAR,” before highlighting a Massachusetts teacher who had written: “Just a reminder, We’re NOT offering sympathy.”

By night’s end, Libs of TikTok had published or reposted the professional details of 37 individuals, often accompanied by commentary such as “absolutely vile,” “Your tax dollars pay her salary,” or “Would you want him teaching your kids?”

“It’s actually terrifying how many of them are teachers, doctors and military members,” Libs of TikTok wrote the next day. “We need a massive purge of these evil psychos who want to kiII all of us for simply having opposing political views.”

In the week after the shooting, Libs of TikTok shared the names and profiles of at least 134 people accused of celebrating violence or mocking Kirk’s memory, frequently tagging Trump administration officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi. At times, the influencer posted disciplinary actions taken against specific government employees.

“BREAKING: This marine was fired,” Libs of TikTok posted on September 12, a day after calling out a Marine Corps captain. The officer had responded to Kirk’s death by posting an emoji of clinking beer mugs, according to a screenshot the influencer shared with followers. Reuters could not verify the authenticity of the beer-mug post; the captain declined to comment. Libs of TikTok also reported similar disciplinary actions involving an Army Reserve officer and an Army colonel who had commented on the death on social media.

The Pentagon and the Justice Department issued statements condemning celebrations of Kirk’s death but did not address questions about their relationship with Libs of TikTok.

Right-wing influencer Scott Presler began posting screenshots of Kirk commentary, too.

“Take a screenshot of EVERY single person celebrating today,” he told his followers on September 10. “You bet your behind we will make them infamous.” Over the next week, Presler shared posts on X about 70 people who had commented on the killing, and wrote in one message: “Almost every person we’ve posted about – who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination – has been fired.” Presler didn’t respond to requests for comment.

For many on the right, outraged by celebratory reactions from the left, the wave of firings became a form of catharsis.

“It’s good that they are shamed and humiliated and must live with the repercussions for the rest of their lives,” right-wing podcaster Matt Walsh told his audience as he discussed the firings. “It’s good if they wake up every day until they die wishing they had not said what they said.” Asked for comment, Walsh emailed back: “f**k off.”

On YouTube, video blogger and recovery coach JD Delay expressed glee as he read aloud names of those who had lost their jobs over their remarks.

“I’m having fun! This is so much fun!” he shouted, raising his hands in excitement. Delay told Reuters that he believes in “accountability and consequences” and that “if you publicly say abhorrent things and get fired from your job, I’m going to laugh at you.”

The punishment campaign sometimes veered off course. In at least five cases, people were wrongly blamed for comments made by others. In another case, a website that drew up a blacklist called “Expose Charlie’s Murderers” vanished after taking in tens of thousands of dollars in cryptocurrency donations. Attempts to identify and seek comment from the site’s creators were unsuccessful.

Several online influencers said they received hundreds – sometimes thousands – of tips from individuals seeking to get Kirk’s detractors fired. Reuters was unable to verify those figures. But at various points, Presler, Libs of TikTok and other right-wing personalities publicly urged tipsters to be patient as they worked through the volume of submissions.

“Can’t keep up with all of you,” Presler wrote on X on September 12. “Post your submissions below & I’ll go through them as I can.”

A day later, the post had drawn more than 2,700 replies.

The tally of more than 600 people punished for criticizing Kirk is likely an undercount. Many companies and government organizations haven’t publicly disclosed terminations or suspensions.

Those punished came from at least 45 states and represented a cross-section of society, from soldiers and pilots to doctors, nurses and police officers.

In Michigan, an Office Depot employee was fired after being filmed refusing to print a poster memorializing Kirk. In Ohio, a Starbucks barista lost her job after she was accused of writing an anti-Kirk message on a cup of mint tea.

Reuters couldn’t determine the identities of the Office Depot worker or the barista. Office Depot and Kroger – the grocery store chain that runs the Ohio Starbucks – condemned the anti-Kirk incidents and said the people involved were no longer employees.

Requests to 21 federal agencies – including Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and the Defense Department – for the number of suspensions or dismissals tied to the Kirk assassination were either ignored or declined. When the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was contacted, its deputy chief of staff responded on social media, accusing Reuters of trying to generate sympathy “for the ghouls who celebrate his death.”

EDUCATORS AMONG THE MAIN TARGETS

Teachers, academics and university administrators were among those most frequently punished for criticizing Kirk. More than 350 education workers were fired, suspended or investigated in the days following the assassination, including 50 academics and senior university administrators, three high school principals, two cheerleading coaches and a theology instructor.

The prominence of educators in the backlash may stem from several factors. As leaders tasked with shaping young minds, teachers have long been cast by some conservatives as ideologues who aim to pull their students left. Their status as taxpayer-funded employees made any perceived partisan commentary especially combustible.

In interviews and public statements, at least six teachers cited another reason for speaking out: concern over the frequency of gun violence at schools nationwide – and anger at those, like Kirk, who have championed widespread access to firearms.

Vaughn, the South Carolina kindergarten assistant, said that was front of mind when she went to Facebook to quote Kirk’s 2023 remark dismissing some fatal shootings as the price to pay to protect gun rights. Like other teachers across the country, she said she regularly practiced active-shooter drills at her elementary school and saw fear on her five-year-olds’ faces as they learned how to hide from a gunman.

As she defended her post on the day of Kirk’s death, she told a Facebook friend that she felt “no satisfaction” at the assassination. “Just heartbreak for everyone and anyone affected by gun violence and the hope that one day, enough will be enough.” Speaking to Reuters later, she said, “The one thing I want people to know is that my message was out of concern for the kids.”

Many educators did celebrate Kirk’s death, including a Virginia teacher who wrote, “I hope he suffered through all of it,” and a Texas middle school intern who said the shooting “made me giggle.” Screenshots of both posts were circulated by right-wing influencers. Reuters could not locate the original posts, which may have been deleted or made private. The Virginia teacher was suspended and the Texas intern was fired. Neither could be reached for comment.

While schools that suspended or fired educators cited disruptions to the learning environment, some private employers pointed to a violation of company values or safety concerns as the basis for terminations. Corporations caught up in the backlash gave a variety of explanations: Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian said in a statement some employees’ comments were in “stark contrast” to the company’s values and violated its social media policy, while a United Airlines statement said the company had “zero tolerance for politically motivated violence or any attempt to justify it.”

At least a dozen Kirk critics who took pains to condemn the shooting also found themselves out of jobs or suspended, sometimes after Republican lawmakers got involved.

In the wake of Kirk’s death, Joshua Bregy, a climate scientist at Clemson University in South Carolina, shared another user’s Facebook post that read, in part: “No one should be gunned down – not a school child, not an influencer, not a politician – no one. But am I going to allow people to make a martyr out of a flawed human being whose rhetoric caused notable damage? Not a chance.”

The Clemson College Republicans reposted part of his message, labeling him “ANOTHER leftist professor” and calling for his termination. The post was amplified by right-wing influencers and Republican state lawmakers who threatened to defund the public university unless Bregy was fired.

Clemson initially pledged in a September 12 statement to “stand firmly on the principles of the U.S. Constitution, including the protection of free speech.”

The next day, Trump himself reposted a state lawmaker’s call to “Defund Clemson.” On September 16, after South Carolina’s House speaker and Senate president sent a letter to Clemson’s trustees demanding they “take immediate and appropriate action,” the school fired Bregy. Bregy’s Facebook post was “blatantly unprofessional” and “seriously prejudicial to the university,” Clemson said in a letter informing Bregy he had been dismissed.

Bregy is suing Clemson in a South Carolina federal court in a bid to be reinstated. His lawyer, Allen Chaney, said the academic would have kept his job “but for the really aggressive, coercive tactics of elected officials in South Carolina.”

Clemson, State House Speaker Murrell Smith and Senate President Thomas Alexander did not respond to requests for comment. Clemson has yet to file a response to Bregy’s suit.

In at least six other cases, Republican officials publicly threatened to deprive universities and schools of taxpayer funds unless specific critics of Kirk were fired.

Chaney, who serves as legal director of the South Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the threats to defund Clemson and others crossed a constitutional line. “The government can’t police speech by pressuring third parties,” he said. Last year, the Supreme Court unanimously held that government officials cannot use their authority to “attempt to coerce” private parties into punishing or suppressing speech they dislike.

The threats to defund schools that resist firing Kirk’s critics were “stunning,” said Paul McGreal, a constitutional law professor at Creighton University Law School in Nebraska. “Government officials are threatening speakers with punishment because they disagree with what they’re saying. These are core First Amendment protections that they’re violating.”

KIRK PRAISED AS CHRIST’S ‘13TH DISCIPLE’

Since Kirk’s assassination, many Republicans have cast him as a saintly champion of free expression. Evangelical figures have likened him to Saint Stephen, revered as Christianity’s first martyr. One Republican lawmaker told Congress “he’d have been the 13th disciple” had he lived in Biblical times. Trump compared Kirk to the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, slain President Abraham Lincoln and assassinated civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. when posthumously awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Kirk’s legacy is complicated, however. He gained fame for debating college students as part of his work with Turning Point. Kirk also advocated criminalizing expression – such as pornography – that clashed with his Christian views. When Black football players started kneeling during the national anthem in protest at police brutality, he backed Trump’s call to strip the National Football League of taxpayer subsidies. The White House later said Trump was making a statement, not a proposal.

Kirk repeatedly denigrated minorities, calling transgender people an “abomination,” warning of “prowling Blacks” in cities, accusing wealthy Jews of stoking “hatred against Whites,” and declaring Islam incompatible with Western civilization. He also dismissed Pope Francis as a Marxist.

Some of those who spoke out against Kirk after his death said they were disturbed by the hagiography.

“I just felt compelled to remind people who he was and what he stood for,” Kimberly Hunt, a human resources worker in Arizona, said in an interview. She had posted a video captioned, “Save your tears for his victims, not him.”

In the video, Hunt cited Kirk’s record of using derogatory language about transgender people and Muslims, before adding that his children “are better off without him.” Hunt was fired soon after. Her employer, an Arizona construction firm, did not respond to requests for comment.

Hunt told Reuters she understood her words sounded harsh but stood by them. She said they reflected Kirk’s stance in a debate last year that if he had a 10-year-old daughter who was impregnated through rape, “the baby would be delivered.”

The retaliation has silenced many voices. Scores of people who posted anti-Kirk comments have since scrubbed or locked their accounts, Reuters found. Others said in interviews that they are pushing back.

