The Justice Department on Tuesday released a nearly 900-page report from its Weaponization Working Group alleging the Biden-era DOJ applied the FACE Act unevenly, targeting anti-abortion activists who blocked access to reproductive health clinics while treating other groups differently.
The Weaponization Working Group, created last year to review various topics including Jan. 6 prosecutions and handling of investigations into former President Trump, produced the report including internal DOJ records. Congress passed the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act in 1994 to address threats and intimidation at reproductive health clinics; nonviolent, first-time violations are misdemeanors, while repeat offenses or those causing bodily injury or death can be felonies.
The report contends the department under former Attorney General Merrick Garland “violated the rights of Americans” by applying the law mainly to people supporting abortion rights and not to those associated with anti-abortion facilities. It alleges the DOJ and FBI worked with pro-abortion-rights organizations to obtain real-time information about anti-abortion protests, that “Biden DOJ prosecutors” knowingly withheld evidence and struck jurors based on religion, and that employees helped pro-abortion-rights groups secure grant money from the department. The report also asserts Garland’s National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers was too close to groups such as Planned Parenthood and accuses task force leader Sanjay Patel of monitoring “pro-life activists for years before charging them.”
The release came after the department fired four federal prosecutors Monday who had worked on Biden-era FACE Act cases; Patel was among those confirmed fired. Patel had been placed on administrative leave in March while a draft of the report circulated internally; he declined to comment on his removal. Critics viewed the firings as political retribution against career prosecutors who pursued cases opposed by Trump or his allies.
The report says prosecutors generally sought harsher sentences for anti-abortion defendants, citing an “average sentence of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants, compared to 12.3 months for pro-choice defendants.” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement, “No Department should conduct selective prosecution based on beliefs. The weaponization that happened under the Biden Administration will not happen again, as we restore integrity to our prosecutorial system.”
While the department fired several prosecutors before the report’s release, the report does not make findings from internal misconduct investigations into employees allegedly involved in “weaponization” of the FACE Act. It states DOJ may refer current or former employees for criminal prosecution or to bar associations or judicial authorities as appropriate, and that appropriate internal referrals have been made.
Stacey Young, a former Civil Rights Division attorney who leads the nonprofit Justice Connection, criticized the firings, saying Congress passed the FACE Act with bipartisan support and that firing DOJ attorneys for enforcing the law politicizes the department and punishes civil servants for doing their jobs.
Longstanding complaints by the Trump administration, often with limited evidence, claim the Biden-era Civil Rights Division used the FACE Act to target conservative Christians opposed to abortion. The report acknowledges the DOJ also pursued criminal charges against abortion-rights activists accused of intimidating volunteers and workers at a crisis pregnancy clinic, but says such cases were minimal compared with those targeting anti-abortion Christians.
After those prosecutions, President Trump pardoned many FACE Act defendants convicted during the Biden administration. The current DOJ has dismissed several FACE Act cases and ordered a slowdown on future investigations, while allowing remaining cases involving abortion-rights activists to proceed; one Florida-based defendant received a 120-day prison term in March 2025.
On her first day as Attorney General, Pam Bondi ordered establishment of the Weaponization Working Group to review prior uses of the FACE Act. Tuesday’s report is the first public release of that group’s work product.
Separately, the DOJ has tried to apply the FACE Act in new contexts. Earlier this year it charged journalist Don Lemon and others under a provision related to interfering with the exercise of religion in connection with an anti-ICE protest inside a Minneapolis-area church. That house-of-worship provision had not been used before, and Civil Rights Division attorneys historically warned against charging it because of constitutional concerns and a lack of a jurisdictional hook. Critics say the FACE Act misstates First Amendment protections: the First Amendment guards against government interference with religion, not private individuals’ interference, which complicates charging protesters at churches. Earlier draft excerpts of the FACE Act report reviewed by media showed a 2018 Civil Rights Division memo advising against charging the house-of-worship provision; the final report released Tuesday does not appear to reference that memo.
The report’s release and the preceding firings underscore ongoing controversies over how the FACE Act has been enforced and whether decisions reflected improper political bias or legitimate law-enforcement priorities.