Advertisement
Politico

‘Is she even allowed to be doing this?’: Inside a federal judge’s side gig running a PR firm

Daniel Barnes and Jacob Wendler
11 min read
Add Yahoo on Google
‘Is she even allowed to be doing this?’: Inside a federal judge’s side gig running a PR firm
‘Is she even allowed to be doing this?’: Inside a federal judge’s side gig running a PR firm

A Trump-appointed federal appeals judge spent months running a Washington public affairs firm after being appointed to the bench last year, an arrangement that contributed to an exodus among the firm's staff and clients and only ended when the firm went out of business at the end of June.

Jennifer Mascott, a former conservative law professor who sits on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, was deeply involved in daily operations at the firm, Adfero, for at least six months after she was confirmed as a judge in October 2025, according to 14 former employees and clients granted anonymity to discuss internal details of the firm's final months.

Nine of the former employees said Mascott, who inherited her ownership stake in the firm from her late husband in 2023, worked at least once a week out of Adfero's office in Washington and oversaw the firm's staffing, business development efforts and client relations in between her full-time judicial duties in Wilmington and Philadelphia.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The firm was historically a nonpartisan business that did public relations and marketing work for companies and trade associations such as PhRMA and the National Retail Federation. In the final months of the business, Mascott brought on consultants with strong MAGA credentials, according to eight of the former employees and clients. Her leadership of the firm involved operational and strategic decisions: She required her signoff on marketing materials and suggested staff pitch the firm's services to health insurers after the loss of crucial clients like PhRMA.

The details of Mascott's involvement with the firm, which have not been previously reported, come amid a yearslong push by members of Congress and others in the legal community for stricter ethical requirements for judges. While judges are barred from engaging in business activities that could call their impartiality into question, they may maintain ownership of family businesses as long as they are not using the prestige of their judgeship to further the business or taking significant time away from their judicial duties.

Mascott said she adhered to legal and ethical requirements and ensured she was fully transparent with relevant authorities during her stewardship of Adfero. But her former employees and some of the firm's clients said the arrangement made them uncomfortable. And ultimately, the resulting loss of staff and clients led to the demise of the company after two decades in operation.

Mascott said she ran the firm as managing trustee, as requested by her late husband Jeff Mascott. Adfero was a third act for Jeff Mascott, who got his start working in House Republican offices and co-founded a constituent relationship management platform that was later acquired by FiscalNote. He founded Adfero 20 years ago and served as its CEO until a pancreatic cancer diagnosis in late 2022; he passed away in 2023.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Jennifer Mascott first took an active role in the management of Adfero at the beginning of 2025, when the second Trump administration began, according to seven former employees.

"Consistent with those fiduciary and legal and ethical duties, I endeavored to keep the company going while that was viable and also routinely consulted with long-time firm HR lawyers and other advisors and legal and ethical experts about how to comply with all requirements and how to evaluate whether the company should be wound down, sold, or otherwise entrusted to other firm leadership," she said in a statement to POLITICO.

Judicial ethics experts said Mascott's operation of the firm falls in a gray area, given its nature as a family business. The U.S. court system's code of conduct for judges generally allows continued participation in "a closely held family business," but warns such participation "may be prohibited if it takes too much time or involves misuse of judicial prestige or if the business is likely to come before the court on which the judge serves."

"If she is logging time there and it has the potential to interfere with her judicial duties, that is a no-go," said Charles Geyh, a law professor at the Indiana University Mauer School of Law who studies judicial ethics.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The nature of Adfero's work — the firm's website boasts examples of its marketing campaigns designed to "influence elected officials" — makes Mascott's situation unique, said retired federal judge Nancy Gertner, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who has called for Supreme Court justices to adopt the same code of ethics that binds lower court judges like Mascott.

"It's not like she's making widgets," she said. "A company that she controls is sending out a message that she could never send out directly."

Mascott told staffers who questioned the arrangement that her management posed no problem as long as she recused herself from matters involving the firm, its clients or potential clients, according to three of the former employees. The explanation did little to assuage their concerns.

"On one hand, maybe the owner of the company should be involved, but on the other hand she's a judge," said one former employee. "People asked me 'Is this legal?' I don't know. 'Is this ethical?' Certainly not."

Advertisement
Advertisement

One former client pointed to Mascott's unusual arrangement as one reason they sought services elsewhere.

"She came in and was running the organization while being a federal judge, and it got very weird," said the former client. "All of a sudden, staff started leaving, and we saw that as an inflection point that it was time to move on."

Mascott had been a well-known figure in Washington's conservative legal circles long before Trump nominated her to the appeals court. A former clerk for then-D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Mascott later worked in the Justice Department during Trump's first term and the White House counsel's office during his second. Since her confirmation, she's heard appeals spanning immigration, criminal law, civil rights, employment and commercial disputes alongside Trump ally Emil Bove on the 3rd Circuit — all while attempting to keep Adfero afloat.

Throughout her vetting and confirmation process, she remained active on social media and made public appearances, including one with Thomas — unusual practices for judicial nominees, who typically refrain from public statements while they are being evaluated by the Senate. Delaware Democratic Sens. Lisa Blunt Rochester and Chris Coons panned her lack of relevant experience when Trump tapped her for the Delaware-based seat.

Advertisement
Advertisement

"She has never been a judge of any kind, yet she is nominated to one of the highest judicial posts in the country," Rochester and Coons said of Mascott in a July 2025 statement. "As far as we know, her relationship to Delaware is confined to a vacation beach house she sometimes visits in our state."