Hunt said she has raised more than $88,000 from a GoFundMe campaign titled, “Doxxed, Fired, but Not Silenced.” She said she wants to use the money to further her education, become a content creator, and keep calling out people like Kirk.

“It’s definitely just emboldened me,” she said.

At least 19 lawsuits have been filed against employers who punished Kirk critics, state and federal court records show. At least two plaintiffs have succeeded, including an academic in South Dakota who got his teaching job back.

Karen Leader, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University, took to social media after Kirk’s death to protest a narrative that he “was a shining inspiration to youth and a noncontroversial figure who just wanted to have open and civil dialogue,” she said. “Anyone who’s in higher education knows that it’s not that simple.”

She noted that Turning Point rose to prominence through its Professor Watchlist, a site that encouraged students to report faculty for allegedly holding “radical left” views or being a “terror supporter.”

Kirk had described the Watchlist as an awareness tool, not a blacklist. Those on it have said in interviews, social media posts and public forums that it fostered harassment and intimidation. In 2023, a Turning Point reporter was accused of assaulting an Arizona professor who was on the watchlist after confronting him on camera about his sexuality and shoving him to the ground. The reporter admitted to harassment, assault and disorderly conduct and was ordered to complete a diversion program. A Turning Point cameraman admitted to harassment in the case.

On September 10, Leader began posting Kirk’s past statements on X. She said she made a mistake by incorrectly accusing Kirk of having uttered an ethnic slur and then deleted it. The rest of her posts she said she stands behind, including one highlighting Kirk’s claim that Black Americans were “better” during Jim Crow.

“None of it was me encouraging violence,” Leader said. “I was sharing evidence.”

Jordan Chamberlain, a former staffer of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, shared screenshots of several of Leader’s posts and tagged her university, asking if it approved of the content. Libs of TikTok shared Leader’s faculty headshot. The university’s president announced she had been put on administrative leave. Her address and phone number appeared online, and menacing messages followed.

In one voicemail reviewed by Reuters, the caller said: “We’re coming to get you. Karen Leader, we know where you work. We’re gonna come to your home as soon as we have your location.” Leader said she has rarely left her apartment since.

She reported the threats to Boca Raton police, which referred the case to campus officers, according to a police report. Florida Atlantic University police said their report could not be released because of an active criminal investigation.

Florida Atlantic University confirmed Leader was one of three academics who were on leave pending investigations. It declined further comment. Chamberlain also didn’t return an email seeking comment.

“Whether my career is over or not, I don’t know,” Leader said. “But my life has changed.”

Additional reporting by Phil Stewart, Jana Winter, and Courtney Rozen in Washington and Isaac Vargas in Los Angeles. Edited by Jason Szep and Linda So.

After Trump’s mass pardons of the U.S. Capitol rioters, some have gained influence inside the Justice Department, meeting with officials to push for prosecutions of the federal lawyers who once helped convict them, Reuters found. The January 6 prosecutors describe mounting threats, harassment and fear of lasting damage to the U.S. justice system.

By Mike Spector, M.B. Pell, Benjamin Lesser, Ned Parker and Isaac Vargas

The Capitol riot of January 2021 set off the largest criminal investigation in the Justice Department’s history. For federal prosecutor Ashley Akers, it was a defining moment in a seven-year career spent untangling complex cases, from wire fraud to domestic terrorism. She helped put away dozens of rioters – including some who swung bats and beat police officers.

Then the tables turned. On his first day back in office, U.S. President Donald Trump granted clemency to every criminally charged January 6 rioter. Akers resigned. And as rioters celebrated their freedom, a chilling threat arrived. One so grotesque it still lingers, said Akers: an online message invoking Seven, the 1995 thriller, imagining her decapitated head in a box.

Now, Akers and other prosecutors who handled Capitol riot cases face a new threat. Reuters has learned that pardoned January 6 rioters have been advising Justice Department officials how to pursue – and perhaps prosecute – the very prosecutors who helped put them behind bars.

Inside the Justice Department, a “Weaponization Working Group,” led by Ed Martin, a former defense lawyer for January 6 rioters, is drafting a previously undisclosed report that is re-examining the Capitol attack, according to four January 6 prosecutors and a review of government documents. When presented with Reuters’ findings, a department spokesperson confirmed the report is being drafted.

Martin and other Justice Department officials have held talks individually with at least three people charged in the Capitol attack since Trump’s inauguration, the three pardoned defendants said. During those meetings, the former defendants urged officials to pursue charges against prosecutors, FBI agents and judges who presided over their cases. One ex-defendant drafted a sample indictment at the request of a Justice Department official.

Half a dozen January 6 prosecutors told Reuters they fear that the report and Martin’s investigators could allege widespread wrongdoing by Capitol riot prosecutors, creating a pretext for taking legal action against them or to justify government payouts to rioters.

Told that the Justice Department is drafting a report re-examining the January 6 attack, U.S. Representative Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who led the House committee that investigated the riot, said he was “absolutely shocked.” Capitol riot prosecutors were “doing their job,” Thompson said in an interview. Prosecutors should be insulated from political interference, he added.

Martin’s task force is part of a broader Trump administration effort to target the Republican president’s perceived foes. That campaign includes an initiative known as the Interagency Weaponization Working Group that was first reported by Reuters in October, and pulls in officials from the White House, intelligence agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other departments.

A longtime conservative activist, Martin helped organize the “Stop the Steal” movement, a failed effort to pressure courts and Republican lawmakers to overturn Trump’s 2020 defeat to Democrat Joe Biden. He and his allies have long pushed unsubstantiated claims portraying the rioters as victims of politically motivated prosecutions.

Asked about Martin’s Weaponization Working Group and its focus on January 6, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Trump campaigned on a pledge to end “the weaponization from the Biden administration” and to “restore integrity” to the Justice Department. “The president and his entire administration is keeping that promise,” Jackson said.

The Capitol riot investigation involved at least 200 federal prosecutors. At least 46 of them have been fired or resigned since Trump’s inauguration, according to a Reuters review of LinkedIn profiles, media reports and interviews with former prosecutors. And at least 187 of the prosecutors have been targeted in hundreds of online attacks by rioters or their supporters, urging punishments ranging from disbarment and firing to criminal charges.

The Justice Department spokesperson condemned political violence, saying: “Any violence targeting current or former government officials is wrong and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

This account is based on interviews with 26 Capitol riot prosecutors, 13 defendants, and a review of government documents and thousands of pages of court records, Trump administration directives and social media posts.

Trump made “retribution” a central plank of his 2024 bid to return to office. The campaign against Capitol riot prosecutors is part of that larger promise, a project Reuters has chronicled in a series of stories this year. Since taking office in January, Trump and his administration have targeted at least 470 people, institutions and other entities with criminal prosecution and other forms of punishment, Reuters reported last month – an average of more than one a day.

The Trump administration denies it is seeking revenge, saying recent investigations and indictments of political opponents are efforts to correct policy and address wrongdoing.

In a profile published by Vanity Fair magazine on Tuesday, however, Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, acknowledged that the president was targeting people who he believed came after him. “In some cases, it may look like retribution,” she said. “And there may be an element of that from time to time. Who would blame him? Not me.” She later posted on X that “significant context was disregarded” in the article but didn’t go into specifics.

The attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters was aimed at stopping certification of Biden’s presidential victory. That day was the closest the U.S. has come to a violent disruption of the peaceful transfer of power since the Civil War. Rioters smashed through security barriers, stormed the building and clashed with law enforcement, injuring dozens of officers.

Trump has defended those charged in connection with January 6 as “Great American Patriots” and cast their prosecutions as “a grave national injustice.” In one of his first official acts in his second term, he granted clemency to all the nearly 1,600 people charged in the attack and issued a proclamation promising a “process of national reconciliation.” He later called for an inquiry into what he labeled the “January 6th Hoax,” alleging, without evidence, that undercover FBI personnel helped incite violence.

Among those granted clemency was Jared Wise, a former FBI agent himself. According to bodycam footage submitted in court, Wise urged rioters to kill police during the Capitol siege.

Wise now serves in the Trump administration. According to government documents reviewed by Reuters, he is advising Martin and has helped arrange meetings with officials who are re-examining January 6.

Wise declined to comment. His hiring by the Justice Department was reported in July by The New York Times. His role in organizing meetings tied to the January 6 review is previously unreported. The Justice Department spokesperson said Wise “is not assigned to” January 6 matters, but declined to comment on whether he has done work related to the Capitol riot in his role. “Jared Wise is a valued member of the Department of Justice,” the spokesperson said.

Martin, who declined to comment for this article, has spoken publicly about his broader aims. “There is a group of us working on January 6,” Martin said on Fox News in August. “That’s a fulsome investigation on January 6, and it will make clear the hoax, which is really the 2020 election hoax.”

Last month he reported “regular progress” on that effort. “We need more prosecutions, we need more convictions. I get it,” he said on a November 10 podcast hosted by Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser who served prison time for defying a congressional subpoena on the Capitol riot.

Government lawyers who handled the January 6 cases have defended their prosecutions. They point to the overwhelming video evidence showing the pro-Trump mob breaching the Capitol and assaulting police officers. Congressional investigators found that several rioters carried firearms or stockpiled weapons nearby. Some of those charged belonged to far-right extremist groups.

Some of the harassed prosecutors have bolstered home security, scrubbed their online presence and lined up lawyers, they said in interviews. Some sought therapy to manage anxiety; others quietly left government service, worried that speaking out could jeopardize their safety or new jobs. Still others were fired.

One former prosecutor said he carried a folding knife for three months wherever it was legal after a rioter called for his imprisonment on a right-wing online talk show.

At least a dozen told Reuters they believe the retaliation campaign could undermine the independence of the U.S. justice system.

Matthew Beckwith, who worked on Capitol riot cases, said he was fired by Martin in January. Five days later, rioters posted a list on X naming Beckwith and at least 88 other January 6 prosecutors, along with calls for them to be fired or jailed. One user replied with a photo of a noose, suggesting prosecutors should be hanged. The online venom unsettled Beckwith’s wife, who was five months pregnant with their first child at the time, he said.

The Justice Department, Beckwith said in an interview, is becoming a “weaponized prosecutorial force” with no independence. “I don’t think anybody with an objective sense of reality can look at the Justice Department right now and honestly say it’s acting as a neutral arbiter.” He now works in private practice.

THREATS AND RETALIATION

Some of the people threatening January 6 prosecutors claim the official account of the Capitol siege was fabricated. They are intent on rewriting it.

