A group of former federal judges sharply criticized a top Justice Department official this week for characterizing the court fights playing out in President Donald Trump’s second term as a ‘war’ against so-called ‘activist judges,’ remarks they described as unnecessarily inflammatory and amounting to ‘pouring oil’ on an already fast-burning fire.

Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, spoke colorfully last week during a fireside chat hosted by the Federalist Society. Blanche used his time to excoriate federal judges for pausing or blocking some of Trump’s biggest executive orders and actions since January and to urge young lawyers and law students in the audience to fight back. 

‘It is a war,’ Blanche said, ‘and it is something we will not win unless we keep on fighting.’

The judges ‘have a robe on, but they are more political, or as political, as the most liberal governor or DA,’ Blanche added. 

His remarks prompted a rebuke from the New York State Bar Association and from the Article III Coalition, a group of 50 former federal judges appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents. 

This type of rhetoric, ‘especially when voiced by high-ranking officials — not only endangers individual judges and court staff, but also undermines the public’s trust in the judiciary as an impartial and co-equal branch of government,’ the judges said in a letter. 

In a series of interviews this week, several former judges told Fox News Digital they were shocked by Blanche’s remarks, which they described as a departure from longstanding Justice Department norms and a threat to the judiciary both as an institution and to the individual judges who serve on the bench.

One judge said Blanche’s remarks were ‘wildly different from all prior decades and under all prior administrations’ he experienced in his more than 60-year career in D.C.

‘I’ve been in Washington since 1974, continuously, and I’ve never seen anything like it,’ Paul R. Michel, the former chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, told Fox News Digital in an interview.

Michel served as a special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation, a role in which he personally interviewed former President Nixon. 

‘It’s just startling for the deputy attorney general to be functioning as a PR ‘hatchet man’ instead of a law enforcement official,’ he said of Blanche’s remarks.

Michel and others in the group of retired judges told Fox News Digital they fear the rhetoric used could further erode public trust in the judiciary, a branch that the framers designed to interpret the law impartially and to serve as a check against excesses of the other branches, regardless of politics or the administration in charge. 

They noted that while parties often disagree with a decision or a near-term temporary order or motion, both the Justice Department and the opposing parties have a readily available mechanism to seek relief via the appeals process. 

Parties looking to challenge a temporary order or other form of injunctive relief can proceed with having the district court evaluate a case on its merits, kick it to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and, in some cases, the Supreme Court, for review, Philip Pro, a former U.S. district judge in Nevada appointed by President Ronald Reagan, told Fox News Digital.

Federal judges have attempted to issue near-term or emergency orders temporarily blocking some of Trump’s top policy priorities, including on immigration enforcement, birthright citizenship and sweeping layoffs across the federal government. The administration has responded to the lower court actions by seeking emergency relief from the higher courts, via emergency stays, which Blanche also touted during his remarks last week. 

Judges are ‘totally reactive’ by design, Pro said. ‘We’re sitting in our districts. The cases are randomly assigned.’

‘There is nothing ‘rogue’ about these decisions,’ Pro added. ‘Those wheels grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly well, and that’s the way you get resolution.’

Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law who attended the fireside remarks, told Fox News Digital in an interview he is sympathetic to the concerns voiced by the judges, but he also understands the broader issue Blanche may have been trying to get at, which is the power the courts have to review the actions of the executive branch. 

This has emerged as a particular pain point not only for Trump but for his predecessors, each of whom has sought to enact some of their policy priorities via executive order in a bid to sidestep a clunky and slow-moving Congress.

Those actions are therefore more vulnerable to emergency intervention from the federal courts, Blackman said, though the degree to which judges can or should act in this space is the subject of ongoing debate.

‘I don’t see Blanche’s comments as calling for violence,’ Blackman said. ‘I think it’s more trying to say that there’s just this struggle between the executive branch and the judiciary that is not normal.’ 

Trump is far from the first president to publicly complain about ‘activist’ judges for hampering his policies. Such criticisms stretch back decades and include former presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, among others. 

Still, the judges say they are concerned by Blanche’s remarks, which are a stark departure from what they experienced in their own careers, including while serving as federal prosecutors.

‘Calling judges ‘rogue’ because they apply the law in a politically unfavorable way is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary in our constitutional structure,’ Allyson K. Duncan, a former judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, said in a statement. 