Mascott defended her legal experience during her September 2025 confirmation hearing, noting that she had filed dozens of appellate briefs around the country, including in the 3rd Circuit, and pledged to base her chambers in Wilmington, if confirmed.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) introduced Mascott at her confirmation hearing where he praised her legal scholarship, calling her "the perfect candidate for federal judge." Mascott — a member of the Federalist Society since 2006 — has testified against legislation to strengthen ethics guardrails for Supreme Court justices and publicly defended the court's rulings on presidential immunity and abortion.

Mascott disclosed her ownership of Adfero during the confirmation process, writing in documents submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that her "late husband's estate contains a public affairs firm" and pledging to recuse herself from any matter involving Adfero or its clients.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Although employees felt sympathy for the widow of their beloved former boss, they swiftly began to chafe at Mascott's leadership.

"It was never fully addressed out in the open, but people definitely brought it up in their one-on-ones with their managers," said a second former employee. "There were whispers of, 'Is she even allowed to be doing this?'"

In February 2025, an Adfero account executive published an op-ed in PR Week on the importance of diversity, equity and inclusion in public relations. Adfero promoted the op-ed on its social media accounts until Mascott had the posts removed, according to four former employees. Mascott sent the staffer flowers congratulating her on the op-ed, but afterwards started requiring her approval on the firm's marketing materials.

After she was confirmed as a judge, one of Mascott's first actions at Adfero was removing Darren Scher, who led the firm immediately after Jeff Mascott's death, and Lauren Tyler, the firm's chief of staff. "That was a very shocking thing," said the first former employee regarding the October 2025 announcement during a staff meeting. "I didn't think it was real at first."

Advertisement
Advertisement

Eight former employees described Scher and Tyler's abrupt departure as a turning point for the firm, with several saying resignations began to pile up in the ensuing months. Scher and Tyler did not respond to requests for comment.

The shift within the firm was a stark contrast for its longtime employees. Under the late Jeff Mascott, the firm had racked up accolades that still appear on Adfero's website: a "Top Place to Work in PR" mention by PR Week and finalist for "Boutique PR Firm of the Year." Jeff Mascott was also included in PR Week's "40 Under 40" list in 2008.

"Toward the beginning of spring, I just remember coming back from weekends and finding stacks of goodbye cards from coworkers that had already left — and these are people I'd work with on Friday," said a third former staffer. "Departures just became really frequent and happened really quietly and quickly."

Remaining staff at the firm were stretched thin as departures picked up. In January, Adfero's CEO Steve Lombardo submitted his resignation, less than a year after joining the firm. He declined to comment.

Advertisement
Advertisement

"At one point, about a year ago, we were getting one resignation a month," said the second former employee. "But then it quickly turned into one person a week, around January, and then it quickly turned into one person a day."

Clients began taking note. One by one, several high-profile clients who had been with the firm for years jumped ship. The loss of one of those clients, PhRMA, hurt particularly hard.

The pharmaceutical industry trade group told Adfero in January this year that it would not renew its seven-figure contract with the firm, six former employees said. But Jennifer Mascott was undeterred, according to four of the former employees, describing the loss of the anchor client as an opportunity to pursue new business among health insurers, whose policy goals are generally opposed to the pharmaceutical industry lobby. PhRMA declined to comment.

Two former clients told POLITICO they decided to end their work with Adfero because nearly their entire account teams had left the firm. On multiple occasions, firm clients saw their entire account teams resign but were not told until the last minute due to a directive from Mascott that firm departures not be announced until just before a staffer's final day, four former employees and one client said.

Advertisement
Advertisement

As staff left, Mascott brought on consultants with deep ties to the GOP to help fill the gaps: Luke Ball — a former Trump campaign operative and frequent guest on Fox News who worked for then-Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) — and Ben Stout, a former deputy chief of staff for Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.). At least two clients declined to renew their contracts with Adfero in part because they felt Mascott was taking the firm in a more partisan direction, according to two former clients.

"We've always been bipartisan or nonpartisan, and that was sincerely very, very true," said the second former employee. "And then there was a shift with the consultants that she hired. The politics-leaning was just very blatant, and that was a departure from what people were used to."

Ball declined to comment, and Stout did not respond to a request for comment.

By April, the firm was down to a skeleton crew and its list of clients had shrunk to the low single digits, according to two of the former employees. Adfero shut its doors on June 30. The company's remaining assets will be donated to the memorial fund set up to honor Jeff Mascott after his death, Jennifer Mascott said in a LinkedIn post last month.

"I feel confident speaking on behalf of my former coworkers on this: We all loved working there when it was in its prime," a fourth former employee said. "It was just tough to see it all play out the way it ended up playing out."

Up next
Reuters

At Trump's DOJ, watchdogs gutted as misconduct complaints soar

By Andrew Goudsward and Brad Heath
7 min read
Add Yahoo on Google
Signage is seen at the headquarters of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C., U.S.
FILE PHOTO: Signage is seen at the headquarters of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 10, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/ File Photo

By Andrew Goudsward and Brad Heath

WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - In one courtroom after another, federal judges have accused U.S. President Donald Trump's Justice Department of an extraordinary spate of misconduct, including making false statements, failing to comply with court orders and improperly using the legal system to harass political opponents.

Such rebukes might be expected to trigger a flurry of activity within the department's two internal watchdogs tasked with policing the government's most powerful law-enforcement agency.