One of them is Christopher Quaglin, a 40-year-old electrician from New Jersey who now lives in Florida. He told Reuters he filed an administrative claim with the Justice Department – a formal request for compensation – seeking $150 million for what he contends were violations of his civil rights.

Before storming the Capitol, Quaglin called for “civil war” on social media, a battle of “traditional” Americans against a “radical left” that he believed supported a stolen election.

In the months before January 6, he said his anger was growing, fueled by pandemic lockdowns, violence at some Black Lives Matter protests and a business deal that was falling apart. In October, the month before the 2020 election, he said he drove to Trump Tower in Manhattan and poured 100 gallons of paint across a Black Lives Matter mural. He was not charged in that incident.

Quaglin attacked police officers “over and over again” on January 6, prosecutors said in a court filing, requesting he remain detained before trial. As he forced his way through police lines, prosecutors alleged, he grabbed one officer by the neck and tackled him, seized a police shield, used it to strike other officers, and pepper-sprayed another in the face, shouting “traitors!” as he attacked.

A judge convicted him of 12 felonies – including assaulting officers, robbery, obstruction and civil disorder – and two misdemeanors tied to violence and disorderly conduct. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He had pleaded not guilty and claimed prosecutors overstated his actions.

After being pardoned, Quaglin called for reprisals against Akers and another prosecutor. In an interview, he cast them as conspirators in a plot to entrap rioters and arrest Trump to prevent him from taking office. “I want their heads on a pike,” he said, adding that he was speaking metaphorically.

This summer, Quaglin visited the FBI’s Newark office to retrieve two handguns seized during his arrest, he said. The FBI declined to comment.

Akers, who spent seven years at the Justice Department, told Reuters she was convinced Quaglin could once more carry out political violence. “A guy who has been convicted of felonies now has firearms and that’s just terrifying,” she said.

Quaglin said he no longer plans to take part in any “civil war.” “I did my part and I’m done.” But he issued a warning to Akers when told of her concerns about him. “She should be scared, because I’m going to go after her legally and civilly.”

After the rioters were freed, the new Trump Justice Department began embracing their cause. In January, Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek “accountability” for what he called the “weaponization of the federal government” during the Biden years. The order cited January 6 prosecutions as an example. Two weeks later, Bondi established the Weaponization Working Group, with instructions to probe “improper investigative tactics” and “unethical prosecutions” arising from the Capitol assault.

Twenty-six January 6 prosecutors told Reuters they began noticing a surge of social media posts attacking them and calling for revenge after Trump pardoned the rioters and issued his executive order to Bondi.

Reuters analyzed nearly 350 such posts that have been viewed more than 27 million times on X.

Among the posters who called for retribution against the prosecutors, nearly two dozen had been convicted of assaulting police during the attack, according to their social media posts, local news accounts and interviews with four rioters convicted of those assaults. At least three online posts listed the names of January 6 prosecutors, sometimes noting where they currently work.

Early this year, Trump nominated Martin to be the U.S. attorney in Washington D.C., a powerful role that oversees the largest U.S. attorney’s office and handles high-profile cases involving federal agencies. Martin, 55 years old, has spent years in Republican politics, running and losing bids for U.S. Congress and state attorney general in Missouri. In 2016, he co-authored a book, “The Conservative Case for Trump,” a show of loyalty that foreshadowed his rise.

During his brief 16-week stint as interim U.S. attorney, Martin fired 15 prosecutors who handled January 6 cases. After bipartisan criticism in Congress over his support for rioters sank his nomination, Trump named him to lead the Justice Department’s pardon office and chair its Weaponization Working Group in May.

Bondi has enlisted Martin to work on probes targeting New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat who won a business fraud judgment against Trump in a civil case. A judge dismissed a mortgage fraud case against James in November, and this month grand juries rejected subsequent attempts to charge her. Martin also helped with investigations into Democratic Senator Adam Schiff and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over mortgage-fraud allegations, which they both deny.

Martin has said he supports financial restitution for the rioters. “If you put somebody in jail for years,” he said on a May podcast, “and you lied about it, you should have to pay for it.”

DIRECT LINE TO JUSTICE

In recent months, at least three people pardoned for their roles in the Capitol attack – along with their allies – have shifted from airing grievances online to speaking directly with Justice Department officials, according to interviews, a review of social media posts and the government documents. Advocates for the rioters have met with Martin at least four times since February.

Troy Smocks, who owns a radio station in Texas, was convicted of threatening violence related to January 6 and later pardoned. He told Reuters he spoke in July with a Justice Department official and was asked to put his ideas in writing. He produced a memorandum and, at the official’s request, a draft sample indictment that named 26 federal judges as potential targets. “I hope they read it and I hope that it shakes them in their boots,” he said in an interview.

In his draft indictment, reviewed by Reuters, Smocks proposed charging the judges with kidnapping under Texas law, arguing that they conspired with other officials to unlawfully arrest, prosecute and try January 6 defendants. In a July text message with a Justice Department attorney seen by Reuters, he said he chose Texas because its people “despise” D.C. judges and would likely convict them at trial. The document alleged that judges, working with prosecutors and law enforcement agencies, had “conspired to deprive individuals of liberty without due process of law.” There is no evidence of any such conspiracy.

The prosecutors who charged Smocks described him as having a “lengthy criminal history” from his teens through the mid-2000s for crimes including forgery, theft, and bank fraud. Now 63 and battling bladder cancer, Smocks told Reuters he disputes some of those charges.

After the riot, he pleaded guilty to making threats on social media from his Washington hotel room on January 6. The posts urged armed followers to return on January 19 and “hunt these cowards down like the Traitors that each of them are,” including moderate Republicans, Democrats and technology executives.

Pardoned rioter Treniss Evans entered the Capitol through a broken window on January 6. He too has met Martin and other Justice Department officials, he said in an interview. He expressed confidence in Trump and said he believed “justified” action would be taken by the Justice Department in response to January 6. “That’s all I’m asking for.” The Justice Department spokesperson said Martin “may have met him at some point but does not recall a formal meeting.”

During the attack, Evans used a megaphone to beckon other rioters inside the Capitol and downed a shot of Fireball whiskey in a congressional conference room. “You’re damn right I took shots of Fireball,” Evans, 51, told Reuters. He said his only regrets were the brand of whiskey and a subpar rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner he performed during the riot.

“Anytime I show up at a federal building and want to sing the national anthem, anybody who has a problem with it can shove it up their ass,” he said.

Evans pleaded guilty in 2022 to unlawfully entering the Capitol. He now argues that the rioters were victims of a “weaponized legal system.” He has founded Condemned USA, an advocacy group for January 6 defendants. While he acknowledges that some demonstrators “did things they know were wrong,” he still wants Justice Department officials who handled the cases prosecuted.

“I want perp walks,” he said.

In June, Martin met in his office with another pardoned rioter, Brian Mock, who served prison time after being convicted of assaulting four police officers on January 6, Mock told Reuters.

During the meeting, Mock said he accused his prosecutor, Mike Gordon, and FBI agents involved in January 6 cases of committing crimes. He also claimed that judges had orchestrated a campaign to deprive defendants of their civil rights. Afterward, Mock said Justice Department officials requested more information, and he responded by sending them memos.

“What I was very impressed with was the fact that (Martin) sat intently and gave me well over an hour in a kind of impromptu meeting and diligently took pages upon pages of notes, as did the other staffers in there,” said Mock.

The Justice Department spokesperson said that if Martin met Mock, “he does not recall the meeting.”

Mock, 46, had run a small landscaping business. In 2010, he was convicted on a weapons charge after pointing a gun at three boys during his son’s birthday party a year earlier, surrendering only when a SWAT team surrounded his home, according to a sentencing memo tied to his January 6 case and the Anoka County Attorney’s office in Minnesota. In the memo, prosecutors allege he assaulted his ex-wife in 2009. They added that while he awaited trial on Capitol riot charges, an ex-girlfriend secured a restraining order, saying she was frightened by his behavior. Mock called all those past allegations “complete bullshit.”

Mock’s prosecutor, Gordon, was fired on June 27.

“These people are pursuing the same mob vengeance that drove January 6 in the first place,” Gordon said in an interview. “It’s sort of a lynch mob trying to put as many heads on stakes as they can for having the temerity to enforce the law.” His termination letter, which Reuters reviewed, gave no reason for his dismissal.

Gordon and two other former Justice Department officials have filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming their termination amounted to retaliation. The suit seeks their reinstatement. The department has moved to dismiss the case, arguing the claims should be handled by an agency that protects civil servants from retaliation, not by a federal court.

Two members of Martin’s weaponization group also phoned a January 6 defense lawyer twice in August, seeking ideas on what “wrongs” to investigate, the attorney, Carolyn Stewart, told Reuters. Stewart said she urged them to examine the conduct of Capitol Police during the riot, whether prosecutors withheld evidence that could have cleared January 6 defendants, and possible misconduct during the arrests.

Few people embody the convergence of January 6 defendants and Justice Department insiders as neatly as Wise, the former FBI agent turned Capitol rioter. He has arranged multiple meetings of the Justice Department’s weaponization group, according to the government documents reviewed by Reuters.

Wise entered the Capitol on January 6 and, in footage captured by police cameras, urged rioters to “kill” officers. He had spent nearly 13 years at the FBI and led a counterterrorism squad in New York before leaving the bureau in 2017, according to court records. Raised on a farm in Modesto, California, Wise began a career in finance before pivoting to law enforcement after the attacks of September 11, 2001. His defense team later described lingering trauma from overseas’ deployments while he was at the FBI.

Wise was charged in 2023 with encouraging the mob to kill police and illegally entering the Capitol. Before his trial, he said January 6 prosecutors should “go to prison” in a post on X. In court testimony, he described the scene at the Capitol of officers struggling with rioters as “police brutality” but said he regretted encouraging people to kill the police.

His case was dismissed after Trump’s grants of clemency. Wise soon posted a to-do list on X that included investigating, unmasking, reassigning and firing Justice Department officials.

Within months, he was working to shape an early draft of the riot re-examination report, according to the government documents reviewed by Reuters.

Other January 6 defendants have landed back in legal trouble. At least seven rioters have been arrested in new incidents since Trump pardoned them. The allegations range from burglary and kidnapping to death threats against House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Some rioters say they are counting on Martin and Wise for payback.

“Ed, I think God wants you to help in destroying the wicked,” Larry Brock, a former Air Force officer who stormed the Capitol in combat gear, wrote to Martin in a post on X in August. Brock, who didn’t respond to requests for comment, then named three of his prosecutors and accused them of violating his rights.

