Memorial Day: 250 Years of Sacrifice
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[Header]

Memorial Day: 250 Years of Sacrifice

JUDICIAL WATCH LAWSUIT FORCES RELEASE OF BIDEN INTERVIEW AUDIO TAPES

[[link removed]]

In another Judicial Watch victory, our lawsuit forced the release of
the audio recordings of former President Joe Biden’s October 2023
interview
[[link removed]]
with Special Counsel Robert Hur in the criminal investigation into his
theft, retention, and disclosure of classified records.

You can listen here:
justice.gov/storage/Biden-interview-with-Hur-part-1-October-8th.mp3
[[link removed]]
justice.gov/storage/Biden-interview-with-Hur-part-2-October-9th.mp3
[[link removed]]

We filed the first Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
[[link removed]]
and
are the lead plaintiff asking for the Biden audio recordings
(_Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-00700)). In February 2025, a federal court ordered
[[link removed]]
the Trump
Justice Department to declare whether it intended to continue denying
our request for the audio, which led to this release.

These tapes show why the Biden gang was desperate to keep these audio
tapes secret before the election to cover up Biden’s obvious
dementia. The Trump Justice Department quite correctly ended the
unlawful cover-up of these tapes.

In June 2024, the Biden administration was forced to admit
[[link removed]]
that
the transcripts of audio recordings of Biden’s interviews with
Special Counsel Hur had been altered and are not accurate. The
transcripts were altered in a way, as the actual audios show, to
minimize evidence of Joe Biden’s cognitive failure.

In April 2025, we uncovered Justice Department records
[[link removed]]
showing
White House staffers suggesting edits to transcripts of President
Biden’s interview. The Justice Department also recently turned over
to us 49 pages
[[link removed]]
of records detailing pressure asserted by the Biden White House and
Joe Biden’s personal lawyers on Special Counsel Robert Hur regarding
the interviews. Non-disclosure agreements signed by the president’s
lawyers were also included in the records.



JUDICIAL WATCH FILES ETHICS COMPLAINT FOR ALTERCATION AT ICE FACILITY

We filed an ethics complaint
[[link removed]]
to the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Conduct
against Representatives LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), Rob Menendez (D-NJ),
and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ).

The complaint stems from misconduct
[[link removed]]
during an altercation at the Delaney Hall Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Newark, NJ, on May 9, 2025. We
are requesting that the Office of Congressional Conduct “recommend
appropriate disciplinary measures, including but not limited to
expulsion, censure, fines, and referral to law enforcement
authorities, if violations are substantiated.” (McIver has since
been brought up on federal charges
[[link removed]]
over the alleged assault.)

The conduct of McIver, Menendez, and Watson Coleman not only disrupted
a secure federal facility but also endangered law enforcement
personnel and detainees – all as part of a political stunt. The
House needs to take action to punish this dangerous misconduct.

The complaint reads as follows:

> Judicial Watch, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting
> transparency, accountability, and integrity in government, submits
> this formal ethics complaint against Representatives Rob Menendez
> (NJ-08), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), and LaMonica McIver (NJ-10)
> for their conduct during an altercation at the Delaney Hall
> Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in
> Newark, New Jersey, on May 9, 2025. Based on credible reports,
> including statements from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
> video evidence, and media accounts, we allege that the
> Representatives’ actions violated House ethics rules, federal law,
> and standards of conduct expected of Members of Congress.
>
> BACKGROUND
> On May 9, 2025, Representatives Menendez, Watson Coleman, and McIver
> arrived unannounced at the Delaney Hall ICE detention facility,
> claiming to exercise congressional oversight authority. According to
> DHS, as a bus carrying detainees entered the facility’s security
> gate, the Representatives, along with a group of protesters,
> “stormed the gate and broke into the detention facility,”
> bypassing security protocols. DHS reported that Rep. LaMonica
> McIver assaulted a federal ICE officer, with body camera footage
> allegedly showing her “barreling unprovoked through law
> enforcement near the gate.” The incident also involved the arrest
> of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for trespassing, charged after reportedly
> ignoring warnings to leave the facility’s premises.
>
> The Representatives have disputed DHS’s characterization,
> asserting they were exercising their legal right to conduct
> unannounced oversight visits under federal law and denying
> allegations of assault or improper entry. However, DHS maintains
> that the lawmakers’ actions endangered law enforcement agents and
> detainees, describing the incident as a “bizarre political
> stunt” and noting that a formal tour would have been facilitated
> had the Representatives requested one. DHS spokesperson Tricia
> McLaughlin further indicated that additional arrests of the
> Representatives remain “on the table,” citing evidence of
> assault against ICE officers.
>
> ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
> We respectfully request that the Office of Congressional Ethics
> investigate the following potential violations of House Rules, the
> Code of Official Conduct, and federal law:
>
> * Conduct Unbecoming a Member of Congress (House Rule XXIII, Clause
> 1)
> House Rule XXIII, Clause 1, states that a Member “shall behave at
> all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”
> The Representatives’ alleged actions—storming a secure federal
> facility, engaging in physical altercations with federal officers,
> and contributing to a chaotic scene that endangered law enforcement
> and detainees—appear to violate this standard. Specifically,
> DHS’s claim that Rep. McIver assaulted an ICE officer, supported
> by body camera footage, suggests conduct that undermines the dignity
> and integrity of the House. Even if the Representatives believed
> they were exercising oversight authority, their failure to
> coordinate with ICE officials and their alleged disregard for
> security protocols reflect poorly on their roles as public servants.
> * Potential Violation of Federal Law (18 U.S.C. § 111 –
> Assaulting a Federal Officer)
> DHS has accused Rep. McIver of assaulting an ICE officer, with video
> evidence purportedly showing her pushing past law enforcement
> personnel. Additionally, DHS alleges that all three Representatives
> engaged in actions that could constitute interference with federal
> operations. Such conduct may violate 18 U.S.C. § 111, which
> prohibits assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal officers in the
> performance of their duties. While the Representatives deny these
> allegations, the existence of body camera footage and DHS’s public
> statements warrant an investigation to determine whether their
> actions crossed legal boundaries.
> * Misuse of Congressional Oversight Authority
> While Members of Congress have the legal right to conduct
> unannounced oversight visits to ICE facilities, this authority does
> not grant license to disrupt operations, bypass security, or engage
> in physical confrontations. DHS reports that the Representatives
> failed to request a formal tour, which would have been accommodated,
> and instead rushed through security gates during a detainee
> transfer, creating a dangerous situation. This conduct suggests a
> possible abuse of their oversight privileges for political purposes,
> potentially violating House ethics standards that require Members to
> act in good faith and within the bounds of their authority.
> * Endangering Public Safety
> The Representatives’ actions reportedly jeopardized the safety of
> ICE agents, detainees, and protesters. DHS stated that their
> unauthorized entry “put the safety of our law enforcement agents
> and the detainees at risk.” By contributing to a chaotic scene
> involving physical confrontations, the Representatives may have
> breached their duty to uphold public safety, a core expectation of
> elected officials. This is particularly concerning given the
> presence of a bus carrying detainees, which heightened the
> sensitivity of the situation.
>
> REQUESTED ACTION
> Judicial Watch urges the Office of Congressional Ethics to conduct a
> thorough investigation into the conduct of Representatives Menendez,
> Watson Coleman, and McIver during the May 9, 2025, incident at the
> Delaney Hall ICE detention facility. We request that the Office:
>
> Review all available evidence, including DHS body camera footage,
> witness statements, and communications between the Representatives
> and ICE officials.
>
> * Issue a formal request to all involved agencies and individuals
> to preserve all relevant evidence, including surveillance video,
> body camera footage, internal communications, visitor logs, and
> official correspondence related to the incident.
> * Review all available evidence, including DHS body camera footage,
> witness statements, and communications between the Representatives
> and ICE officials.
> * Determine whether the Representatives’ actions violated House
> Rule XXIII, federal law (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 111), or other ethical
> standards.
> * Assess whether the Representatives misused their oversight
> authority for political purposes, thereby undermining public trust
> in Congress.
> * Recommend appropriate disciplinary measures, including but not
> limited to expulsion, censure, fines, and referral to law
> enforcement authorities, if violations are substantiated.
>
> CONCLUSION
> The conduct of Representatives Menendez, Watson Coleman, and McIver
> during the altercation at the Delaney Hall ICE facility raises
> serious questions about their adherence to House ethics rules,
> federal law, and the standards of conduct expected of Members of
> Congress. Their alleged actions not only disrupted a secure federal
> facility but also endangered law enforcement personnel and
> detainees, potentially for political gain. Judicial Watch
> respectfully requests that the Office of Congressional Ethics
> investigate these allegations to ensure accountability and uphold
> the integrity of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Judicial Watch is a national leader in advocating high ethical
standards in Congress.

