Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,
Internal emails from the Biden-era Department of Justice (DOJ) show that senior officials objected to then-Attorney General Merrick Garland’s plan to use the FBI to investigate parents opposed to school policies.
Critics at the time said the policy change, which was contained in a memo signed by Garland, was calculated to intimidate parents protesting policies such as mask mandates and curriculum. Many of those who protested the memo were themselves heavily criticized by memo supporters.
The DOJ’s internal communications suggest that top officials in the DOJ opposed the policy days before it was publicly unveiled.
A DOJ source who did not wish to be identified confirmed to The Epoch Times late on June 10 that the emails, posted on X by independent journalist Lara Logan, were authentic.
The controversy itself goes back almost five years. Garland released a memo on Oct. 4, 2021, that called for federal law enforcement to deal with harassment and threats of violence allegedly made against school board members, teachers, and school employees.
“Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation’s core values,” he said at the time.
“The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate,” he wrote in the memo.
In an email thread dated two days before that, senior DOJ officials discussed the upcoming shift in enforcement focus.
Minutes after Associate Deputy Attorney General Kevin Chambers advised his colleagues of the policy change, they began to push back.
Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Nicholas McQuaid wrote, “I strongly object to adding school official threats to the USAO meetings,” referring to meetings of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, a subagency of the DOJ that represents the federal government in court.
“They are not equivalent and treating them as such will damage our election threats work without actually having any real benefit in my view.”
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kevin Driscoll wrote:
“I don’t think it’s possible to state how strongly I object to this.
“It will completely and totally nuke our election threats efforts, and will damage the reputation of the Public Integrity Section into the bargain.
“It’s like [they’re] affirmatively trying to make this thing not work and look political. If they do this, they might as well rename the damn thing the Anti-MAGA Task Force.”
Corey Amundson, head of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, replied:
“Exactly! Stupid, stupid, stupid.”
Driscoll answered, writing, “We will not do this. There is no conceivable connection to [Public Integrity Section] (indeed, I’m not seeing a federal interest of any kind). And if they’re going to make the AG’s memo to the field about this and election threats, I’m going to strongly recommend that they not send it.”
Amundson replied, saying, “Agreed. Also, makes no sense to have DOJ/FBI suddenly become the threats police. No limiting principle at all.”
Months after the memo was released, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, led by Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, asked detailed questions concerning federal targeting of parents who voice their opinions at local school board meetings.
The 11 Republican lawmakers on the committee told then-Secretary of Education Michael Cardona in a Jan. 18, 2022, letter: “We recently learned that you may have requested that the National School Boards Association (NSBA) send to President [Joe] Biden its September 29, 2021, letter, which compared concerned parents speaking out at local school boards to domestic terrorists.
“That letter was the proximate cause of Attorney General Garland issuing a memorandum on October 4, 2021, directing the FBI and the various U.S. Attorneys to focus on harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence directed at school officials.
“That action by Attorney General Garland has created a dramatic chilling effect on parents throughout the country and is an inappropriate deployment of federal law enforcement.”