Justice Department Faces Challenges in Prosecuting Protest-Related Crimes

Thu Dec 18 2025 11:36:55 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

Amid an aggressive crackdown on protests against federal actions, many charges brought by the Justice Department have faltered in court, raising questions about the legality and rationale behind the prosecutions.

The Justice Department's concerted effort to prosecute demonstrators accused of assaulting federal officers during protests against Trump's immigration policies is facing significant hurdles. An analysis reveals that many felony charges have been reduced or dismissed, and the DOJ has lost every misdemeanor trial it has pursued. Despite government rhetoric characterizing protesters as 'domestic terrorists,' evidence often failed to support the severity of charges, highlighting potential overreach and chilling effects on free speech.

WASHINGTON (PulseWire) — The Justice Department has initiated a lengthy campaign to prosecute individuals accused of assaulting federal officers and obstructing them during protests against President Donald Trump’s immigration policies and related military deployments. Attorney General Pam Bondi has pledged that these offenders will face 'severe consequences.'

However, a detailed review of federal prosecutions by PulseWire has uncovered troubling trends. The analysis of 166 criminal cases shows that the aggressive charging strategies employed by the Justice Department frequently do not stand up in court.

For instance, a notable 100 individuals initially charged with felony assaults on federal agents have had their charges reduced to misdemeanors or dropped altogether, with 55 cases showing this trend. Insufficient evidence and the minimal injuries reported in many incidents have undermined the legitimacy of serious charges, demanding a reevaluation of how such cases are handled.

Mary McCord, a former federal prosecutor and current director at Georgetown University Law Center, reflects on the implications, stating that the government seems intent on discouraging dissent against the administration's immigration strategies. This is evidenced by dropped cases, including that of Dana Briggs, a 70-year-old veteran whose charges were dismissed after video footage cleared him of wrongdoing.

In terms of broader narratives, the use of 'antifa' rhetoric in justifying national military deployments to cities like Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago has been prevalent. However, court records from the cases reviewed show scant evidence of any direct accusations linking protesters to organized violent movements.

Shockingly, the DOJ has faced defeats across the board in misdemeanor trials, with all cases resulting in acquittals. This reflects a significant gap in the prosecution’s ability to translate aggressive legal strategies into courtroom victories, prompting experts to question the department's efficacy in pursuing these cases.

As the DOJ secures felony indictments against several individuals accused of assaulting federal officers with various projectiles, the future of these cases remains uncertain, with nearly 50 still pending trial. As violence against federal agents has reportedly increased, the implications of these legal battles could have lasting effects on the administration's enforcement actions.