The Justice Department under President Trump has issued a formal report accusing the previous administration of politically motivated enforcement of a federal law protecting abortion clinics. The document, produced by the department's "Weaponization Working Group," contends that former Attorney General Merrick Garland's Justice Department applied the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act disproportionately against opponents of abortion rights.
The report claims Garland's department "violated the rights of Americans" by focusing enforcement almost exclusively on anti-abortion activists while ignoring vandalism and attacks against crisis pregnancy centers and houses of worship, which the law also protects. It further alleges that Biden-era prosecutors "closely collaborated with pro-abortion groups" to monitor activists and used evidence compiled by those organizations to obtain search warrants and bring charges.
However, the 58-page document provides scant concrete evidence to support its central claim of systematic bias. It largely ignores multiple court rulings and jury verdicts that resulted from the prosecutions it criticizes. Legal experts and former department officials immediately challenged its findings, noting that many of the prosecuted cases involved serious criminal conduct like firebombings, arson, and coordinated blockades preventing patient access.
"Many of the convictions now being questioned were secured through grand jury indictments and unanimous jury verdicts after full judicial review," said Regan Rush, a former Civil Rights Division attorney, in a statement. "Those outcomes reflect evidence tested in court, not political bias." Rush noted that the "overwhelming majority" of cases brought between 2021 and 2024 involved serious criminal conduct.
The report represents one of the first major actions by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who faces pressure from the Trump administration to aggressively pursue the president's political priorities. "No Department should conduct selective prosecution based on beliefs," Blanche said in a statement accompanying the report's release. "The weaponization that happened under the Biden Administration will not happen again."
In a related move ahead of the report's publication, the Justice Department on Monday terminated four federal prosecutors who had worked on FACE Act cases during the Biden administration. The department stated it had "terminated the employment of personnel responsible for weaponizing the FACE Act," though none had been formally accused of misconduct.
The political context of this report is significant. Shortly after taking office last year, President Trump pardoned 23 individuals convicted of FACE Act violations, including participants in a 2020 clinic blockade where protesters used chains and locks to physically obstruct patients and staff. His administration has since dismissed several pending FACE Act cases and instructed prosecutors not to pursue new investigations—except those targeting abortion rights activists.
This enforcement shift comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to align federal policy with conservative priorities. The FACE Act itself, passed in 1994 following a wave of clinic violence including murders and attempted murders of providers, has become a flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over abortion access since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Former department attorneys accused the report's authors of cherry-picking from internal records and deliberately mischaracterizing the factual record. "DOJ's current leaders' textbook cruelty and hypocrisy are on full display," said Stacey Young, a former Civil Rights Division attorney. "They insist on zealous advocacy by career staff in advancing the President's priorities, while shaming and firing those who did just that in the prior administration."
The report's release ensures the FACE Act will remain contentious. Some Republican lawmakers have called for its repeal, claiming inherent bias, while reproductive rights advocates argue robust enforcement remains essential given continued threats to clinics and providers. The document offers a stark preview of how Justice Department priorities and interpretations of federal law can shift dramatically between administrations with opposing political agendas.