Michel, the former special prosecutor for the Watergate investigation, noted he worked for two successive deputy attorneys general in the ‘exact post Blanche now holds,’ but who gave much different marching orders.

‘Their instructions to me were, ‘Politics are outside the boundaries for Justice Department employees,’ and politics are ‘not to have any influence,” he said. ‘We were not to pay any attention to what somebody in the White House might say, or in the media or elsewhere. We were to be a ‘politics-free zone.’

‘That seemed to me to be entirely appropriate,’ Michel said. ‘The power to investigate, the power to indict and the power to prosecute and convict are awesome, awesome powers,’ he added.

The group also cited concerns for their colleagues who remain on the bench at a time when public threats to judges have increased, according to data from U.S. Marshals. This includes online harassment, threats of physical violence and ‘doxxing’ judges at their home addresses by sending them unsolicited pizzas. Some deliveries have been made in the name of a judge’s son who was shot and killed in 2020 after opening the door to a disgruntled individual disguised as a delivery person.

The number of threats made against federal judges in 2025 has outpaced threats from the past 12-month period, according to the U.S. Marshals Service, prompting a push for Congress to take action. 

‘Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s remarks reflect a reality the Department of Justice confronts every day — a growing number of activist judges attempting to set national policy from the bench,’ a spokesperson for the Justice Department told Fox News Digital on Friday in response to a request for comment. 

‘The department will continue to follow the Constitution, defend its lawful authorities and push back when activist rulings threaten public safety or undermine the will of the American people.’ 

In the annals of ‘smoking gun’ documents, the recently revealed handwritten notes by James Comey rank right up there with the infamous tapes that imploded Richard Nixon’s presidency.  

Unfortunately, the ex-FBI potentate is ‘Nixonian’ in a myriad of ways — needy, narcissistic, vindictive and manipulative. They both professed honesty but treated truth with utter contempt. Nixon gave us Watergate while Comey bequeathed the Russia Hoax. Each was forced from office mired in disgrace.  

Alas, there’s one more eerie resemblance. Just as Nixon tried to sabotage his infamous Oval Office recordings, Comey’s combustible notes were consigned to an incinerator.     

Stuffed in one of five ‘burn bags’ that were secretly squirreled away in a locked high security room at the FBI, his self-incriminating scribbles were supposed to go up in smoke. For reasons unknown or undisclosed, they did not.

In one damning note, Comey confirms what some of us have known and argued all along — he knew almost at the outset of the Russia collusion narrative that it was an odious fiction conjured up by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign and personally approved by her on July 26, 2016.  

Clinton’s objective, according to Special Counsel John Durham’s 2023 report, was ‘to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services,’ thereby tipping the upcoming presidential election in her favor.  

When later questioned by Congress about his knowledge of the epic deceit, Comey claimed an acute case of amnesia. He feigned no recollection whatsoever of Clinton’s opprobrious plot to smear Trump.  

However, Comey’s missive to himself puts a conspicuous lie to that testimony. It reads, ‘HRC plan to tie Trump.’ It is not something that anyone would ever forget. 

While it is difficult to discern, the information appears attributable to ‘JB,’ which is almost certainly then-CIA Director John Brennan. This comports with Brennan’s own declassified handwritten notes that intelligence communications had uncovered Clinton’s political chicanery.

At an urgent White House meeting, Brennan had disclosed the shocking information to President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Comey. Instead of divulging the truth to the American public, they all remained mum and watched idly — perhaps happily — as the hoax gradually morphed into full-blown faux scandal that nearly toppled Trump’s presidency.    

Comey’s notes verify his awareness of the ‘Clinton Plan,’ as it was dubbed. They are written on an FBI notepad marked ‘Director’ and dated Sept. 26, 2016, which coincides in time with a meeting of high-ranking U.S. national security officials that included Brennan and James Clapper, director of National Intelligence (DNI).  

Instead of pursuing Clinton for a criminal scheme to defraud the government in a presidential election, as U.S. intelligence officials strongly recommended to the FBI in a ‘Referral Memo’ on Sept. 7, 2016, the unscrupulous Comey did just the opposite. He appropriated Clinton’s fabrication to target her opponent.  

When later questioned by Congress about his knowledge of the epic deceit, Comey claimed an acute case of amnesia. He feigned no recollection whatsoever of Clinton’s opprobrious plot to smear Trump.  