“Arrest them,” he said.

Additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, Peter Eisler, Lyla Bhalla-Ladd, Albert Hwang, Daania Tahir, Hina Suzuki and Grace Yang. Video by Jillian Kitchener, Maria Alejandra Cardona, and Mía Womersley. Photo editing by Corinne Perkins. Multimedia editing by Linda So. Edited by Jason Szep.

Some have been fired. Two have moved abroad, fearing for their safety. Yet free-speech experts say the group's websites remain just outside the boundaries of violating personal privacy.

By Linda So, Peter Eisler and Ned Parker

ATLANTA - In February, federal worker Stefanie Anderson sat at her kitchen table with her husband and asked questions she never imagined having to face: Were their children safe? Should they pull them from school? Should they leave their home?

A friend had sent her a link to a “DEI Watchlist” published by the American Accountability Foundation, a right-wing group with ties to senior officials in U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration. It listed Anderson’s name, photo, salary and work history, and accused her and other federal employees of pushing “radical” diversity, equity and inclusion policies in government.

“My heart dropped,” Anderson said.

The longtime public health worker spent much of her career at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, specializing in infectious disease outbreaks. Her work included a deployment to Sierra Leone during the Ebola crisis. More recently, she supported HIV prevention programs. After her profile appeared on the site, her phone rang for a month with about 30 calls a day from unknown numbers.

Anderson changed her hairstyle to avoid recognition, stayed indoors, rerouted packages from her Atlanta home and reminded her children to lock the doors and check the security cameras. As a Black woman, she said, the experience reminded her of 19th-century fugitive slave ads. “It made me feel like a criminal on a wanted poster.”

Anderson is among 175 federal employees, mostly civil servants, named on “watchlists” posted online by the American Accountability Foundation, which wants them removed from their jobs for allegedly promoting liberal ideologies. Many are women and people of color with long careers under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Most have little or no public profile and have spent their careers in behind-the-scenes government roles.

Reuters spoke with two-dozen people on the lists, all sharing their stories for the first time. Some bolstered home security or avoided going out in public. Others deleted social media accounts or scrubbed personal information from the internet. More than half wrestled with anxiety. Some described a quiet unraveling of their lives, experiencing depression, feeling a need to disappear.

Through legal filings, public records and interviews with more than three dozen sources, Reuters traced AAF’s evolution from a Biden-focused opposition research outfit to a sharp instrument in the Trump movement’s campaign to root out perceived enemies.

AAF’s target is the federal workforce. Half the people on AAF’s watchlists – at least 88 – have left government or been forced onto administrative leave. Some were fired amid Trump’s mass federal layoffs. Others departed over fears of termination or reassignment. At least two, worried about their safety, have fled the country.

Rather than aiming at high-profile political appointees, AAF’s lists focus mostly on career civil servants who execute the policy of the administration in power. AAF President Tom Jones and his backers argue that many of these employees lean liberal and could work quietly to undermine Trump’s agenda, so the public deserves to know their identities.

“They want to be unaccountable bureaucrats who work in these agencies and never get seen,” he told Fox News in June 2024. “We’re gonna tell you who these people are and what they’re about.”

Jones did not respond to a detailed list of questions about AAF or the impact of its watchlists on the civil servants it targets, but defended its work in a statement to Reuters. “It’s important that anti-Trump civil servants know someone is watching and taking names; we stand by our research and reporting, with our only regret being that more people on our lists haven’t left government and handed their jobs over to patriots who will execute on the agenda the American people voted for in November.”

Since October, AAF has published three watchlists. The first, a “DHS Watchlist,” named 60 federal employees as “targets” for their work on immigration policy at the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, including nearly a dozen immigration judges. In January, AAF published two more: one identifying “political ideologues” at the Education Department, and one featuring staff who worked on diversity initiatives at other federal agencies.

Each site includes photos and personal details drawn from public records and social media, along with allegations of “subversive,” “divisive” or “left-wing” transgressions such as donating to Democrats or supporting immigrant aid groups. Federal employees, however, are allowed to engage in such political activity privately under federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on political affiliation.

By launching the first list ahead of the 2024 election, the group helped translate Trump’s campaign pledge to “clean out the deep state” into a database of names and faces. After the DHS list went live, one commenter on AAF’s X account posted a photo of bullets. X did not respond to questions about the post.

As Trump wages a self-described campaign of “retribution,” federal workers on AAF’s lists have paid a price. In Maryland, a mother at a public library with her toddler was confronted by a woman who said she recognized her from the list. “What you’re doing is disgusting,” the stranger said. In Texas, a man shattered a window of an immigration judge’s home and called her a “traitor.” In Georgia, police stationed a patrol car outside a CDC employee’s home for a week after she was named for working on initiatives to expand healthcare access in low-income and minority communities.

To the people targeted by AAF, its sites are engines of reputational harm and invitations to harassment. AAF, however, stops short of crossing an important line, say free-speech experts: It omits home addresses, phone numbers and other intimate identifiers associated with doxxing – the publishing of personal information online with malicious intent. By that standard, the sites remain just outside the boundaries of potential criminal violations of privacy. But legal experts say the watchlists could deter civil servants from politically sensitive work, creating a chilling effect on public service.

“What is so ominous about these sites is that they’re close to the line of illegal, but not crossing the line,” said University of Virginia School of Law professor Danielle Citron, a specialist in online privacy. “They are designed to silence and intimidate and to inspire other people to hurt” people named on the site.

AAF promotes its work as part of a broader effort to defend Trump’s “America First” platform. On its websites, the group says it exposes “the truth behind the people and groups undermining American democracy” and serves as “a go-to resource for policy makers and their staffs.” It makes its goal clear to its targets: “If you see yourself on this list and wish to be removed,” it says on the watchlists, “please forward us evidence that you’ve resigned or been fired.”

As AAF singles out federal employees for alleged political bias, the Trump administration has moved to loosen restrictions meant to keep partisanship out of government work. In April, it relaxed enforcement of the Hatch Act, a nearly century-old law designed to insulate the civil service from partisan political pressure. The change allows federal employees to openly support the sitting president while at work, wearing “Make America Great Again” hats at their desks, for instance.

AAF received $100,000 last year from the conservative Heritage Foundation to support its work, public records show. Much of its early funding and organizational backing came from groups aligned with Trump, including one run by Russell Vought, now Trump’s budget director, and another headed by Stephen Miller, a senior Trump advisor. AAF’s Jones was an advisor on the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which calls for slashing the federal workforce and marginalizing “woke culture warriors.”

Heritage, Vought, Miller and the White House did not respond to questions, including inquiries about ties between administration officials and AAF or the impact of the watchlists on personnel decisions.

More than 200,000 federal employees have left government service since Trump took office. The administration says roughly 154,000 accepted buyout offers, while an estimated 55,000 were fired or laid off, according to the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit that tracks federal workforce trends. Reuters could not confirm whether the watchlists influenced staffing decisions. The Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services said they did not. The Education and Homeland Security departments did not respond to requests for comment.

‘TERRORIST’

For those named by AAF, the consequences can be swift.

Noelle Sharp had served as chief federal immigration judge in Houston for three years without incident. Immigration judges are employees of the Justice Department and enjoy civil-service protections. Sharp’s life was upended last October when her photograph appeared on AAF’s “DHS Watchlist,” which claimed to identify “America’s most subversive immigration bureaucrats.”

AAF targeted Sharp on multiple fronts. Her name was posted alongside details of her career and a pointed accusation: She “made her bones keeping criminal aliens out of jail and away from deportation.”

The group questioned her impartiality, citing her decade-long career as a private immigration attorney and her earlier work with Catholic Charities, a nonprofit that provides legal and humanitarian aid to migrants. The organization, affiliated with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has long been a target of the far right for its role in refugee resettlement and assisting migrants. AAF accused the group of facilitating “mass migration,” a claim Catholic Charities denies.

AAF also flagged a 2017 social media post in which Sharp, then a private attorney, called Trump an “embarrassment” and an “idiot” after he criticized NATO allies for leaving the U.S. with a disproportionate share of Europe’s defense costs.

Sharp said AAF falsely portrayed her as biased. When she applied with the Justice Department to become a judge, she said she underwent extensive vetting that began during Trump’s first administration. Her focus, she said, was on clearing immigration backlogs and ensuring cases were handled “efficiently, effectively and fairly.”

On the day the list was published, the right-wing Gateway Pundit website ran a story amplifying the claims and casting Sharp as among a cadre of left-wing bureaucrats accused of betraying America by “sabotaging border security.” In the comments section, one reader called for Sharp and others on the list “to hang for treason.”

A week later, she said, a stranger appeared at her home, shouting and pounding on the front door until a window shattered. “Terrorist,” the man called her. He accused her of letting criminals into the country. “Someone should do something about you,” he yelled. Alone at home, Sharp stepped outside and tried to reason with him. “A lot of what you read on social media isn’t true,” she told him. He kicked her door and left.

Sharp said she chose not to report the incident to police, fearing the man might live nearby and retaliate. She informed her supervisors. In late November, she found her car windshield smashed. This time her supervisors alerted the U.S. Marshals Service, which protects federal judges. The Marshals, she said, gave her a phone app to alert authorities in an emergency.

The Marshals Service declined to comment on Sharp’s case or the watchlist. Reuters was unable to determine whether any suspects were identified or what motivated them. In response to an inquiry from Reuters, the Gateway Pundit said it would remove the comment suggesting people on the watchlist should hang for treason.

On February 14, Sharp was fired. Immigration judges, unlike federal judges with lifetime appointments, serve at the discretion of the attorney general and can be reassigned or dismissed, provided there is cause and due process. Sharp said she believes her inclusion on the watchlist contributed to her dismissal. “If I hadn’t been on the DHS Watchlist, I don’t believe I would have lost my job,” she told Reuters.

Sharp requested that AAF remove her photo from its website but said she received no response. Her profile remains on the site. Citing safety concerns because of the watchlist, she recently moved to Mexico with her husband and now works remotely as an immigration attorney.

Her firing coincides with a broader purge. Since Trump took office in January, at least 106 immigration judges have been fired, reassigned or accepted buyouts, according to the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents most of them. Almost all were dismissed without cause, the union said.

The Justice Department declined to comment on Sharp’s firing or the broader purge of immigration judges.