Advertisement
Advertisement

But shrinking staffs and fears of political retribution have largely sidelined the ‌offices, limiting new investigations into the administration, according to Reuters interviews with four former DOJ staffers and a review of department employment and investigations data.

Nearly half the workforce at the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has left during Trump's second term, while about 17% have departed ‌the Office of Inspector General, government records show. Many retired or took buyouts the administration offered to shrink the federal workforce, according to the records and three people familiar with the departures.

The number of new OPR investigations has declined to a 20-year low even as misconduct complaints soar, the review found. The government watchdogs are "afraid of doing any watching," said one former DOJ official ​who left last year.

Details of the watchdogs' diminished staffing and declining investigations have not previously been reported.

Advertisement
Advertisement

OPR investigates misconduct by department lawyers while the inspector general probes waste, fraud, abuse and other wrongdoing departmentwide. OPR does not disclose who it investigates and the inspector general conducts much of its work in secret. But the four former DOJ employees said the staff departures and the slower pace of investigations make clear that they are not adequately addressing the surge of allegations facing the department.

Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels said OPR "remains committed to ensuring accountability for all DOJ attorneys" and rigorously investigates misconduct allegations. John Lavinsky, a spokesperson for the DOJ Inspector General, said the office is committed to independent oversight and does not "avoid investigations or reviews that are difficult or controversial."

DOJ officials have broadly disputed judges' findings of misconduct and have accused courts of being politically hostile to Trump.

DEFANGED ETHICS WATCHDOG

Advertisement
Advertisement

Department policy requires attorneys to report any judicial finding or substantial allegation of misconduct to the OPR. Its ‌investigations, if sustained by DOJ leadership, can lead to attorneys being fired or referred to state disciplinary ⁠authorities for review of their law licenses.

Since Trump returned to office, the Office of Professional Responsibility has shrunk from 29 employees to 16, according to Justice Department data Reuters obtained through a public-records request. The administration also fired OPR's director, Jeffrey Ragsdale, and has yet to name a replacement.

Such office turmoil "sends a message to the workforce that ethics is not important or that ethics is subordinate to the wills or interests of the political administration," said Benjamin Grimes, a former Justice ⁠Department ethics official who now lectures at Columbia Law School.

During the 2025 fiscal year, which ended in September, OPR opened seven new investigations, the lowest in two decades, even as the office received 1,666 complaints, the highest in any year since 2005, according to a Reuters review of annual reports. The office has not disclosed its more recent work this fiscal year.

Advertisement
Advertisement

By comparison, the office opened an average of more than 18 investigations annually during the past decade, including Trump's first term.

This week, federal prosecutors revealed they reported to OPR a federal judge's findings of grand jury misconduct in a now-dismissed case against six Chicago-area immigration activists. It was not immediately clear if OPR opened an investigation.

OPR ​typically ​investigates only a small fraction of the complaints it receives, finding most lack evidence or fall outside its remit.

One of OPR's highest-profile probes examined Jack Smith, who led DOJ ​prosecutions into Trump's handling of classified documents and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. The probe examined Republican lawmakers' ‌claims that Smith's team tried to harm Trump's chances in the 2024 election and sought to improperly coerce cooperation from a Trump aide.

Advertisement
Advertisement

By last spring, OPR investigators had interviewed Smith, which has not been previously reported, and expected to complete the investigation by last summer, according to two people familiar with the matter. But a year later, the probe has yet to conclude. One of the people told Reuters that political appointees asked for it to be suspended.

The department has since launched a separate criminal investigation into Smith, who denies any wrongdoing.

A department spokesperson declined to answer questions about the probe. A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment.

STAFF EXODUS AT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE

Advertisement
Advertisement

The inspector general's office lost 99 employees since the end of President Joe Biden's administration, reducing staffing to 477 people, according to Office of Personnel Management records.

Historically, the office has investigated politically sensitive matters including the FBI's handling of its investigation into contacts between Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.

The office routinely informs Congress about major investigations. During Trump's current term, however, it has publicly disclosed only one politically sensitive inquiry – an audit of the DOJ's release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. The department faces bipartisan criticism alleging it botched the congressionally mandated release of files, heavily ‌redacting records of public interest while failing to redact information exposing some victims' identities.

In another case, according to letters reviewed by Reuters, the inspector general's office referred a DOJ ​whistleblower alleging wrongdoing by senior Trump officials to OPR, saying that office was better positioned to investigate. Reuters could not establish whether OPR has pursued the matter.

Advertisement
Advertisement

One former official who ​left the Inspector General's office late last year said it had started to avoid investigating "the high-profile stuff."

COURT REBUKES

The declining power of the DOJ watchdogs ​comes as judges increasingly call out the government's lawyers for alleged misconduct. A federal judge last year found what he called a disturbing pattern of Justice Department errors in the first of two prosecutions of James Comey, the former FBI director ‌and Trump foe, including improper evidence handling and fundamental misstatements of the law to a grand jury. The case ​was later dismissed on other grounds.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams accused ​senior officials including acting Attorney General Todd Blanche of failing to properly defend the government in Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and instead reaching what she described as a collusive settlement granting Trump and his family businesses sweeping tax immunity.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blanche this week formally rescinded a separate portion of the agreement setting aside $1.8 billion to compensate Trump allies the president claims suffered government mistreatment. Republican opposition to the "anti-weaponization fund" had stalled Blanche's bid to become attorney general.