Simultaneously, Comey concealed the ‘Clinton Plan’ because it was highly exculpatory. If it became known or if Congress was informed, it would unmask Hillary’s treachery and exonerate Trump of any wrongdoing in the collusion fable. 

Comey was not about to let that happen. He had already launched without predicate his dilating investigation of Trump and was deeply invested in protecting Hillary.

You will recall that, on July 5, 2016, Comey stood before television cameras and, absent any authority, inexplicably cleared the presumptive Democratic nominee of the various crimes that she had clearly committed in her notorious email fiasco over the deliberate and reckless mishandling of classified records. But that’s not all.  

Comey also scuttled the bureau’s investigation into suspected criminal activity surrounding the Clinton Foundation and the millions of dollars funneled into it from Russian and other foreign sources. Substantial evidence developed by U.S. attorneys was thereafter buried on his orders. You can read about it in the Durham Report, pages 78-81. 

July 5 was also a pivotal day for another reason, as I explained in my 2018 book, ‘The Russia Hoax.’  

At the very moment that Comey was absolving Clinton, his FBI was furtively meeting with the author of the phony anti-Trump ‘dossier’ funded by Hillary and Democrats. Although the FBI swiftly debunked Christopher Steele’s scurrilous document, Comey was undeterred. He exploited it as a pretext in a malicious attempt to frame Trump for unidentified crimes he never committed. 

Comey’s motivation was obvious. His newly unearthed emails show that he expected Clinton would win the election. He even bragged that he would soon be working for a president-elect Clinton who would be ‘very grateful.’ His gamble fueled corrupt acts.

Comey never imagined that Trump would prevail. So, he politicized his power and weaponized the FBI to meddle in the presidential contest for the benefit of Hillary. When his illicit scheme failed and Trump was elected, Comey doubled down on the collusion hoax in an attempt to destroy Trump and drive him from office.  

This is what abuse of power looks like. Facts were invented or exaggerated. Laws were perverted and ignored. The law enforcers became the lawbreakers. They falsely accused Trump while shielding the real culprit, Clinton.  

Comey’s ‘smoking gun’ notes only came to light because he recently filed several motions to dismiss his federal indictment in Virginia for false statements and obstruction of Congress. Among other things, he ironically asserts vindictive prosecution by Trump and separately contends that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s appointment was improper. The outcome of those matters is pending.  

Prosecutors responded to the first motion by sharing a trove of documents — many of them classified — discovered in the five ‘burn bags.’  

They were destined for a smoky grave just days before Trump assumed office again on Jan. 20, 2025, in what can only be described as a brazen attempt to obstruct justice and commit the crime of willful destruction of documents under 18 U.S.C. 2071. Who was behind it, we don’t yet know.

Comey’s motivation was obvious. His newly unearthed emails show that he expected Clinton would win the election. 

In addition to the notes that Comey penned, other uncovered records cited in the court filing further substantiate the government’s charges that he lied to Congress when he denied authorizing anonymous leaks to the press in violation of FBI guidelines. He was covertly manipulating media reporting through a conduit.  

After one successful leak, Comey sent a message to his collaborator stating, ‘Well done my friend. Who knew this would. E [sic] so uh fun.’ (Who knew this would be so fun.) Deploying a Gmail account, he hid his intrigues under the alias ‘Reinhold Niebuhr,’ a deceased ethicist. There was nothing moral about what Comey was doing. It was sleazy.  

But that’s not all. Among the ‘burn bag’ contents were materials that reveal the appalling breadth of the lawfare campaign waged first by the Obama administration and, later, the Biden administration against Trump and many others. Some of the documents shed vital light on the January 6 breach of the Capitol, the 2020 election dispute and the FBI’s dubious raid on Mar-a-Lago.  

All of that was leveraged by Special Counsel Jack Smith to ignite the double indictments against Trump that were eventually tossed. The evidence is compelling that both prosecutions were politically motivated to stop him from retaking the White House.   

The genesis of those two cases arose from a secret FBI investigation code named ‘Arctic Frost,’ approved by Attorney General Merrick Garland and then-FBI Director Christopher Wray in April 2022. In due time, Smith surreptitiously obtained nearly 200 subpoenas to capture personal telephone communications of more than 400 Republicans. Anyone in Trump’s orbit was targeted, including eight U.S. senators and even media organizations.     