AAF’S BIRTH AND EVOLUTION

AAF was launched in December 2020, weeks after Trump lost his re-election bid to Joe Biden. Its initial mission, as Jones said in a 2021 Fox News interview, was “to take a big handful of sand and throw it in the gears of the Biden administration.”

The group traces its roots to a network of Trump-aligned nonprofits led by the Conservative Partnership Institute, headed by former Senator Jim DeMint and Mark Meadows, who served as chief of staff in Trump’s first presidency. CPI provided $335,100, more than half of AAF’s first-year funding, according to tax filings.

The next year, CPI provided another $210,000, and two other CPI affiliates also chipped in. The Center for Renewing America, led by Trump budget chief Vought, and America First Legal, headed by Trump adviser Miller, contributed $100,000 and $25,000, respectively.

Vought, a self-described Christian nationalist, and Miller were fixtures in Trump’s first White House and have reemerged as architects of his second-term agenda. At its inception, both CPI and America First Legal identified themselves in tax filings as a direct controlling entity of AAF.

DeMint, CPI, America First Legal and the Center for Renewing America did not respond to requests for comment.

Roughly a decade before AAF launched, Jones, Miller and Vought were congressional staffers aligned with DeMint and other right-wing lawmakers in an insurgency against the Republican establishment. Jones built a reputation for opposition research, said a former DeMint staffer who worked alongside him. “Jones was one of the harder-edged guys,” the ex-colleague said.

In the spring of 2021, AAF launched Bidennoms.com to target Biden administration nominees. The site, no longer active, featured profiles of nominees accompanied by disparaging and at times misleading commentary. In interviews at the time, Jones said he was inspired by the Democrats’ success in undermining some of Trump’s first-term nominees to top administration posts.

In June 2022, as Trump prepared to run again, the Heritage Foundation named AAF a partner in Project 2025, a transition plan that called for a dramatic rollback of the federal bureaucracy, including DEI initiatives. Two years later, Heritage awarded AAF $100,000 to launch “Project Sovereignty 2025,” a database of federal employees involved in Biden-era immigration policy.

After launching his DEI Watchlist in January, Jones told Fox News, “We’re going to help the Trump administration identify the people they need to get out of these positions.”

“DANGEROUS”

AAF’s watchlists disproportionately feature women. Although women make up less than half of the federal workforce, they account for more than two-thirds of the 175 federal employees named across the three lists, according to a Reuters analysis. About 50% of those listed are racial and ethnic minorities, compared with 41% of the overall federal workforce.

Patricia Kramer, a 43-year-old U.S. Army veteran and Hispanic employment strategist at the National Institutes of Health in Maryland, said that seeing her name and photograph appear on the list in February triggered the same anxiety she felt during her 2009 deployment to Iraq, when she lived under the constant threat of being targeted by enemy soldiers.

“You don’t know who you’re emboldening by posting a list of people that strangers should focus their attention on,” said Kramer. “It’s dangerous.”

After returning from Iraq, Kramer earned a degree in psychology, motivated by the mental health struggles she and other soldiers faced. A daughter of Mexican immigrants, she later joined the NIH, working to improve Hispanic representation in staffing and research.

The DEI Watchlist labeled Kramer and 95 others on the site as “America’s Bureaucrats Most Abusing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.”

The watchlist highlighted portions of Kramer’s biography that described her collaboration with Hispanic communities, efforts to promote equitable hiring and her work with the Office of Refugee Resettlement during the Biden administration. The group described her record as “shocking” and incompatible with Trump’s policy goals.

Kramer sees her biography as a testament to a public service career spent helping underserved communities. After being spotlighted on the site, she became hypervigilant.

Kramer avoided leaving home, scanned her surroundings constantly and monitored her street for anything unusual. Her greatest fear was for her 17-year-old son. “I was afraid that some unhinged individual would make it his duty to confront those of us on the list,” she said. And “potentially hurt one of us or our family members.”

She spent months trying to get her photo removed from the site. In February, she filed a takedown request with the site’s hosting platform, Webflow, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prohibits unauthorized online distribution of copyrighted material.

Documents related to her takedown request, reviewed by Reuters, show that Webflow initially complied and removed her photo.

In March, AAF submitted a counter complaint with the host, arguing that the image was an “official government portrait,” one of the documents show. AAF also replaced her photo with an illustration of a woman in an office, accompanied by a caption: “DEI bureaucrats are so ashamed of what they’re doing that they don’t want to show their faces.”

Kramer contacted Webflow again to prevent her image from being reinstated. By April, a new photo – taken from Kramer’s LinkedIn profile – appeared on the site. Kramer has not succeeded in having it taken down.

A Webflow spokesperson declined to comment on the case but said the law allows users to reinstate content if no legal action is taken within 10 to 14 days by the complainant.

To assist others on the watchlist, Kramer wrote a guide explaining how to file takedown requests. At least eight colleagues initially succeeded in removing their photos, she said. But AAF challenged those removals, arguing – as it had in Kramer’s case – that the images were “official government portraits,” according to the document reviewed by Reuters. AAF succeeded in reinstating their photos.

“The length at which they’re willing to go to intimidate and scare people is just ridiculous,” Kramer said, who was terminated from her job in July.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the NIH and CDC, did not answer questions about Kramer or others fired after appearing on AAF watchlists. In a statement, the agency said the lists were not considered in personnel decisions, but added, “DEI has no place at HHS in the Trump Administration.”

“We will not apologize for restoring a culture of merit, integrity and neutrality in federal service,” said spokesperson Andrew Nixon.

“I FELT LIKE I HAD TO DISAPPEAR”

Shelby Guillen Dominguez, 34, says she felt a wave of fear when she saw her name on the DEI Watchlist in February.

The site criticized her work as a diversity program specialist at the Department of Health and Human Services. It featured video of a university speech where she discussed expanding opportunities for students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. The site claimed, without evidence, that her remarks excluded “certain races.”

“I didn’t even mention race,” Dominguez said in an interview. “It felt like they were framing me as an enemy of the state.”

AAF shared her information on its X account, which has more than 23,000 followers, accusing her of changing her title “in a sad attempt to keep her job.” One commenter called for her to be “fired and investigated.” The title change, however, was part of a department-wide reorganization announced a month earlier.

Dominguez deleted her social media accounts, locked her credit report and set up alerts to monitor online mentions of her name. She said she stayed indoors, sought therapy, and was prescribed medication for anxiety and depression. She had been at HHS for six months when she was placed on administrative leave in January under Trump’s executive order targeting federal DEI programs. In July, she was officially terminated.

“It was always my dream to work for the federal government,” she said. “Now it’s all crumbling.”

Kiana Atkins, a longtime federal employee, felt similar stress after landing on the watchlist in January. “I couldn’t sleep,” said Atkins, 46, who worked at the NIH. “I was afraid to go out by myself.”

Atkins joined the agency in 2022 after working for the Census Bureau and the U.S. Navy. Her job focused on reducing employment barriers for Black employees and mentoring students. After being named, she experienced severe anxiety and withdrew from a professional development program. She temporarily disabled her LinkedIn account and tried unsuccessfully to remove her name from AAF’s site.

No longer feeling safe at home alone, she said she made the difficult decision to leave the U.S. and live with family in Central America. She accepted a government buyout and moved in February.

“I did not feel safe,” she said. “I felt like I had to disappear.”

‘DO PEOPLE HATE US?’

Some named on the watchlists are fighting back.

Anderson, the CDC worker who altered her appearance and told her kids to lock the doors, is a member of a complaint filed in March with the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, an executive branch agency that adjudicates federal employment disputes. The complaint accuses the Trump administration of violating federal workers’ civil and constitutional rights by removing employees alleged to be involved in DEI work. The federal Civil Service Reform Act prohibits personnel decisions based on perceived political affiliation and is meant to protect career staff from the politicization of their work.

“You can’t mistreat government workers because you assume they do not share your politics,” said Kelly Dermody, one of the attorneys representing the employees.

The White House has said its directives to eliminate DEI personnel and programs across the federal government were aimed at ending what it describes as unlawful preferences in federal hiring and ensuring neutrality in government activities. The case is pending.

Anderson said the watchlist distorted her work and harmed her reputation without giving her a chance to respond.

AAF claimed that Anderson “discretely (sic) updated” her LinkedIn title – from Advisor on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility to Public Health Advisor – to evade a Trump executive order and obscure her “true duties.” Anderson said she changed her title after moving into a new role in December. The group also accused her of supporting efforts to muzzle free speech after she liked a LinkedIn post warning about the dangers of health-related misinformation.

Days after her name appeared, Anderson was placed on administrative leave. The Health and Human Services Department declined to comment specifically on her case.

Months later, Anderson, 50, still avoids crowds, doesn’t go out after dark and flinches when the doorbell rings. She choked back tears as she recalled her 13-year-old daughter asking, “Do people hate us?”

“I just can’t believe that this is my life in 2025,” Anderson said.

Additional reporting: Kristina Cooke, Ted Hesson, David Morgan and Sarah N. Lynch. Photo editing: Corinne Perkins. Video: Julio-César Chávez, Linda So. Edited by Jason Szep.

As federal judges rule against the Trump administration in dozens of politically charged cases, the families of at least 11 of the jurists have been targeted with threats and harassment.

By Ned Parker, Mike Spector, Peter Eisler, Linda So and Nate Raymond

Note: This story contains offensive language.

When U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled in April that Trump administration officials could face criminal contempt charges for deporting migrants in defiance of a court order, the blowback was immediate.

The president’s supporters unleashed a wave of threats and menacing posts. And they didn’t just target the judge. Some attacked Boasberg’s brother. Others blasted his daughter. Some demanded the family’s arrest – or execution.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s family endured similar threats after he ruled that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority in freezing grants for education and other services. 

Far-right provocateur Laura Loomer tweeted a photo of the judge’s daughter, who had worked at the U.S. Education Department as a policy advisor, and accused McConnell of protecting her paycheck. Billionaire Elon Musk amplified the post to his 219 million X followers. Neither mentioned the daughter had left her job before Trump’s inauguration.

Loomer continued her attacks with nine more posts in the ensuing days – and more than 600 calls and emails flooded McConnell’s Rhode Island courthouse, including death threats and menacing messages taunting his family, according to a court clerk and another person familiar with the communications.

Boasberg and McConnell are among at least 11 federal judges whose families have faced threats of violence or harassment after they ruled against the new Trump administration, a Reuters investigation found.

The broadsides are part of an intimidation campaign directed at federal judges who have stood in the way of Trump’s moves to dramatically expand presidential authority and slash the federal bureaucracy. As Trump and his allies call for judges to be impeached or attack them as “radical left” political foes, the families of judges are being singled out for harassment.