In March 2024, we filed
[[link removed]]
a complaint
[[link removed]]
to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics calling for a full
investigation into potential ethics violations tied to Senator Sheldon
Whitehouse (D-RI) for abusing his office to benefit himself and his
wife. The complaint read in part, “The publicly available facts
suggest that Senator Whitehouse’s legislative activity, particularly
his sponsorship of environmental legislation, funding his wife’s
clients and her specific area of expertise (marine spatial planning),
creates a reasonable appearance of a conflict of interest.” In
August 2019, we filed
[[link removed]]
a complaint
[[link removed]]
to the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of the Rhode Island
Supreme Court against Whitehouse for filing an _amicus curiae_ brief
with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of four clients while
maintaining inactive status as a lawyer. In addition, we argued:
“the brief Senator Whitehouse filed was unbecoming of the legal
profession as it is nothing more than an attack on the federal
judiciary and an open threat to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

In April 2021, we filed
[[link removed]]
a complaint
[[link removed]]
to the chairman of the House Office of Congressional Ethics against
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) for violating House ethics rules by
encouraging violence and attempting to intimidate the jury in the
trial of Derek Chauvin. The complaint argues that Rep. Maxine Waters
encouraged violence by urging protestors to “get more
confrontational” if Chauvin was found not guilty.

In September 2019, we filed
[[link removed]]
a complaint
[[link removed]]
to the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics
calling for further investigation of Rep. Ilhan Omar over allegations
that her alleged lover, Tim Mynett, received nearly $230,000 from her
campaign since July 2018. The letter supplemented our July complaint
[[link removed]]
demanding an investigation of alleged marriage, immigration, tax, and
other fraud related to the allegation that Rep. Omar had married her
brother.

In March 2019, we filed
[[link removed]]
a complaint
[[link removed]]
to the Office of Congressional Ethics about Rep. Adam Schiff’s
(D-CA) controversial communications and contacts with two
congressional witnesses: Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS and Michael
Cohen, President Trump’s former personal lawyer. The complaint asked
that Schiff, who was chairman of the House Intelligence Community, be
investigated in connection with revelations that he met with Simpson
in Aspen, CO, in July 2018 and that he and his staff coordinated with
Cohen on his testimony to congressional committees. Cohen’s
testimony was alleged to be false in several important respects. We
also filed an ethics complaint
[[link removed]]
in April 2018 against Schiff and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) for
improperly confirming classified information in violation of House
rules.

In 2011 we helped rewrite House ethics rules, working with the
then-Democratic majority to create the Office of Congressional Ethics
to try to ensure more transparency and accountability in the House
ethics process.



JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FEMA OVER NYC ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT HOUSING PAYMENTS

Taxpayer money was misused to fund hotel rooms in New York City for
illegal alien invaders. The Trump administration should make the
details of this potentially illegal misuse of government funds
transparent.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) payments to New York
City for migrant housing (_Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:25-cv-01579)).

