The Weaponization Report That Weaponizes

The report meant to expose the weaponization of justice may be the clearest example of it yet.

What the Report Says—and What It Doesn't

Last week, the Trump Justice Department's "Weaponization Working Group" released its first major findings. The 800-page document claims that the Biden administration engaged in "shameful" abuses of prosecutorial power by targeting anti-abortion Christians under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act—a 1994 law that prohibits physically blocking entry to reproductive health facilities. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the report, fired at least four prosecutors involved in FACE Act cases, and promised more accountability to come.

The backstory: Trump signed an executive order on his first day back in office demanding an investigation into the Biden administration's alleged "weaponization" of the federal government. Pam Bondi set up the working group shortly after her confirmation. Then Trump fired Bondi earlier this month—reportedly for not moving aggressively enough against his enemies—and Blanche stepped in. At his first press conference as acting AG, Blanche told reporters they'd start seeing results "very soon." This report is that result.

The core accusations are three: that Biden's DOJ prosecuted an unusually high number of anti-abortion activists under FACE; that it sought harsher sentences for anti-abortion defendants than for pro-abortion-rights ones; and that it failed to pursue vandalism cases against anti-abortion pregnancy centers with equal vigor.

Where the Argument Falls Apart

Each of these claims has a straightforward answer that the report either ignores or buries.

On the surge in FACE Act prosecutions: yes, the numbers went up under Biden. But 2022 was the year the Supreme Court was preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and anti-abortion groups dramatically scaled up clinic blockades in anticipation. More blockades meant more prosecutions. The report treats the increased caseload as evidence of bias without asking why the caseload increased.

On sentencing disparities: the report repeatedly describes anti-abortion defendants as "peaceful." Some of them were not. The record includes a nurse whose hand was crushed in a door, a pregnant patient who had to climb through a window after demonstrators grabbed her, and individuals who put "vulnerable victims" at risk—all factors that, under standard sentencing guidelines, increase penalties. Pro-abortion-rights defendants, by contrast, targeted empty buildings at night. No one was present. No one was hurt. The sentencing gap reflects the facts of the cases, not ideological favoritism.

Sponsored

Advertise with Us

[email protected]

Sponsored

On the crisis pregnancy center vandalism: the question of why fewer of those cases were prosecuted is legitimate. But Merrick Garland explained it to the Senate in 2023—these incidents typically happen at night, with no witnesses. The Biden FBI responded by offering $25,000 rewards for tips. The report doesn't mention this. Clinic blockades, meanwhile, are often livestreamed by participants and occur in broad daylight. The investigative difficulty is fundamentally different.

Then there's the footnote problem. Read carefully, and the report's own appendices show that several emails it attributes to the "Biden DOJ" were actually sent during the first Trump administration. One exhibit presented as evidence of Biden's disparate treatment lists five FACE Act prosecutions of anti-abortion defendants brought between 2017 and 2020—by Trump's own Justice Department. DOJ officials appointed by Trump made public statements at the time emphasizing the importance of those cases.

The Mirror Principle

What makes this report worth examining beyond its factual weaknesses is its structure. It follows what might be called the mirror principle: whatever the other side did is illegitimate; whatever we do in response is justice.

The DOJ's own actions since the report's release illustrate this with uncomfortable clarity. The report excoriates Biden's DOJ for charging FACE Act violations alongside a heavier federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 241, calling it an egregious overreach. Yet Harmeet Dhillon, the current head of the Civil Rights Division, recently argued an appeal defending the use of that same 241 charge against a pro-abortion-rights activist prosecuted for conspiring to vandalize crisis pregnancy centers. The report criticizes Biden's DOJ for coordinating with reproductive-rights groups; anti-abortion advocates have said they received advance access to this very report, and the CEO of Americans United for Life visited the DOJ the day after its release.

Perhaps most strikingly: in St. Paul, Minnesota, the DOJ is currently pursuing FACE Act charges against anti-ICE protesters who disrupted a church service—using the worship-protection provision of the statute that the report complains Biden's DOJ never invoked. An earlier draft of the report acknowledged that this provision may be unconstitutional, citing a 2018 DOJ memo. That acknowledgment was removed from the final version.

Former DOJ attorneys Regan Rush and Megan Marks, in a published rebuttal, note that most of the crisis pregnancy center vandalism cases are still within the five-year statute of limitations. The Trump DOJ could prosecute them right now. It hasn't brought a single case.

Why This Matters Beyond the Culture War

The FACE Act is a proxy for a broader argument about who gets to define prosecutorial legitimacy. The working group's implicit answer is: whoever holds power. Law enforcement directed at your allies is weaponization; law enforcement directed at your opponents is accountability. The report doesn't argue this openly—it can't—but its logic requires it.

This matters for anyone who cares about how legal institutions function. The DOJ's credibility as an institution depends on the perception that it applies law consistently, regardless of who the defendant is. When a report designed to restore that credibility instead demonstrates the opposite—by selectively citing evidence, omitting inconvenient facts, and continuing the practices it condemns—it doesn't repair institutional trust. It accelerates its erosion.

Blanche has promised more reports. Trump, by most accounts, fired Bondi in part because he wanted faster, more aggressive action against perceived enemies. Whatever comes next from the working group will be worth reading—not primarily for what it reveals about the Biden years, but for what it reveals about the present.