Federal prosecutors said the findings in the Comey case were based on misinterpretations by the judge. Blanche ​has disputed what he called insinuations in Williams' order and Trump's personal lawyers have appealed it.

The Trump administration has ‌also moved to make it harder for outside authorities to scrutinize the actions of DOJ attorneys, suing to block one ethics case against a former official and seeking new authority to restrict investigations by state agencies that regulate lawyers.

Justice Department officials have accused state-level ​investigations of being politically motivated and aimed at intimidating lawyers carrying out Trump's agenda.

Advertisement
Advertisement

"We see all these opinions where judges are critical of the government lawyers, and then we're not seeing anything coming out of OPR," said Bruce Green, a legal ethics expert ​and law professor at Fordham University. "So how can you trust them?"

(Reporting by Andrew Goudsward and Brad Heath in Washington; editing by Michael Learmonth and Richard Valdmanis)

Up next
The Daily Beast

Opinion: Judge Jeanine Just Found Out What Happens When Truth Meets Trump

Michael Ian Black
4 min read
Add Yahoo on Google
Donald Trump, Jeanine Pirro, Reflecting pool
Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty/Reuters

The closest I've ever come to being a lawyer was playing the bowling alley manager for a bowling-alley-owning lawyer on the TV show Ed, so I may not be fully qualified to discuss the imbroglio now surrounding actual United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro.

Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro speaks during a press conference at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia on July 02, 2026, in Washington, DC. / Anna Moneymaker / Anna Moneymaker, Getty Images
Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro speaks during a press conference at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia on July 02, 2026, in Washington, DC. / Anna Moneymaker / Anna Moneymaker, Getty Images

But here we are anyway. You probably already know that Pirro's vandalism case against Olympic canoeist David Hearn has dissolved as surely as the paint coating the bottom of the Capitol's Reflecting Pool. Pirro petitioned the court to drop Hearn's case, having apparently been assured the issue was the sh-tty renovation job, prompting a furious response from her boss, who is continuing to insist that vandals—probably ANTIFA or, possibly, members of the Sharks from West Side Story—were responsible for the pool's bungled rehab job.

"She choked," Trump stated in the Oval Office Monday, when asked about Pirro.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Later, while boarding Air Force One (the old one), he was asked if Pirro's job is safe. "I haven't made a determination," he said.

He also encouraged people to look at a Department of Interior videotape provided to Fox News host (and former Pirro colleague) Jesse Watters which purports to show these terrible, terrible vandals bullying the Reflecting Pool and then stealing its lunch money.

I watched the videotape. What it actually shows is two people sticking their hands in the water for a few seconds in broad daylight, in public view. They do not appear to have any cutting implements in their hands, nor do they dip deep enough or remain inside long enough to do anything destructive. (Insert "that's what she said" joke here.)

Like so much with Trump, the "evidence" shows the exact opposite of what he claims.

Advertisement
Advertisement

So what's going on? How is it that Pirro found herself called to the Oval Office carpet getting chewed out by the man she's spent the last decade nut-glazing? It basically boils down to the former prosecutor breaking Patrick Murray's observation about attorneys: "A lawyer will do anything to win a case; sometimes he will even tell the truth."

(Yes, it's nice–albeit surprising–to discover that after years pickling in the brine of Fox News, some semblance of Pirro's conscience remains intact.)

President Donald Trump, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth look on as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro speaks during a press conference in the Press Briefing Room at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 11, 2025. / Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Jeanine Pirro has been a staunch supporter of Donald Trump for a number of years. / Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Pirro's mistake was telling the truth. And the truth, as reported by the New York Times, is that Trump's Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, crafted a (false?) narrative to fit Trump's theory of the case. "Schlepping a white box containing evidence plus a black box with documents on wheels" into the White House, Pirro told the president that Burgum had "promoted a self-serving cover story to conceal his own missteps."

To quote the greatest legal mind of the 19th century, Clarence Darrow: "duh."

Advertisement
Advertisement

But Trump wasn't having it. The two sparred for over an hour before Pirro departed, her job hanging by a thread.

For his part, Burgum continued to insist that the Reflecting Pool is Ground Zero for a Marxist plot, possibly instigated by the state of Minnesota in concert with transgender Chinese Communists and Rosie O'Donnell, to make the President of the United States look like a dummy.

The plot appears to be working.

Meanwhile, this is the most exciting moment in American Olympic canoeing history since Nevin Harrison eked out a spring victory against Canadian Laurence Vincent Lapointe in the inaugural women's canoe 200m final. I bet we all remember where we were when that happened!

Advertisement
Advertisement

Jokes aside, this whole stupid saga reveals, again, the profound and disturbing truth that Trump does not live in reality. What we think of as his multitudinous lies may, in fact, be something far stranger: they may be true to him.

He may actually believe he won the 2020 election. He may actually believe that asylum seekers come from mental asylums. He may actually believe that windmills cause cancer. In other words, he may actually be clinically insane.

But this is what happens when a malignant narcissist is challenged. He would rather blow up an Olympian's life – Hearn was facing 10 years in prison if convicted - than admit an error.