Judicial Watch sued after the Federal Emergency Management Agency
failed to respond to its February 11, 2025, FOIA request for:

* Records of Payments and Funding Allocations:

* Documents, invoices, receipts, contracts, and financial records
reflecting FEMA payments to New York City or any associated entities
under the Shelter and Services Program (SSP) from January 1, 2023, to
present.
* Any records indicating whether these funds were used for
“hotels” or other accommodations.

* Internal Communications and Directives:

* Emails, memos, or other written communications between FEMA
officials, DHS leadership, and New York City officials regarding the
use of FEMA funds for migrant housing.
* Any internal communications discussing whether these payments
complied with federal policies and regulations.

* Policy and Procedural Guidelines:

Copies of FEMA and DHS policies governing the Shelter and Services
Program, including eligibility, approval processes, and financial
oversight mechanisms.

In February, Cameron Hamilton, acting administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, reportedly
[[link removed]]
suspended payments to New York City to house migrants and said that
staff who made them will be held accountable. Elon Musk wrote on X
[[link removed]]
that we “just
discovered that FEMA sent $59M LAST WEEK to luxury hotels in New York
City to house illegal migrants.

It was also reported
[[link removed]]
that four FEMA officials who made the payments were fired. They
include the agency’s chief financial officer, two program analysts
and a grant specialist. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem wrote
[[link removed]]
on X: “I have
clawed back the full payment that FEMA deep state activists
unilaterally gave to NYC migrant hotels.”

Earlier this year, we sued
[[link removed]]
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson for records regarding his vow to resist
the Trump administration’s mass deportation and other immigration
law enforcement activities.



TRUMP DOJ ENDS SEX CHANGE SURGERY RIGHT FOR INMATES

You won’t have to pay through your tax dollars for sex change
surgery for federal criminals anymore thanks to the Trump Department
of Justice. Our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]].

