The Justice Department released a nearly 900-page report from its Weaponization Working Group alleging the Biden-era DOJ applied the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act unevenly — focusing enforcement on anti-abortion protesters who blocked reproductive health clinics while treating other groups differently.
Created last year to review a range of topics including Jan. 6 prosecutions and how investigations into former President Trump were handled, the Weaponization Working Group included internal DOJ records in its report. Congress passed the FACE Act in 1994 to curb threats and intimidation at reproductive health facilities; nonviolent, first-time violations are misdemeanors, while repeat offenses or incidents that cause bodily injury or death can be charged as felonies.
The report alleges that under former Attorney General Merrick Garland the department “violated the rights of Americans” by mainly applying the law to people opposed to abortion and not to those connected to anti-abortion facilities. It accuses DOJ and FBI personnel of working with pro-abortion-rights organizations to obtain real-time information about anti-abortion protests, claims prosecutors withheld evidence and struck jurors on the basis of religion, and alleges employees helped pro-abortion-rights groups obtain grant funding from the department. The report also contends Garland’s National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers was too closely aligned with groups such as Planned Parenthood and says task force lead Sanjay Patel monitored pro-life activists before charging them.
The release followed the Monday firing of four federal prosecutors who had worked on Biden-era FACE Act cases; Patel was among those confirmed dismissed. He had been on administrative leave since March while a draft of the report circulated; he declined to comment. Critics characterized the firings as political retribution against career prosecutors who pursued cases unwelcome to former President Trump or his allies.
The report asserts that prosecutors generally sought harsher penalties for anti-abortion defendants, citing an average sentence of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants versus 12.3 months for pro-choice defendants. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the department should not pursue selective prosecutions based on beliefs and pledged to restore integrity to the prosecutorial system.
Although the report documents many alleged problems, it does not present conclusions from internal misconduct probes into employees accused of weaponizing the FACE Act. It says the DOJ may refer current or former employees for criminal prosecution, bar complaints, or other appropriate actions, and that appropriate internal referrals have been made.
Stacey Young, a former Civil Rights Division attorney now leading the nonprofit Justice Connection, criticized the firings as politicizing enforcement and punishing civil servants who were enforcing a bipartisan law. The report also acknowledges the DOJ brought criminal charges against some abortion-rights activists accused of intimidating volunteers and staff at a crisis pregnancy clinic, but says those prosecutions were far fewer than those targeting anti-abortion Christians.
Many defendants convicted under the FACE Act during the Biden administration were later pardoned by President Trump. The current DOJ has dismissed several FACE Act cases and ordered a slowdown in new investigations while allowing remaining prosecutions of 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 the Weaponization Working Group’s creation; Tuesday’s report is the first public product from that review. The report also highlights the department’s attempt to use the FACE Act in new ways earlier this year when it charged journalist Don Lemon and others under a provision aimed at interfering with the exercise of religion after an anti-ICE protest inside a Minneapolis-area church. That “house-of-worship” provision had rarely been used before; past Civil Rights Division memos warned against relying on it due to constitutional concerns and jurisdictional limits. Critics say applying the provision risks misreading First Amendment protections, which constrain government interference with religion more than private actions among individuals.
The report’s publication and the preceding firings have intensified debate over whether FACE Act enforcement reflected improper political bias or legitimate law-enforcement priorities, and whether further disciplinary or criminal referrals for DOJ employees are warranted.