Jeanine Pirro speaks alongside U.S. President Donald Trump during her swearing-in ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House on May 28, 2025, in Washington, DC. / Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Jeanine Pirro speaks alongside U.S. President Donald Trump during her swearing-in ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House on May 28, 2025, in Washington, DC. / Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Surely Pirro knew all this. She's watched Trump for years. Yet she still walked into the Oval Office believing evidence might succeed where loyalty had failed. That's a remarkable misreading of a man whose defining characteristic is that facts never outrank fealty. Trump has never been interested in any truth that doesn't earn him a commission.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Will Pirro still have her job when this column publishes? Hard to say. Perhaps he'll bump Pirro to a new role, the way he shuffled Kristi Noem from heading up the Department of Homeland Security to shuffling papers at the newly-invented and wholly-fake "Shield of the Americas." Perhaps "Judge Box of Wine" can become the new leader of ICE—well, if she can beat out Laura Loomer. It makes a certain kind of sense considering how a single cube of ice can transform simple rosé into delicious frosé. Yum yum yum.

Up next
Talking Points Memo

Trump Administration Has Repeatedly Confessed in Court to Withholding Money From Blue States

Emine Yücel and Josh Kovensky
9 min read
Add Yahoo on Google
  • The Trump administration admitted in court that it cancelled grants worth hundreds of millions of dollars largely because the money was slated to be sent to states that did not support the president in the last election.

Late last year, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials agreed to make a surprisingly damaging but until-recently little-noticed admission in court: the Trump administration had cancelled several grants worth at least hundreds of millions of dollars largely because the money was slated to be sent to states that did not support the president in the last election. 

"A primary reason" for withholding the funds in question was that "the grantee was located in a 'Blue State,'" the DOJ wrote in a December 2025 court filing called a stipulation, an agreement entered into by the parties involved in a lawsuit agreeing to certain facts. 

A review by TPM identified multiple other instances of the administration making the same concession in court. One, from July, was recently covered by the New York Times; TPM found other examples of the same concession, documenting that the administration's lawyers have been open for several months now about having withheld money in part or entirely to punish the president's perceived political enemies.

Advertisement
Advertisement

"This is unprecedented to admit, but I also think it's unprecedented to do," David Super, law professor at the Georgetown University Law School, told TPM. 

Yet in admitting that the reason for the grant terminations was at least partly to do with the states' perceived partisan bent, attorneys for the Trump administration avoided having to hand over records or sit for depositions that might have revealed something even worse, experts said. 

"What the administration is admitting to have done in court is so blatantly illegal and derelict that it has to at least make you wonder what kind of communication passed between the White House and the department, or within the department, that could have led to it," Devin O'Connor, a senior fellow at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' federal fiscal policy team, told TPM.

It's a winding story that illustrates the often haphazard nature of Trump II-era retribution under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought. OMB cancelled the grants during the October government shutdown, trying to strongarm Democrats into caving by revoking millions of dollars for clean energy and other awards in their states. The whole case is a reminder of how directly the White House controls granular questions around grant-making, and how pettily it can wield that newfound power. 

Advertisement
Advertisement

In this case, it's backfired in court. DOJ attorneys were left scrambling to cover up for a decision that came after Vought bragged on X that the administration was "cancelling" "Green New Scam" funding from 16 states, which he listed. They were 16 of the 19 states that voted for Kamala Harris during the 2024 election and that typically elect Democratic candidates statewide. Grantees in at least some of the same states Vought threatened suddenly lost funding administered as part of a Department of Energy (DOE) program to promote green energy.

By December, Trump officials were already bargaining with grantees who were suing to have their funding restored. TPM's review of court filings and interviews with lawyers involved in the cases found that the Trump administration made the damaging admission as part of an attempt to avoid responding in greater detail to requests from the grantees about how and why their awards were terminated. 

"The purpose of this stipulation is, you know, let's resolve the major factual issues so we can avoid the need for discovery and get this matter consolidated," one of the DOJ lawyers on the case said in a hearing, according to court transcripts.

On December 23, 2025, DOJ officials admitted that "Blue State" status was "a primary reason" for terminating the grants. In another stipulation in July 2026, Trump officials went further and said that the only reason it cancelled the grants was because the states were blue. 

Advertisement
Advertisement

"What seems to be really going on is that the government in these cases is absolutely terrified of discovery," one attorney familiar with the litigation told TPM.

"Discovery is burdensome for DOJ and client agencies, and this decision streamlined the litigation without prejudicing the jurisdictional and other arguments DOJ made," a DOJ official told TPM when asked about the stipulation.

The DOE did not respond to a request for comment.

An 'Unprecedented' Motive

Since taking office, the Trump administration has focused on cutting federal support to blue states. Acting on Trump's campaign trail promises of "retribution," officials have targeted an array of programs, at times intimating that an easy way out of the situation would be for states and cities to cooperate with the federal government's mass deportation campaign or other Trump administration priorities. 

"This is unprecedented to admit, but I also think it's unprecedented to do."

As of this writing, groups of plaintiffs have filed at least three separate lawsuits over the DOE's green energy cancellations, City of Saint Paul v. Wright, American Institute of Chemical Engineers v. Wright and Thakur v. Trump. The grants covered projects like electric car charging and rewiring buildings to increase energy efficiency. Of the three, the government admitted that the state's political leaning was a "primary reason" for cancelling the grants in two. In a class-action suit filed on behalf of the University of California, first reported by the New York Times, the government went a step further, admitting in July that grant cancellations were based "solely" on whether they were based in "Blue States."

Advertisement
Advertisement

What makes these cases unique is that the Trump administration conceded before a judge what its critics have alleged since January 2025: that these cuts were made for purely political reasons. It's a bare-faced admission that, at least in these cases, the administration was willing to deprive states of grants based on funds collected from the entire country out of partisan disagreement. 

That is an "unprecedented" motive for the federal government to admit to in court experts told TPM.