Since Trump returned to power in January, at least 60 judges or appeals courts have slowed or blocked some of his administration’s initiatives. Reuters spoke with a dozen federal judges who raised concerns about the security of their own families or of the relatives of colleagues handling Trump-related cases. They included jurists appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents. Most requested anonymity, citing the potential for further inflaming security fears or raising questions about their impartiality. Additional information was gleaned from legal records and interviews with half a dozen officials involved in court security.

Threats against judges and their families “are ultimately threats to constitutional government. It’s as simple as that,” U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Sullivan, who chairs a security committee for the federal judiciary’s policymaking arm, said in an interview.

The judiciary has emerged as a powerful constraint on a range of Trump’s initiatives, from dismantling government agencies to deporting migrants and targeting law firms. As Trump’s White House threatens to defy some court orders, legal scholars warn the country may already be in a constitutional crisis.

The White House has said judges are the ones overreaching, not the president, but that threats against the judiciary are “unacceptable.”

“No one takes security threats more seriously than President Trump – a leader who survived not one, but two assassination attempts,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in response to questions for this story. “The safety of every American is his top priority, and anyone who endangers that safety will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Reuters identified more than 600 posts on social media and right-leaning message boards since February targeting family members of judges who ruled against the Trump administration. The commentators attacked everything from their physical appearance to their patriotism. Amplified on X and other platforms by some of Trump’s most prominent allies, including Musk, those posts have been viewed more than 200 million times. At least 70 posts explicitly called for judges’ family members to face violence, retaliation or arrest.

Other threats or menacing messages were made directly in calls and emails to the courts or the homes of judges and their relatives, according to court records and interviews with U.S. officials involved in judicial security.

Some of the intimidation comes in a novel form: Pizzas are being sent anonymously to the homes of judges and their relatives, which authorities view as a we-know-where-you-live warning.

Facing more than 200 lawsuits challenging the legality of his initiatives, Trump and his allies have blasted judges as “crooked,” “conflicted” and “rogue,” among other derisive terms. “We cannot allow a handful of communist radical left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States,” Trump told a rally on Tuesday.

In March, Trump called for a judge to be impeached, drawing a rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Judges and legal experts say such attacks jeopardize the judicial independence that underpins America’s democratic constitutional order and could inspire violence.

“The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said on Thursday at a conference of judges in Puerto Rico. “The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy.”

Reuters examined hundreds of posts and comments reaching millions of people across nearly a dozen online platforms, including Musk-owned X and far-right websites such as Gateway Pundit and Patriots.win. The review identified calls for at least 51 federal judges to be fired, arrested or killed. All of those judges handled cases involving the new Trump administration. The posts and comments often echoed Trump’s language, describing the judges as “radical,” “leftist” or "activist."

The U.S. Marshals Service, which protects federal judges, declined to comment on threats against the judiciary.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking arm of the federal courts, requested an increase in funding for security in an April 10 letter to U.S. lawmakers, citing “escalating” threats against judges and concern over “the impact of hiring freezes and staffing losses” in the Marshals Service.

At a U.S. Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Trump’s nominee to lead the Marshals, Gadyaces Serralta, was asked what would happen if Trump ordered the Marshals to halt security for a judge. Serralta said he didn’t believe that would happen and vowed to “continue to keep all our judges safe” if he was confirmed.

Current and former jurists said the maelstrom engulfing judges’ family members is particularly alarming, pointing to colleagues on the bench who have lost loved ones to violence. A disgruntled litigant killed the mother and husband of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow in her Chicago home two decades ago. U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’ son was killed when a would-be assassin showed up at her New Jersey home in 2020.

“To be concerned about family members, it’s not theoretical. It’s happened,” David Levi, a former federal judge in Sacramento appointed by former Republican President George H.W. Bush, said in an interview. “I don’t think that most judges thought they were taking on risk to their families when they accepted the job. Not in the way we are experiencing right now.”

The attacks on judges’ relatives are part of a pattern of harassment and intimidation that Trump and his allies have used to cement their political power, silence critics and pressure the judiciary. In a remarkable admission, longtime Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said last month the threat of political retaliation by Trump has made lawmakers “afraid” to criticize the administration’s policies.

‘DEPORT THE WHOLE FAMILY’

Many of the online posts targeting judges’ family members have been amplified on X by Musk, the world’s richest person, who has led Trump’s efforts to downsize the federal civil service.

On February 12, the Tesla CEO lambasted U.S. District Judge John Bates, a day after the judge ordered the administration to restore public health websites that were taken down because of transgender references.

Musk shared posts on X with photos of Bates and his wife, which alleged she ran a charity that received U.S. foreign aid – money the Trump administration aimed to cut – and accused the judge of a conflict of interest. In fact, her charity, which assisted Ethiopian orphans, never received U.S. government funds, according to federal data. In one Musk post, he baselessly accused the judge, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush, of corruption.

One commenter responded to Musk’s post with a call for the couple to face “capital punishment.” Another posted an image of a noose and said it was needed to address “the unfathomable level of corruption and tyranny.”

The judge’s chambers received angry and threatening calls after his ruling, according to a court official familiar with the matter.

Some of Musk’s attacks on judges’ families have drawn heavily on claims advanced by Laura Loomer, a conspiracy theorist and vocal Trump defender. Musk and Loomer have aimed particularly aggressive attacks at the daughter of U.S. District Judge Boasberg.

In March, Boasberg temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s use of a rarely invoked 18th-century law to deport migrants to El Salvador based on unproven claims that they belonged to a Venezuelan criminal gang. The order directed that the operation be paused pending a hearing.

Both Loomer and Musk shared on X a college graduation photo of Boasberg’s daughter, pulled from the internet. Loomer mischaracterized her work at a nonprofit, accusing her of helping illegal immigrant gang members. The organization partners with public defenders to offer social services to people facing low-level criminal charges, including immigrants.

Musk called the daughter’s work “concerning” in a March 28 post on X that has been viewed 42 million times. Commenters demanded that Boasberg and his daughter be punished.

“Arrest him, his daughter and everyone else involved in these devious activities!” one wrote. “Deport the whole family,” another added.

Loomer had shared the photo of Boasberg’s daughter 11 days earlier on X. “Let’s dox Boasberg and his daughter,” a follower responded, referring to a method of revealing a person’s address or other personal identifying details.

On April 16, Boasberg ruled that he had found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for violating his order to turn around planes carrying deportees to an El Salvador prison. His daughter quickly faced more harassment.

One commenter on the pro-Trump website Gateway Pundit wrote Boasberg’s daughter “needs to be introduced to some prominent MS13 leaders,” referring to a notorious El Salvadoran criminal gang. Another called for executions for the Boasberg family: “Start building the gallows.” Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit’s editor, said such offensive material amounts to a tiny fraction of readers’ posts, and the company was working to remove the comments identified by Reuters.

All told, Reuters identified about 370 online posts vilifying Boasberg and his daughter, including 228 on X that were viewed more than 119 million times. The nonprofit his daughter works for has removed information about her from its website.

Loomer also went after Boasberg’s brother, Thomas, a former Denver schools’ superintendent.

In 2017, during Trump’s first term, Thomas Boasberg and Denver’s Board of Education, like many jurisdictions across the U.S., said it was limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities after Trump vowed crackdowns on people in the U.S. illegally. The Denver school system said at the time that its position was consistent with existing policy aimed at ensuring “students’ learning environments are not disrupted by immigration enforcement.”

On X, Loomer mischaracterized Thomas Boasberg’s position, asserting without evidence that he said he would “never enforce immigration laws” and that “the Boasberg family has a history of protecting illegal aliens.” Multiple commenters accused Judge Boasberg of “treason” or called for his arrest. One posted a photo of his brother.

Loomer and Musk did not respond to requests for comment for this report.

The Marshals said they assigned a security detail to Boasberg in March. The extra security was taken after the judge and his family faced multiple threats, said an official familiar with the matter.

Current and former Marshals told Reuters that when a judge is threatened, Marshals have protected immediate family, such as escorting a child to school. But guarding adult children or other relatives who live independently poses more problems, said Jon Trainum, who spent nearly three decades at the Marshals Service and led its protection operations for five years before retiring in 2021.

He said he’s never seen anything like today’s harassment of judges’ relatives. “It’s going to pose a significant challenge to the Marshals,” he said, because the agency isn’t staffed sufficiently and likely would need to reassign agents from other roles. “I’d be shocked if it’s not something being discussed at headquarters right now,” he said. The Marshals Service declined to comment on whether such talks are under way.

CHILLING EFFECT

Judges have long faced threats and harassment from angry litigants or convicts they’ve sentenced. But today’s politically charged cases generate rage from huge swaths of people who can fire off a menacing email or post in seconds.

One consequence could be a reluctance of qualified candidates to serve on the bench, said Paul Grimm, a Duke University law professor and former U.S. district judge in Maryland appointed by Democratic ex-President Barack Obama.

No judge should worry “that their families would be called into danger,” Grimm said. “It is never justified.”

Some family members have taken security precautions, such as going out less or altering travel patterns, people familiar with those changes said.

For judges whose relatives have been targeted – and for the family members who have faced the Trump camp’s wrath – the experience can be terrifying.

One judge’s relative hounded by Trump supporters in a high-profile case told Reuters she dismissed the initial online posts suggesting she had influenced the judge’s rulings. But she said the threats and rage grew exponentially and quickly overwhelmed her.

People sent her private social media messages laced with threats. One promised to drive to her home “to beat your fuckin eyes plum shut,” then put “a fucking bounty” on the judge and “beat him down bad.” Another described her and the judge as “scum” and wrote, “you are in line to meet your maker” – next to a picture of a man gripping an assault rifle.

She cut back on socializing and avoided meeting new people. She scoured the internet for pictures and information about herself that could be weaponized, always wondering, “what’s the next thing they are going to twist and manipulate?” She began worrying for her safety, watching for strange cars on her block and thinking of ways to mask her identity in public.

Reuters agreed not to identify the woman and the judge due to her safety concerns and ongoing harassment.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle said he worries constantly about drawing his family into the fray of politically charged cases.

Coughenour endured a bomb threat at his home after he ruled in January that Trump’s executive order curtailing U.S. birthright citizenship was “blatantly unconstitutional.” He also was the victim of a “swatting” incident in which police rushed to his home after someone called in a fake report that he had killed his wife, according to the judge and a police report.