It is no accident that the stunning discovery of the ‘burn bags’ dovetails with a newly impaneled grand jury investigation in South Florida that encompasses the whole gamut of corrupt acts aimed at Trump — from the ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ debacle to the errant ‘Arctic Frost’ probe. The former evolved into the latter that led to the misbegotten Smith prosecutions. Altogether, they impacted three successive presidential elections. More than two dozen subpoenas are reportedly being issued for the grand jury to consider.   

Evidence of an expansive and ongoing conspiracy to torment Trump will likely be examined in the context of two federal anti-corruption statutes that criminalize abuses of power, 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242. These civil rights laws make it a felony to willfully deprive people of their constitutional rights under color of law or pretense of legal authority.  

Additional documents uncovered and declassified by current DNI Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe have contributed to the mounting evidence of manufactured intelligence and criminal wrongdoing that the grand jury will inevitably evaluate.

As Comey works hard to avoid the Virginia trial that he insists he wants, his nefarious machinations that instigated the long-running lawfare campaign will not escape the direct attention of the Florida grand jury. The same is true of other government actors who mangled facts and contorted the law to persecute Trump in an unbridled crusade that ran roughshod over our legal system for nearly a decade. 

During that time, the rule of law came under sustained attack by high government officials like Comey and so many others who abused their positions of power to subvert our framework of justice and undermine the democratic process.

The enemy is within. Trump was their target … and their victim. And so were the American people. They were harmed and forced to endure a divisive national trauma that should never have been. The wounds are still with us. And so, a reckoning awaits.  

Yet, just as Nixon evaded prosecution by courtesy of a pardon, will Comey somehow elude accountability? 

The FBI identified Keith Michael Lisa as the suspect wanted in connection to an attack this week on U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s office.

A reward of up to $25,000 is being offered by the FBI for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Lisa.

‘Keith Michael Lisa is wanted for allegedly entering the Peter W. Rodino Federal Building in Newark, New Jersey, on November 12, 2025, while in possession of a bat,’ according to the FBI. ‘After being denied entry, he discarded the bat and returned. Once inside the building, he proceeded to the U.S. Attorney’s Office where he damaged government property.’

‘A federal arrest warrant was issued for Lisa on November 13, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey after he was charged with Possession of a Dangerous Weapon in a Federal Facility and Depredation of Federal Property,’ the FBI added.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Thursday that an individual attempted to confront Alina Habba on Wednesday night, ‘destroyed property in her office’ and then ‘fled the scene.’

‘Thankfully, Alina is ok,’ Bondi added. ‘Any violence or threats of violence against any federal officer will not be tolerated. Period. This is unfortunately becoming a trend as radicals continue to attack law enforcement agents around the country.’

Habba said following the incident that, ‘I will not be intimidated by radical lunatics for doing my job.’

Lisa, 51, is described by authorities as being around 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighing between 200 to 230 pounds.

The FBI said Lisa has ties to New York City and Mahwah, N.J., and ‘should be considered dangerous.’

On its website, the Justice Department said that as Acting U.S. Attorney and Special Attorney to the United States Attorney General, Habba ‘is responsible for overseeing all federal criminal prosecutions and the litigation of all civil matters in New Jersey in which the federal government has an interest.’

‘Including the offices in Newark, Camden, and Trenton, Ms. Habba supervises a staff of approximately 155 federal prosecutors and approximately 130 support personnel,’ according to the Justice Department.

Fox News’ Alexis McAdams contributed to this report.

Even before the conflict over Medicaid subsidies that resulted in a month-and-a-half-long government shutdown, Democrats were already attacking Republicans over their reforms to the federal health insurance program, which has expanded over many years.

Democrats say the GOP’s cuts were put in place to give tax breaks to the wealthy, and serve to raise people’s premiums and kick them off their coverage. But Republicans, free-market health policy experts and a disability advocate argue these are ‘scare tactics’ used to deceive the public about what Republicans are really trying to do to Medicaid.

According to conservative health policy experts who spoke to Fox News Digital, Republican changes have done nothing to harm those whom Medicaid was originally intended for — people not expected to be in the labor market, such as individuals with disabilities, pregnant women, children and seniors. They argue the Medicaid reforms built into Trump’s tax cuts have actually improved the federal healthcare program for those it is supposed to be serving. 