"There will be situations where political favoritism certainly comes in, but very much at the margins," Super, the Georgetown professor, told TPM, adding that he could recall "nothing remotely on the scale of cutting off funds to states that they dislike and then admitting to it in court documents."

'They Were Absolutely Determined to Avoid Discovery'

The first time Trump's DOE agreed to make this stipulation — in the City of Saint Paul v. Wright case — it admitted in court documents that one of its main reasons for terminating grants was based on whether the grantees were located in "Blue States."

Advertisement
Advertisement

"A primary reason for the selection of which DOE grant termination decisions were included in the October 2025 notice tranche was whether the grantee was located in a 'Blue State,'" the December 2025 court filing reads.

In that case, the plaintiffs and the government lawyers agreed to a set of stipulations instead of seeking further discovery or a trial. During the back and forth between the two sides, defense lawyers from the DOJ appeared desperate for the case to not go to discovery.

"What the administration is admitting to have done in court is so blatantly illegal and derelict that it has to at least make you wonder what kind of communication passed between the White House and the Department, or within the Department, that could have led to it."

Based on those stipulations, the judge eventually ruled in favor of the Saint Paul plaintiffs and ordered the grants in question to be restored.

In another case, American Institute of Chemical Engineers v. Wright, the plaintiffs relied on the stipulations the government already agreed to in the City of Saint Paul case. The plaintiffs and the government basically agreed to the same set of stipulations, with the DOE admitting that "a primary reason" for the cancellation of 11 grants included in this case was "was whether the grantee was located in a 'Blue State.'"

Advertisement
Advertisement

The case, similarly, did not go to discovery or a trial. The government effectively agreed to lose the case and restore the grants.

"The parties further agree that, if the Court were to apply its reasoning in Saint Paul to this case, the Court would vacate the termination notices for the eleven awards at issue in this case," a stipulated judgement reads. "Accordingly, if the Court so-orders this proposed stipulated judgment, the termination notices for the eleven awards will be vacated."

In the still-ongoing class-action lawsuit involving University of California researchers, Thakur v. Trump, the government went a step further, bolstering the language on the stipulation they have been agreeing to since late last year in favor of the plaintiff.

In a July 15 court filing federal officials admitted that the grants they terminated in October 2025 were based "solely" on whether they were based in "Blue States," adding that they simply focused on the location of the grant recipient instead of who may be ultimately benefiting from the grant.

Advertisement
Advertisement

"DOE accepts that the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state, i.e., whether the recipient's location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State," the document reads.

Lawyers familiar with the case indicated to TPM that the government seemingly agreed to strengthen the language, again, in an effort to avoid discovery, which would have likely included depositions as well as exchange of internal documents.

"In our case, we had already served extensive discovery, so DOE knew that it was not just a hypothetical that we would seek documents and seek to depose many DOE people with knowledge of what happened prior terminations," Claudia Polsky, counsel for the University of California researchers in Thakur, told TPM. "And DOE was extremely nervous and approached us about stipulations. They were absolutely determined to avoid discovery by stipulation if they could."

Polsky added that the language change on the stipulations was also in reaction to the higher burden of proof the judge on the case requested the plaintiffs meet to prove that DOE had no legitimate reason to terminate the clean energy grants.

Advertisement
Advertisement

"When we were negotiating stipulations with DOE, we needed the text to be absolutely unambiguous," Polsky told TPM. "That this was the sole reason, and we need you to affirmatively state that these grants were not wasteful, that the grantees were performing well and that there was no policy reason for these grants to be terminated."

The court filing also laid out that the DOE's "differential treatment" that resulted in the terminated grants were "not based on a rational connection between the recipient's location and/or place of performance and DOE's past or current agency priorities."

That was DOE effectively admitting they had no rational policy reason for treating blue states differently.

Up next
The Guardian

Judge signals Trump’s defamation lawsuit against Wall Street Journal may be dismissed again

Jeremy Barr in Miami
3 min read
Add Yahoo on Google
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch looks on as Donald Trump speaks to members of the media during proclamation signings and appointments inside the Oval Office at the White House on 3 February 2025.Photograph: Craig Hudson for The Washington Post via Getty Images

A federal judge in Florida seemed skeptical of arguments from Donald Trump's legal team on Wednesday over whether the court should allow a $10bn defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal to move forward.

Trump sued the Journal and the News Corp founder Rupert Murdoch over a July 2025 article about a "bawdy" letter reportedly from Trump that was included in a 2003 birthday book for disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Trump has denied authoring or signing the letter, and his attorneys have argued that the Journal published the story despite having been told it was false.

US district court judge Darrin P Gayles initially dismissed the case in April, arguing that Trump's attorneys had not sufficiently pleaded actual malice, the legal standard needed to win a defamation case, but he gave Trump an opportunity to refile the lawsuit. The president's legal team refiled the suit in May.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Representing the president, attorney Alejandro Brito, who is also handling the president's $10bn defamation lawsuit against the BBC, argued that the Journal "didn't follow journalistic standards sufficient to making the claims".

"The defendants did not and could not have [done] the investigations to make the definitive statements in this article," Brito said in a Miami courtroom on Wednesday.

Furthermore, he said that only four people could attest to the veracity of the letter: Trump, who has denied it; Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019; the bookbinder, who is also deceased; and Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who said she does not recall who participated in the birthday book project.

But the judge seemed particularly skeptical that Trump was financially harmed by the Journal's publication, saying his lawyer's claims seemed "rather conclusory".