His wife, who was home at the time, “was very upset,” he said. He was more worried for her well-being than his own, he said, echoing other judges who spoke with Reuters about threats to family. “We signed up for this when we took the job, but they didn’t. That’s the unfairness of this.”

‘WE’RE ALL TERRIFIED’

The hostility facing federal judges now is unprecedented.

Threats directed at the judiciary jumped from 179 in 2019, about midway through Trump’s first term, to 457 in 2023, according to the Marshals Service. Though the overall number dipped last year, to 364, the Marshals nevertheless noted in their latest annual report that the “intensity” of those threats has “increased.”

Trump has criticized judges more directly – and in more personal terms – than any prior president. That pattern began during his first campaign in 2016, when he claimed a judge hearing a case against his now-defunct Trump University disliked him because the jurist was of Mexican heritage and Trump had denigrated Mexican immigrants.

In his first term, Trump continued to deride judges who ruled against his interests. Later, he fiercely criticized judges who blocked his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Democratic politicians have been more restrained, but U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer drew widespread criticism – including a rebuke from Chief Justice Roberts – when he warned at a 2020 rally that Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch would “pay the price” if they ruled in favor of abortion restrictions. Schumer expressed regret for the remark the next day.

Two years later, after the court overturned the nationwide right to an abortion and a California man was charged with planning to kill Kavanaugh, Republican politicians recirculated Schumer’s remark.

In March, the judiciary launched a task force to propose steps for maintaining the security and independence of courts and judges, according to a memo from the judiciary’s administrative arm to federal judges and other court staff.

Such efforts, however, have done little to quell the broadsides from Trump and his allies. Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, has referred to the judges who ruled against the administration’s interests as “out of control” and said they “need to be removed.”

One federal judge told Reuters that the Trump administration’s inflammatory rhetoric encourages the hostility aimed at judges and feared it ultimately would inspire true believers to violence.

“The Justice Department doesn’t understand the fire they’re dealing with,” the judge said. “The public discussion of ‘out-of-control judges’ turns out the crazy.”

Underlining those concerns is evidence that some of those who threaten judges’ family members know their home addresses.

Reuters identified at least a dozen judges who, after ruling against the Trump administration, have had pizzas delivered to their homes by anonymous senders – a tactic law enforcement characterized as a form of intimidation meant to convey that a target’s address is known.

In March, U.S. Marshals in the Southern District of New York said in a bulletin they were investigating Domino’s Pizza deliveries “that were not legitimately ordered by judges to their residence.” The orders had been made through a Domino’s app, it said. Domino’s did not respond to requests for comment.

A pizza was sent to the home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett the weekend after the judge, a Trump appointee, joined a 5-4 decision in March against the administration’s bid to freeze foreign aid, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters. That same weekend, a bomb threat targeted her sister in South Carolina, a Charleston Police Department report said.

In recent weeks, the pizza deliveries have taken a more sinister turn. At least 10 judges have received anonymous pizza deliveries that were ordered using the name “Daniel Anderl,” the late son of Judge Salas, according to the judge, who shared with Reuters information she received from other judges and the Marshals.

In 2020, Daniel Anderl was killed by a disgruntled lawyer from a case heard by Salas. Posing as a delivery driver, the assailant shot Anderl, 20, when he answered the door at the judge’s home. The attacker also wounded Salas’ husband before killing himself.

Another federal judge told Reuters that someone using his spouse’s name and email address arranged a pizza delivery to his home after he ruled against a Trump administration action in March. His spouse was “alarmed and chilled” that a stranger knew her personal information, the judge said.

A week later, the same judge received a terrifying email: “I hope some terrorist kills you and your family.” Marshals reviewed security precautions with the spouse’s workplace and alerted local police, the judge said.

“Somebody is going to get killed,” the judge added. “That’s where it all leads eventually, and I think that’s what we’re all terrified about.”

Additional reporting by Joseph Tanfani and Luc Cohen. Art Direction by John Emerson. Video Production by Julio-Cesar Chavez, Linda So, John Emerson and Gavino Garay. Photo Editing by Corinne Perkins. Edited by Jason Szep.

Dozens of major law firms, wary of retaliation, have scaled back pro bono work, diversity initiatives and litigation that could place them in conflict with Trump, a Reuters investigation found.

By Mike Spector, Brad Heath, Kristina Cooke, Joseph Tanfani and David Thomas

When the Texas Civil Rights Project needed lawyers to help dozens of people arrested during U.S. President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, legal director Dustin Rynders turned to a familiar strategy. He contacted major law firms that for decades had provided free legal services to nonprofits like his.

On that April day in Houston, he called his usual contacts, many at firms that had previously handled challenges to Trump’s immigration policies. Before Trump’s return to the White House, they typically offered swift “pro bono,” or free, legal help – a standard public service provided by elite U.S. firms.

This time, they all declined. “We are just handling the cases ourselves at this point,” Rynders said.

In March and April, Trump issued a series of executive orders targeting law firms he considers adversaries, the first such attacks by a U.S. president against the legal profession. Some of the orders lashed out at firms for donating their time to cases involving immigration, transgender rights and the January 6 attack by Trump supporters on the U.S. Capitol, claiming this legal work undermined U.S. interests.

Months later, the aftershocks threaten lasting damage to America’s tradition of mobilizing free lawyers to challenge government actions on behalf of the vulnerable.

Dozens of major law firms, wary of political retaliation, have scaled back pro bono work, diversity initiatives and litigation that could place them in conflict with the Trump administration, a Reuters investigation found. Many firms are making a strategic calculation: withdraw from pro bono work frowned on by Trump, or risk becoming the next target.

Reuters interviewed more than 60 lawyers, reviewed 50 law firm websites, contacted more than 70 nonprofits and analyzed millions of court records to compile an authoritative account of the fallout from Trump’s intimidation of Big Law.

Fourteen civil rights groups said the law firms they count on to pursue legal challenges are hesitating to engage with them, keeping their representation secret or turning them down altogether in the wake of Trump’s pressure, according to interviews with the nonprofits and a review of filings they have made in court.

In an analysis of court dockets, Reuters also found that Big Law firms have pulled back sharply from litigation against the federal government. That’s a departure from Trump’s first term, when the nation’s largest firms were often involved in challenges to his directives. Now, they’re mostly on the sidelines amid an avalanche of lawsuits contesting administration policies spanning immigration, funding cuts to nongovernmental organizations and attempts to fire tens of thousands of federal workers.

The retreat has been painful for the nonprofit advocacy groups challenging Trump’s sweeping assertions of executive authority, limiting their resources for researching legal arguments, preparing briefs and pursuing litigation. Such groups offer legal aid to low-income communities and have long relied on pro bono support.

The term pro bono, derived from the Latin pro bono publico, or “for the public good,” dates back to ancient Rome. While practiced globally, it has become deeply rooted in the U.S. legal system, with the American Bar Association urging lawyers to provide free services to those unable to afford representation.

Pro bono work is now being reshaped into a tool of political coercion under Trump, said Steven Banks, the former head of pro bono at Paul Weiss. Banks resigned after his firm was punished in a Trump executive order and reached a settlement in March that included a deal to provide pro bono services on issues aligned with Trump’s agenda. Other firms followed with similar arrangements.

The result, he warned, is a chilling effect that is discouraging elite law firms from confronting the administration. “Win or lose in court, the actions of the president are accomplishing their goal,” he said.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

The administration has defended its executive orders against Big Law as efforts to curb what it calls a “weaponized” legal system.

Conservative activists and Trump allies have long asserted that major law firms lean too far left and use public interest law to advance liberal causes. Big Law’s diversity policies, for instance, are a form of racial discrimination, they contend.

A study by Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller found that top firms overwhelmingly backed liberal positions in Supreme Court amicus briefs from 2018 to 2021, particularly on divisive issues such as abortion and gun rights. “A lot of conservatives have felt pushed out of Big Law,” Muller said. He said, though, that he believes Trump’s executive orders against the firms are of “questionable” legality because they appear to be based on retribution.

Four big firms, to be sure, took the Trump administration to court and won rather than settling. Many advocacy groups have secured top-tier legal representation. At least two firms that previously settled with Trump – Milbank and Skadden Arps – have since joined efforts to challenge the administration. Some advocacy organizations are also expanding their legal teams to pursue challenges independently.

Still, the crackdown is threatening a bedrock principle of the U.S. legal profession, said Scott Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA School of Law: that lawyers have a professional duty to help those who cannot pay.

Law firms see pro bono work as strategically important, helping them recruit elite graduates, resonating with clients that value public service and boosting their standing in the influential rankings of The American Lawyer magazine, a barometer of prestige in the industry. America’s leading law firms logged about 5 million hours of pro bono work last year – equivalent to billions of dollars based on hourly rates that can approach or exceed $1,000, said Cummings.

Trump has exposed a weakness in the pro bono model by wielding executive power to retaliate against elite law firms for representing politically sensitive clients. His orders barred some attorneys from federal buildings, limited their access to officials and warned that their clients’ government contracts could be at risk. The moves delivered a clear warning: Pro bono work could jeopardize the corporate clients that sustain big law firms.

The measures singled out law firms whose attorneys had investigated the president, represented his political adversaries or taken on causes such as immigration and voting rights that clashed with his agenda. One Trump order, for instance, cited a firm’s previous representation of Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 election rival.

Nine firms have capitulated to Trump, pledging nearly $1 billion in free work to administration-backed causes. The deals include pro bono work ensuring “fairness” in the justice system and combating antisemitism, issues the administration has cast as conservative, though the specific cases the White House is expecting firms to pursue remain unclear. The firms said their settlements protect employees and clients without compromising core principles or their pro bono commitments.

Four firms – Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey – successfully challenged Trump administration orders targeting them, winning permanent injunctions from judges who found the actions unconstitutional. All but Susman Godfrey’s case have been appealed.

Beyond those rulings, Trump’s directives are reshaping the profession in subtle but significant ways.

A Reuters review found that 46 of the 50 top-grossing U.S. firms have removed or altered website references to diversity, equity and inclusion. Seventeen revised pro bono descriptions to omit contentious areas like immigration and racial justice. At least three added language highlighting work aligned with Trump’s agenda, such as supporting veterans and fighting antisemitism.

Court records show a sharp decline in major firms challenging government policies, according to a Reuters analysis of dockets in the legal database Westlaw, a unit of Thomson Reuters.

Rynders of the Texas Civil Rights Project declined to name the firms that have retreated from assisting him. But he said some of his organization’s biggest cases before Trump’s second term “were with firms who reached agreements with the administration.” The absence of elite firms, he said, has reduced the number of people his group can now help.

