Trump’s Terminally Online DOJ Could Be Killing Its Cases Just To Own the Libs

There was a time, not very long ago, when it would be highly unusual for any Department of Justice lawyer, let alone the assistant attorney general for civil rights, to have a catchphrase.

But Harmeet Dhillon does: FAFO. It’s shorthand for “F*** Around and Find Out.” Before her government appointment, Dhillon would often tweet the line above news of some protestor being arrested or a liberal losing their job for saying something mean.

Now, sometimes from her official DOJ account on X, she uses it as a threat. “This is FAFO territory. Where I live,” Dhillon wrote, quote-tweeting a Ted Cruz post claiming Seattle’s school district was violating a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving parental rights to opt their children out of lessons contrary to their religious views — an issue squarely in the Civil Rights Division’s jurisdiction.

Legal ethics experts say that it’s Dhillon, however, who may soon FO.

“As a former government lawyer who litigated many cases, I can’t imagine how that helps the government’s case,” said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research and a former DOJ voting rights section trial attorney.

Already, judges and defense attorneys in prominent prosecutions have cited administration officials’ public remarks in motions to dismiss and orders against the government, suggesting there could be more trouble ahead for Dhillon and the Civil Rights Division.

Between her personal and DOJ accounts, Dhillon tweets upwards of 100 times a day. That includes retweets, often of her earlier posts, or cross-posting between the two profiles, which have more than 1.3 million followers between them.

In recent days, Dhillon has taken to social media to comment on ongoing litigation, call a federal judge’s decision in ongoing DOJ litigation a “lawless attack on our very system of government,” and accuse a staffer for California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) of inspiring threats against her, “intentionally endangering a federal law enforcement official.”

Dhillon has also retweeted posts implying that the federal judge presiding over the Portland National Guard deployment case was lying, denouncing former DOJ independent counsel Jack Smith as a “deranged, partisan zealot,” that “should be fully investigated for his abuse of power,” and calling a Portland police officer a “moral and physical coward.”

These are just a sampling of the 1,328 posts Dhillon has made from her government account since April in matters that the DOJ may end up handling in court. On Oct. 3, Dhillon sent a letter — and, of course, tweeted it — to Portland’s police chief, warning that the city’s response to ongoing protests at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility “may be based on viewpoint discrimination,” in violation of a federal consent decree placed on the department in 2015.

Attorneys usually try to avoid commenting outside of court on issues they — or their colleagues — are litigating or might one day, for fear of prejudicing those cases.

“Anything that the DOJ says or does — or a state says or does — could be introduced as evidence in a case, and it could really weaken the government’s case,” Becker said.

If introduced by defendants, extrajudicial statements may “indicate that the justification that [the DOJ is] giving for enforcing law is merely pretextual, isn’t supported, and it actually serves some kind of partisan purpose that would greatly undermine the DOJ’s entitlement to relief,” he added.

The DOJ declined to comment for this story.

Christy Lopez, a former Civil Rights division attorney who also teaches at Georgetown Law, called Dhillon’s public comments “highly unusual.”

“I have no recollection of even private conversations with Civil Rights Division leadership that were remotely as partisan, or that alleged unsupported criminal conspiracy theories,” Lopez wrote in an email. “Anyone who has investigated and studied law enforcement knows, this kind of public pre-judgment, especially when it is aimed only at people perceived as opponents, undermines confidence in the integrity and fair-handedness of that law enforcement — across the board, not just among those who oppose your policies.”

Dhillon is hardly the lone lawyer in this administration preferring to pander to the court of public opinion rather than prioritize actual cases. FBI Director Kash Patel posted photos of evidence after Charlie Kirk’s assassination and mistakenly claimed to have the “subject” in custody before the suspect was actually arrested.

Some of Dhillon’s underlings echo her combative online style from their personal social media accounts, even on matters under the DOJ’s purview. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Gates tweeted “Love AFL” above a post reporting that America First Legal was suing the Census Bureau. Above another tweet accusing the Portland Police of “ACTIVELY DEFENDING Antifa militants,” he wondered “Did Portland secede?” Jordan K. Carpenter, counsel in the civil rights division, offered theological critiques of Pope Leo XIV. Dhillon’s number two, Jesus A. Osete, has reposted his boss’s interviews on Newsmax weighing in on the Civil Rights Division’s ongoing investigation into Portland.

Of course, Attorney General Pam Bondi herself retweeted the same interview. Bondi frequently takes to Fox News to opine on matters before her agency, and on Tuesday, she prepared for Senate oversight hearings with detailed notes on how to insult Democrats, rather than how to combat crime. Bondi’s DOJ prefers to play for the cameras, to the apparent delight of the president.

“It is, at best, not going to hurt the government,” said Becker. “It cannot help and it’s likely to significantly harm the government and its prosecution of these cases.”

Judiciary’s presumption of regularity, meet Trump’s resumption of irregularity

The Trump administration’s desire to own the libs online is already leading to own goals in serious criminal matters.