Advertisement
Advertisement

Brito responded that Trump's team did not need to specify financial harm and had "done enough at this stage".

Lawyers representing Murdoch, the Journal and parent company News Corp argued that Trump's team had made no headway in their attempts to prove that the president was defamed by the story, headlined "Jeffrey Epstein's Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump."

"The amended complaint is no better than the original complaint," said Andrew J Levander, an attorney representing the defendants. "It is time for this baseless lawsuit to come to an end. You gave the plaintiff a roadmap to fix this case and he couldn't do it."

Lawyers for the defendants argued that Trump's legal team mischaracterized the article and that the Journal could not be expected, as a matter of journalistic prerogative, to refrain from publishing an article simply because of the president's denial.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Katherine M Bolger, an attorney representing the defendants, argued that their case was actually bolstered by the Journal's decision to include Trump's denials – and that the reporters who authored the story, Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo, were careful to tell readers "what they know and what they don't know".

"That's not actual malice – that's good journalism," Bolger said.

While Gayles did not issue a ruling from the bench, he indicated at the end of the 90-minute hearing that one would soon be coming. He also agreed to stay discovery in the case.

Levander, the attorney for the Journal, argued that given Trump's history of suing media companies, "if we get into discovery, it will be burdensome on the court and it will be burdensome on the Wall Street Journal."

Up next
CNN

Investigations into Epstein’s mysterious New Mexico ranch add pressure on the Justice Department

Kaanita Iyer, MJ Lee, CNN
6 min read
Add Yahoo on Google
A drone view shows Zorro Ranch, a property formerly owned by Jeffrey Epstein, near Stanley, New Mexico, on March 8. - Rebecca Noble/Reuters
A drone view shows Zorro Ranch, a property formerly owned by Jeffrey Epstein, near Stanley, New Mexico, on March 8. - Rebecca Noble/Reuters

Investigations into alleged crimes that took place at Jeffrey Epstein's former New Mexico ranch appear to be ramping up, adding even more pressure to the Justice Department and its acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, over how they handled matters related to the late child sex offender.

New Mexico's Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed a lawsuit Wednesday over what Torrez described as the DOJ's "hiding information about Epstein and his co-conspirators" and "stonewalling" the state's investigation. The suit came on the same day that the state's so-called "Truth Commission" – led by four members of the state's House of Representatives – released an interim report vowing to "uncover the truth so many for too long were blind to."

"New Mexico is one of few jurisdictions that still may have an opportunity to hold Epstein's associates accountable or otherwise provide some sense of justice to survivors," Torrez wrote in Wednesday's lawsuit. He added: "Federal inaction does not merely stall the investigation; it prolongs and compounds the suffering of survivors."

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Truth Commission's interim report released Wednesday said that "all records that the DOJ are withholding subject to the EFTA (Epstein Files Transparency Act) should be released."

Both Torrez's lawsuit and the commission's report add to the drumbeat of criticism over the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein case – at a moment when Blanche, the agency's point person on all things Epstein, is working to mollify senators and secure his confirmation to be President Trump's next attorney general.

Blanche's nomination passed a key hurdle Tuesday as it advanced out of a committee for a full Senate vote, but he can now only lose two GOP votes to win confirmation.

The Justice Department, in a statement to CNN, said that it is not required to share the unredacted files and that victims' privacy outweighs the request.

Advertisement
Advertisement

"New Mexico has provided no lawful basis to justify such sweeping disclosures," a Justice Department spokesperson said.

When CNN asked Torrez to respond to that statement in a press conference Wednesday, he said: "To pretend that they cannot modify a protective order or to pretend that they are suddenly concerned with survivors' rights and interests when they have failed to demonstrate that in the past – I think that that doesn't have any real credibility."

Appearing on CNN with Jake Tapper later in the day, Torrez pushed back on Blanche's comments during a July Senate confirmation hearing, in which he said, "we're continuing to work" with the New Mexico Justice Department.

"The truth is they've never cooperated with us," Torrez said.

Advertisement
Advertisement

A group of survivors applauded Torrez's efforts late Wednesday, saying in a statement:

"The DOJ's argument that it won't hand over files in order to protect survivors' identities is laughable, when the DOJ has already revealed their names and personal information. By holding onto these files, Todd Blanche's DOJ is simply continuing to protect abusers," the statement from survivors said.

Elisa Standridge, of Oklahoma City, cleanses a memorial at the entrance to Zorro Ranch, a property formerly owned by Jeffrey Epstein, on International Women's Day near Stanley, New Mexico, on March 8. - Rebecca Noble/Reuters

Elisa Standridge, of Oklahoma City, cleanses a memorial at the entrance to Zorro Ranch, a property formerly owned by Jeffrey Epstein, on International Women's Day near Stanley, New Mexico, on March 8. - Rebecca Noble/Reuters

Signs of tension between parallel probes

Updates from both the attorney general's office and the Truth Commission coming on the same day also raise questions about potential conflicts and tension between the two bodies ostensibly working toward the shared goal of investigating Epstein's Zorro Ranch. The commission's interim report says that it is "currently engaged in negotiations" with the New Mexico's DOJ about an agreement on information-sharing, and that the panel is proposing that the two entities "coordinate and collaborate when conducting interviews and depositions of victims, witnesses, and other persons."

However, the report notes: "At this time, the Commission and NMDOJ have been unable to reach an agreement."

Advertisement
Advertisement

In recent conversations with CNN, Epstein survivors have expressed confusion about the two parallel investigations and whether the two bodies are working in tandem.