“A FUNDAMENTAL REORDERING”

Paul Weiss was the first firm to settle after a Trump executive order on March 14. Soon after, Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp met with Trump in the Oval Office and struck a deal. Resisting the administration risked a client exodus that could have destroyed the firm, Karp said in a March 23 email to colleagues.

Eight other firms followed, including Skadden, Milbank, Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins. The firms had no comment for this story.

The effects have rippled far beyond the firms themselves. Reuters contacted more than 70 civic groups that frequently sue the government on behalf of liberal causes, including immigrant aid, transgender rights, gun control and abortion access.

Of the 33 groups that responded, all but six said they feared Trump’s pressure on law firms could jeopardize future access to legal help. At least a dozen groups reported that law firms had already backed away from providing legal help, though they all declined to name names, fearing they might alienate lawyers they could need in the future.

Bridget Crawford, director of law and policy at Immigration Equality, a nonprofit that advocates for LGBTQ immigrants, said her team often relies on major firms to vet legal arguments, but several recently declined to help with cases challenging Trump. That means it’s growing hard to pursue cases focused on systemic injustices, she said. “We take on strong cases and generally win in the courts, so struggling to bring a suit is a loss for everyone.”

Another group, the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, provides detained immigrants with legal and social services. Amica has struggled to enlist firms to draft legal briefs in support of advocacy cases, said Executive Director Michael Lukens. As a result, he said, Amica is spending more time preparing briefs on its own, reducing its capacity to take on additional cases.

A pro bono director at one leading law firm said the firm is declining to put its name on court filings challenging the Trump administration, preferring to provide confidential pro bono assistance with legal briefs and research. Before the crackdown, the firm publicly partnered with advocacy groups, appearing in court and giving junior associates opportunities to argue high-profile cases, the lawyer said.

“It’s a fundamental reordering of how it usually works,” the lawyer said.

In March, Vanessa Batters-Thompson, executive director of DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, an advocacy group, enlisted several law firms to research how Trump and his congressional allies might try to undermine the local governing authority of Washington, D.C.

At least three firms agreed to help on one condition: anonymity. Their agreements barred Batters-Thompson’s team from disclosing the pro bono work without written consent, she said.

“I’ve never seen that provision before,” said Batters-Thompson, who has reviewed at least 1,000 pro bono agreements over 15 years.

Reuters measured the retreat of the largest, most prestigious law firms, collectively known as Big Law, by analyzing federal court dockets that list lawsuits against the U.S. government, identifying the law firms involved through attorneys’ email addresses.

The top 50 U.S. law firms by revenue have represented plaintiffs in only about 3% of the 865 lawsuits filed since the start of Trump’s second term under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that allows courts to overturn executive actions deemed illegal or procedurally improper. During Trump’s first term, those same firms were involved in almost 9% of 3,400 such cases.

Now absent are firms that challenged Trump in his first term, including Paul Weiss and Simpson Thacher, both of which struck deals with the administration this year.

Simpson Thacher didn’t respond to a request for comment. Paul Weiss had no comment on Reuters’ analysis. It said in a statement its pro bono hours were “materially higher” in the second quarter compared with the same period last year, calling its commitment “as strong as ever.” The firm declined to comment on whether that work included cases against the administration since Trump’s executive order.

Twenty of the nation’s 100 highest-grossing law firms sued the Trump administration during his first term, often over politically sensitive issues such as immigration and regulation, but have not filed similar cases so far in his second term, a Reuters review of federal district court dockets found.

Goodwin Procter, for example, participated in 15 such lawsuits during Trump’s first presidency, including five in its opening months, but has yet to file a single case this year. The firm declined to comment.

The shift is especially stark on immigration, a focus of the new administration, where Trump has asserted broad authority to roll back legal protections.

Trump’s first term triggered a wave of immigration lawsuits, many filed by individuals seeking to remain in the country or be released from detention. At the time, the top 100 firms handled about 2.5% of those cases. This year, amid a similar surge in litigation, their share has dropped to just 0.6%.

REDEFINING PRO BONO

The retreat from courtroom challenges comes as many of the same firms face a new pressure: to actively support the administration’s legal agenda. Conservative groups are increasingly pushing top firms to advance right-leaning causes, shifting focus from who opposes the administration to who will serve it.

The Oversight Project, an initiative spun off as a separate group this year by conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, may publicly name firms that declined or hesitated to provide $10 million in pro bono work aligned with the Trump administration, its president, Mike Howell, told Reuters.

In late March, Howell sent letters to about 100 firms seeking help with initiatives such as challenging corporate diversity policies and advancing “election integrity,” according to a letter reviewed by Reuters. Election integrity is a term conservatives often use to justify stricter voting laws or investigations into alleged voter fraud.

“I don’t think the president is going to be happy when he hears law firms aren’t abiding by the terms of these deals,” Howell said in an interview.

Reuters was unable to identify specific administration requests for pro bono work. But Trump has publicly floated using law firms to negotiate trade deals and told his attorney general to involve them in defending police officers accused of misconduct.

Skadden, known for its prestigious fellowship in public interest law, moved to align its pro bono work with Trump administration priorities after striking a deal in March to avert an executive order. Skadden agreed to fund at least five fellowships focused on veterans’ services, justice system reform and combating antisemitism, Trump posted on social media.

Despite striking agreements with Trump to avoid punitive executive action, two major firms – Milbank and Skadden – are separately challenging the administration in court, underscoring tension between compliance and resistance in the legal community.

In June, Milbank joined a high-profile lawsuit challenging Trump’s new tariffs. In May, Skadden sued the Trump administration on behalf of a Mexican woman denied a visa designed for crime victims, partnering with the National Immigrant Justice Center, a nonprofit that aids low-income immigrants and advocates for their rights. The firms had no comment.

Before Skadden stepped in, the center had struggled to recruit pro bono lawyers from major firms, according to an April court filing. Several usual partners had paused new cases due to “messaging from the White House about pro bono involvement in immigration matters,” Lisa Koop, the group’s national director of legal services, said in the filing. The center and Koop declined to comment.

THE COALITION OF THE WILLING

As Trump began targeting major law firms, his government also launched investigations into their diversity practices that culminated with several top firms agreeing to provide pro bono legal work for the administration.

In March, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission demanded detailed hiring data from 20 major firms, including applicant names and whether race or gender influenced decisions.

The EEOC, created in the 1960s, has traditionally focused on protecting workers from discrimination. Under Trump, it’s shifted to dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, now a flashpoint in the nation’s culture wars.

Supporters of DEI say such policies combat systemic inequities and unconscious bias in hiring. Critics say the initiatives prioritize identity over merit and may disadvantage white candidates.

The policies have become common in U.S. businesses, including the legal field, which has long faced criticism for its lack of diversity. The movement accelerated after the 2020 police killings of George Floyd, a Black man, and Breonna Taylor, a Black woman.

The EEOC’s demand for hiring data set off intense behind-the-scenes negotiations among big law firms, as they collectively grappled with how to respond. Kirkland & Ellis, the nation’s largest law firm, played a central role in coordinating a response to the Trump administration, according to two people familiar with the matter.

In April, Chairman Jon Ballis met with partners on Kirkland’s executive committee to discuss the firm’s strategy, the two people said. Among them was Mark Filip, a former federal judge. Kirkland then approached other firms facing similar scrutiny, proposing a coalition to strengthen their negotiating position, the people said. Three firms joined. Several others declined.

Kirkland, Ballis and Filip didn’t respond to requests for comment.

On April 11, Trump announced that four firms – Kirkland, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher and A&O Shearman – had each pledged $125 million in pro bono work for administration-aligned causes through the end of his term “and beyond,” without elaborating.

The firms affirmed their commitment to hiring on merit and agreed to abandon DEI labeling, the EEOC said in unveiling the settlements the same day. “We are hopeful these firms will be leaders in their industry by eliminating potentially unlawful DEI-based employment practices and returning to merit-based equal employment opportunity for all,” Andrea Lucas, the agency’s acting chair, said in a statement at the time.

In return, the EEOC dropped its investigations into what it had described as potentially illegal diversity practices. A spokesman for the EEOC said the agency remains committed to combating discrimination and “protecting the civil rights of all Americans.” The four firms had no comment.

Trump said another firm – Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft – had reached a separate agreement with his administration, pledging $100 million in pro bono work.

Cadwalader didn’t respond to a request for comment. Cadwalader “made the agonizing decision to enter into an agreement” after learning Trump might direct an executive order against the firm that could harm clients, Managing Partner Patrick Quinn said in an April 11 firmwide email that Reuters reviewed. “Without our clients, there is no Firm,” he said.

Nearly all of the nation’s 50 top-grossing law firms have removed or revised online references to diversity, equity and inclusion, according to a Reuters review of archived websites. Between February and early March, 35 of the 50 highest-earning firms highlighted DEI efforts. By late June, only two had not altered that language. Thirteen other firms made similar changes since late 2024, though limited archival data makes the timing less certain.

In yielding to Trump, some major law firms have, at times, hurt morale and retention. Dozens of attorneys have left firms that settled with the administration, some joining rivals that held their ground.

Seven partners left Willkie Farr & Gallagher in June to join Cooley, which represented a firm that challenged a Trump executive order. Cadwalader also saw departures, including the former chair of its pro bono committee.

Willkie, Cooley and Cadwalader didn’t respond to requests for comment.

At Paul Weiss, nearly a dozen partners have left in recent weeks to join a newly formed firm, Dunn Isaacson Rhee. Separately, Damian Williams, former Manhattan U.S. attorney during the Biden administration, left Paul Weiss in June, just six months after joining, to move to Jenner & Block, which successfully challenged a Trump executive order in court.

In a statement from Jenner when he moved to the firm, Williams said he was excited to join a team “that doesn’t shy away from hard fights.”

J.B. Howard, a former Maryland deputy attorney general, resigned from Cadwalader in April after it entered into an agreement with the Trump administration. In an email to the firm’s managing partner, Howard warned that “the legal profession, the courts and the rule of law are now under direct attack.”

He told Reuters his decision was “visceral,” rooted in the oath he took to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. “What is more useless than lawyers if there is no functioning legal system?” Howard said. “As lawyers, we have a unique obligation to fight this.”

Additional reporting: Sara Merken, Mike Scarcella and Chris Prentice. Photo editing: Corinne Perkins. Art direction: John Emerson. Edited by Jason Szep.