‘The Working Families Tax Cuts increased oversight efforts as part of a larger package of Medicaid program integrity measures to more precisely serve the traditional Medicaid and the Medicaid Expansion populations,’ said Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., who serves as chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. ‘Progressive Democrats and their Congressional allies are desperate as they try to pan the Working Families Tax Cuts as devastating to the traditional Medicaid population, which is not true! The traditional Medicaid population, which includes expectant mothers, low-income seniors, children and individuals with disabilities, is not affected by our bill!’

Stricter eligibility requirements — which experts who support the GOP’s approach told Fox News would ensure Medicaid dollars go to those they were intended for — are among the Republican reforms that have drawn Democrats’ ire. Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program had more than 82 million enrollees in 2024, compared with 42.1 million in 2005.
 

Democrats are also upset with provisions that impact how states get reimbursed for certain healthcare coverage via the federal government. Republicans have argued that Democratic states, like California, have been using funding loopholes in this framework so that federal dollars can help them pay for the ballooning cost of covering health insurance for non-U.S. citizens. 

The latest fight that triggered the recent government shutdown centered on enhanced Medicaid subsidies enacted under President Joe Biden during the coronavirus pandemic, described by his administration as a way to ease healthcare costs during that economic strain. Since February, Democrats have targeted vulnerable Republicans over the issue through ad buys and messaging campaigns. One group, Protect Our Care, reportedly spent $1 million on billboards and TV ads titled ‘Hands Off Medicaid.’

However, Paragon Health Institute President Brian Blase argues these changes serve to ‘rightfully refocus’ Medicaid, not ruin it. 

‘It requires able-bodied, working-age adults to work, go to school, or volunteer to receive benefits. It cracks down on corporate-welfare schemes that direct billions of dollars to wealthy, politically connected insurers and hospitals,’ Blase said. ‘And it reduces waste, fraud, and abuse that divert resources from those that truly need it.’ 

Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said point-blank that ‘members of the traditional Medicaid population will not lose coverage due to this law,’ while slamming the ‘left-wing media’ for perpetuating attacks on Republicans.

‘Time and again, Republicans have fought for strengthening, sustaining, and securing the Medicaid program for our most vulnerable Americans — expectant mothers, children, low-income seniors, and individuals living with disabilities,’ Guthrie argued. ‘Republicans are enabling the Medicaid program to serve its intended purpose, and we will continue to fight for solutions that protect the program for generations to come.’

Dean Clancy, Senior Health Policy Fellow at Americans for Prosperity, applauded Republicans for sticking to their guns in the face of ‘Democrats’ hyperbolic claims and histrionic scare tactics aimed at blocking any change to Medicaid.’  

Another angle of attack for Democrats has been claims that the Republican reforms will negatively impact people with disabilities. The fear is that the increased eligibility requirements will be a major barrier to people with disabilities who might struggle with such tasks. They also fear the funding framework change for states could push them to reduce benefits, eligibility or limit services for this population.   

But Rachel Barkley, Director of the National Center’s Able Americans Program, which promotes free-market policy reforms for people with disabilities, said she is confident that Republicans’ reforms to Medicaid will ‘directly improve’ the lives of those living with disabilities.

Among the reforms Barkley praised were the implementation of the Helping Communities with Better Support (HCBS) Act, which she said ‘expands access to Medicaid home- and community-based services for individuals with disabilities and their caregivers,’ while simultaneously increasing transparency and accountability for those waiting for care. 

Barkley also highlighted new tax provisions ushered in by Republicans that she said will serve to promote financial security for those with disabilities. 

But importantly, Barkley added, the GOP reforms — such as new work requirements — serve to ensure that disabled people are given the priority within Medicaid that they deserve.  

Clancy, meanwhile, noted that he and the folks at Americans For Prosperity, a D.C. think-tank that promotes free-market solutions to problems, were big fans of the ‘Personal Option’ that he says Republicans’ Medicaid reforms advanced. 

Clancy has described the ‘Personal Option’ as ‘a set of sensible, principled reforms that make American health care better, more affordable, and more accessible for everyone — without a government takeover.’ He said the approach gives Medicaid enrollees more control over how their services are delivered rather than leaving those decisions to the government.