Congress forced the DOJ to release millions of files related to Epstein with the passage of a bipartisan bill late last year, but the released files include heavy and, in some cases, bungled redactions – which resulted in revealing victims' information – prompting even more criticism from lawmakers and survivors. DOJ's internal watchdog is reviewing the redaction process.

Last month, in a scathing letter to Blanche, Torrez accused the DOJ of withholding access to un-redacted files and argued that the lack of cooperation is preventing the state from bringing justice to survivors.

Among the trove of files related to Epstein that the DOJ released earlier this year was an unverified allegation in a 2019 email to a local radio host that "somewhere in the hills outside the Zorro, two foreign girls were buried on orders of Jeffrey and Madam G." According to Wednesday's lawsuit, the files released by the DOJ included "over 13,000 references to Zorro Ranch and 5,000 references to New Mexico as locations where victims were trafficked, groomed, and assaulted."

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Truth Commission's interim report does not draw any conclusions or make investigative recommendations, emphasizing that the panel's work is ongoing. The bulk of the 119-page report is based on Epstein files already released by the Justice Department. The panel said it is still actively soliciting information and tips from survivors, witnesses and other members of the public, and that it may attempt to obtain sworn testimony from certain witnesses.

The report also lays out several broad areas of interest for the commission beyond Epstein's alleged abuse of girls and women at Zorro Ranch. They include "Epstein's interest in eugenics and transhumanism, as well as reports that he facilitated forced impregnation and non-consensual medical procedures," according to the report – a reminder that the Zorro Ranch has been the source of conspiracy theories and speculation.

For example, the report references an alleged tip that the FBI received in 2019 that said "two dead bodies" were buried at the ranch. "That information, through testimony of former Attorney General Hector Balderas, revealed that tip was never provided to his office at the time it was given to the FBI," the report says. "The validity of the claim is unknown, nor is its source known."

To date, the commission has issued subpoenas to 20 institutions or agencies – half of which have been in "full compliance," according to Wednesday's report, resulting in over 100,000 records.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Some Epstein survivors, including Chauntae Davies and the late Virginia Giuffre, have said the Zorro Ranch was one of the places where they were sexually assaulted. Another Epstein survivor, Rachel Benavidez, spoke at the Truth Commission's hearing on Wednesday and said Epstein victims were tired of waiting for accountability.

In February, Torrez reopened the state's criminal investigation into the property, which he said closed in 2019 at the request of federal prosecutors.

The same month, the state's legislature passed a measure to create the Truth Commission to also investigate Zorro Ranch. Since then, the commission has since held several public meetings and issued multiple subpoenas, including to several US attorneys offices, as well as the offices of Torrez and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, for information.

On Wednesday, the commission announced several additional subpoenas, including to the Ten Thousand Waves Spa in Santa Fe, which is referenced in the Epstein files.

This story has been updated.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

日本投資機構株式会社 · 先行配信で勝つための株式投資を実現銘柄情報を追いかけても結果が出ない。そんな個人投資家が見落としがちな「運用力」を助言実績とともに紹介。
Weiss Ratings Japan · この“7ドル”成長株、まだ気付かれていません!エヌビディアが認めた次の『本命成長株』|テスラを超えた技術を持つ企業が今わずか7ドル まだ表には出ていない今が、チャンス!
ライフ健康ジャーナル · 日本で話題沸騰:この新しい坐骨神経ケア機器が再び売り切れ続出なぜこれほど注目されているのかをご覧ください
BOATRACE振興会 · 女王の座を懸けた真夏の頂上決戦 8/11までPG1レディースチャンピオン開催中最新情報や注目レーサーを紹介!初心者でも100円からカンタン予想。今すぐボートレースを楽しもう。
DAZN · 「ドコモ MAX」ご契約の方へ。8/12まで。要エントリーキャンペーン実施中Jリーグ観戦チケットや全60クラブ公式ユニフォームを抽選でプレゼント!
Weiss Ratings Japan · 乗り遅れるな!自動運転の波が到来テスラを超えた技術を持つ企業が今わずか7ドル まだ表には出ていない今が、チャンス!
No evidence? No problem. Trump pushes ahead on false claims that Reflecting Pool was vandalized
Associated Press
Nippon Scope · 熊本に誕生する半導体都市とは日本人が知らないニッチトップシェア日本銘柄10選、成長しているのは大企業だけではありません。特選10社の実名を無料で公開しています。
Talkliv · Dating Online Does Not Have to Be Hard.There may be a profile on this dating website worth the time. Browse
adidas ZENBOOST トライオンイベント · 弾みと軽さ、2つの答え。アディダス新作BOOSTを履き比べる忙しい日々に追われ、運動から遠ざかっていませんか? アディダスの新しいシリーズ〈HYPERBOOST〉や、日常と運動をシームレスに繋ぐ〈HYPERBOOST EDGE〉のDNAを継承したお手頃価格のモデル〈ZENBOOST〉があれば、フィットネスマインドもまた蘇るはず。
Todd Blanche's nomination for attorney general clears critical hurdle after deal with GOP holdouts
Associated Press
NewSphere · ノーベル賞「受賞者数が多い国」トップ20 圧倒的1位の国は?
DAZN · 欧州リーグ続々開幕!DAZNなら全試合配信!この夏の熱狂をそのままに、進め、続け、世界へ!欧州サッカーの熱戦をトコトンDAZNで!
Advertisement