Defense lawyers in the Luigi Mangione murder trial accused the government of violating his Fifth and Eight Amendment rights with prejudicial out-of-court statements, citing an interview Trump gave to Fox News, a tweet by DOJ Public Affairs Deputy Director Chad Gilmarin, comments by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and others. The judge in that case then warned the government that “multiple employees at the Department of Justice may have violated Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and this Court’s order of April 25, 2025,” and that “future violations may result in sanctions, which could include personal financial penalties, contempt of court findings, or relief specific to the prosecution of this matter.”

Likewise, judges in cases like the administration’s attempt to remove Venezuelan detainees to El Salvador or Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation have cited extrajudicial statements in rulings against the government. Former FBI director James Comey’s lawyers have already signalled they will move to dismiss the charges against him for vindictive and selective prosecution. And attorneys for New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) will presumably do the same, pointing to Trump’s demands via social media for her prosecution and the bizarrely menacing photos posted by Ed Martin, head of the DOJ’s weaponization task force.

All of these extrajudicial statements by DOJ lawyers could be used to challenge the government’s presumption of regularity. If they can set aside the presumption — that government officials have properly discharged their official duties and acted with legitimate, non-pretextual reasons — it could allow defendants to question the DOJ’s very basis for bringing litigation against them.

Normally, it’s nigh-on-impossible to rebut the presumption of regularity, but presenting direct evidence that the government has launched some enforcement action out of animus or vindictiveness is one conclusive way of doing it. Federal judges across the nation have done so more and more as they contend with the breathtaking contempt the administration has demonstrated for them and the rule of law.

Consider, for example, the DOJ’s lawsuits against eight states for refusing to turn over their voter registration rolls. The DOJ argues its requesting that information to ensure that the states are complying with federal election laws like the National Voter Registration Act. But if one of the states, like California, can set aside presumption of regularity — perhaps by noting the animus Dhillon has publicly expressed toward Governor Gavin Newsom — it could allow for discovery of the administration’s deliberations to bring a case, which might reveal embarrassing or exculpatory details.

Dhillon follows and signal boosts a host of right-wing influencers and election-deniers, including Mehek Cooke, Catturd, and Jack Posobiec. A Slate investigation recently revealed that Posobiec had apparently voted in Pennsylvania despite living in Maryland — a case of alleged voter fraud that the federal government would be expected to prosecute, as it has done a few times already this year. Moreover, deciding to not prosecute this case — in conjunction with Dhillon and Trump speaking so highly Posobiec, who was invited to the White House recently — could be used as evidence of selective prosecution in other voter fraud cases.

Bad lawyering

Democracy Docket shared a few of Dhillon’s social media posts and interviews with ethics experts, who suggested she was running afoul of the rules of professional responsibility that governs the conduct of all lawyers.

“I would say she is acting contrary to Rule 3.6 (prohibiting lawyers from making public statements that have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding); 3.8 (the civil rights division prosecutes some criminal cases), and 8.4 (conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” Abbe Smith, a Georgetown Law professor, wrote in an email.

“If Dhillon’s statements are demonstrably false and she knows the statements are false, she may also be violating Rule 4.1(a) of the ABA Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits a lawyer from ‘knowingly’ making ‘a false statement of material fact or law to a third person,’” added Stephen Marcus, a legal malpractice attorney.

Dhillon has also re-tweeted nakedly partisan posts @AAGDhillon account, in apparent violation of the Hatch Act, like this one urging voters to “keep Virginia Red!”

As we have seen elsewhere in the Trump administration, Dhillon’s bombastic statements out of court serve the purpose of reassuring the MAGA faithful that this DOJ still believes in the “Big Lie.” Demanding voter registration data from states won’t ultimately lead to the uncovering of some vast, consequential voting fraud conspiracy. If these cases are successful in court — a big if, some observers believe — the subsequent scrubbing of voter rolls might keep some eligible voters from casting ballots. But this suppression is ancillary to the primary goal of causing a scene.

After years of baseless claims about voting fraud, they are now trying to gin up some evidence after the fact, to offer confirmation for the true believers and their faith in the Big Lie.

Dhillon’s posting might first prove problematic for the DOJ in Portland. Before joining the DOJ, Dhillon represented right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo in a lawsuit against the city, as she noted in a recent interview discussing the anti-ICE protests in Portland — an apparent conflict of interest.

“Why does it seem like the Portland Police are actually working for Antifa as opposed to the people of Portland?” Dhillon said on Newsmax, discussing the ongoing investigation into the department.

Dhillon has also retweeted accounts calling the Portland police department “corrupt,” and accusing it of protecting “antifa for years.”

When news first broke of her investigation into the city, Dhillon returned to her catchphrase: “Portland: it’s FO time. Buckle up.”

But if a federal judge takes issue with all her trolling here, it’ll be Dhillon who’ll FO, not Portland.

Portside