Justice Department's Aggressive Prosecution of Protesters Faces Legal Challenges

Thu Dec 18 2025 11:54:38 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

Months of extensive prosecutions against individuals involved in protests against immigration policies reveal shortcomings within the Justice Department's legal strategies as many cases struggle to hold up in court.

The Justice Department has initiated a significant crackdown on individuals accused of assaulting federal officers during protests against Donald Trump's immigration policies. A comprehensive analysis shows that many initial felony charges were reduced or dismissed due to lack of evidence, leading to questions about the department's aggressive approach. Notably, the administration's rhetoric linking protesters to 'antifa' has not been substantiated in court, and all misdemeanor trials so far have been unsuccessful for prosecutors.

WASHINGTON (RTWNews) — The Justice Department has undertaken a rigorous initiative to prosecute individuals accused of assaulting or resisting federal officers during protests against President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement policies. Attorney General Pam Bondi has asserted that those found guilty will face significant penalties.

However, an analysis by RTWNews reveals that the department's aggressive strategies have struggled in court, as many prosecutions have not yielded the anticipated outcomes. A review of 166 federal cases arising from protests in four major cities shows that many charges, initially deemed serious, have been drastically reduced or dropped altogether.

Experts suggest that these aggressive charges might aim to suppress dissent against the administration's policies. The data indicates an extraordinary level of charging for offenses that historically wouldn’t attract such serious repercussions,” commented Mary McCord, former federal prosecutor.

Charges Frequently Reduced

Out of 100 people charged with felony assaults against federal officers, nearly 55 had their charges downgraded to misdemeanors or were dismissed entirely. Prosecutors faced difficulties securing grand jury indictments, with the evidence, including video footage, undermining initial claims.

In some instances, minor injuries or lack of significant harm to the officers directly contradicted the felony assault allegations. One notable case involved a 70-year-old Air Force veteran, Dana Briggs, whose charges were dropped after footage showed federal authorities pushing her down.

Antifa Label Lacks Foundation in Court

Despite the administration's efforts to label participants in the protests as 'antifa'—a term used to describe anti-fascist demonstrators—the RTWNews analysis found little evidence of such classification in court. Though the term has been prominent in political discourse, mostly by the administration justifying military deployments, there was no solid legal basis connecting protestors to any organized terrorism acts.

Prosecutorial Challenges and Losses

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) experienced setbacks, with every misdemeanor case they took to trial resulting in acquittals. Experts were surprised, given the department’s historical success rate in prosecutions. One high-profile case involved Sean Charles Dunn, who was found not guilty after throwing a sandwich at a federal agent.

Currently, over 50 cases are pending further legal action, with prosecutors focusing on individuals accused of various actions deemed violent, yet many initial cases face scrutiny regarding legitimacy.

As the current climate unfolds, the DOJ aims to fortify its stance against those threatening federal officers, emphasizing the need for accountability while facing significant judicial hurdles in proving their cases.