> A ludicrous Biden administration policy making costly
> treatments—including sex reassignment surgery—a protected right
> for transgender prison inmates under the Americans with Disabilities
> Act (ADA) has been reversed by the Trump administration. Under
> Biden, American taxpayers were on the hook for experimental
> gender-affirming surgery, breast augmentation, facial-feminization,
> permanent hair removal and other procedures for jailed felons who
> claim to have gender dysphoria. In fact, the federal Bureau of
> Prisons (BOP) even created a Transgender Executive Council and in
> 2022 agreed to provide gender-affirming surgery
>
[[link removed]]
> for the first federal inmate, a trans man incarcerated for a series
> of terrorist threats and an anthrax attack who sued the BOP after it
> repeatedly denied his request for the procedure. Under the agreement
> the BOP provided the trans man with vaginoplasty and other
> “medically necessary gender-affirming procedures.”
>
> The Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) recently dismantled the
> outrageous transgender surgery policy for federal inmates and has
> been diligent in countering it for state prisoners as well. In two
> Georgia cases, the DOJ reversed support granted under Biden to
> provide inmates with sexual reassignment surgeries at state expense.
> “The prior administration portrayed such claims as necessary
> medical care for gender dysphoria under the ADA,” the DOJ writes
> in a statement
>
[[link removed]]
> that goes on to say it was based on guidelines that were politically
> motivated and based on junk science. The Biden administration had
> validated in a court filing
>
[[link removed]
> Georgia inmate’s assertion that treatment for gender dysphoria is
> a protected right under the ADA as well as the Eighth Amendment.
> “[T]he Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to provide
> incarcerated people with adequate medical care for serious medical
> conditions,” the Biden DOJ wrote in the filing. “It is well
> established that gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition.
> Prison officials demonstrate deliberate indifference to a
> substantial risk of serious harm—and thus violate the Eighth
> Amendment—when they categorically refuse to provide medically
> necessary gender-affirming surgery to an incarcerated individual
> with gender dysphoria.”
>
> The recent DOJ court actions, both in Georgia, undo the Biden
> administration’s “abuse of the legal system that pushed an
> agenda driven by politics, not law,” according to the agency,
> which explains that it withdrew an incorrect statement of interest
> in one case and submitted a new statement of interest in a separate
> case brought by prisoners seeking the state to provide “dangerous,
> elective surgery as treatment of inmates’ gender dysphoria
> claims.” The new filings lay bare the Biden administration’s
> manipulation of supposed medical guidelines to try to create an
> inmate’s right to optional surgeries where no such entitlement
> exists, the DOJ confirms. “There has never been an Eighth
> Amendment right for inmates to demand elective and experimental
> surgeries,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of
> the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. “The prior administration’s
> nonsensical reading of the Americans with Disabilities Act was an
> affront to the very people the statute intended to protect.”
>
> In one case a 45-year-old woman, Ronnie Fuller, sentenced to life
> for murder sued the state alleging Eighth Amendment violations for
> being denied access to a mastectomy. In 2017 she told a mental
> health counselor she had feelings of body hatred and depression and
> was eventually diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The murderer
> requested and was provided with hormone replacement therapy and
> later demanded a subcutaneous mastectomy, claiming emotional
> distress and mental anguish for “want of a preferred top
> surgery.” However, gender dysphoria is not a disability under the
> ADA, the DOJ confirms in its recent statement of interest
>
[[link removed]]
to the court.
> “The ADA specifically excludes from its definition of
> “disability” “transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia,
> exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting
> from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders,”
> the federal court document states. In the other case supported by
> the Biden administration, a man incarcerated for decades for an
> unidentified crime sued the state to fund his sex-change surgery to
> become a woman. “The United States has since disavowed the
> scientific theories” of World Professional Association for
> Transgender Health, a key source used in the Biden administration
> court document supporting the trans inmate, according to the
> DOJ reversal
[[link removed]]
under
> Trump. The legal document also states that the previous
> administration “wrongly asserted that gender dysphoria
> necessitated elective care to abate risk of suicide.”



MEMORIAL DAY – 250 YEARS OF SACRIFICE

As we spend the next few days celebrating and honoring our Fallen
Heroes for Memorial Day, let us think back to the ultimate sacrifices
of our Founding generation as we begin the 250th Celebration of our
nation’s creation. George Washington, as a veteran, was very much
aware of the price of war as he accepted the commission of
Commander-in-Chief. In his address
[[link removed]]
to the New York Provincial Congress nearly 250 years ago,
he reassured
[[link removed]]
the assembly that citizen-soldiers would defend the country with their
lives and reject the temptations of military tyranny:

> At ⟨the same time that with you I deplore⟩ the unhappy Necessity
> of suc⟨h an Appointment, as that⟩ with which I am now honoured,
> ⟨I cannot but feel sentiments⟩ of the highest Gratitude for this
> af⟨fecting Instance of⟩ Distinction & Regard.
>
> May your warmest w⟨ish be realized in⟩ the Success of America at
> this importa⟨nt and interesting⟩ Period; & be assured that,
> every Exertion ⟨of my worthy Colleagues⟩ & myself, will be
> equally extended to ⟨the re establishment⟩ of Peace & Harmony
> between the Mother ⟨Country and the⟩ Colonies. As to the fatal,
> but necessary Opera⟨tions of War.⟩ When we assumed the Soldier,
> we did not ⟨lay aside the⟩ Citizen, & we shall most sincerely
> rejoice ⟨with you in⟩ that happy Hour, when the Establishment
> ⟨of American⟩ L⟨iber⟩ty on the most firm, & solid
> Foundat⟨ions, shall enable us⟩ to return to our private Stations
> in ⟨the bosom of a⟩ free, peaceful, & happy Country.

Washington and his army were willing to engage in the “fatal
operation” of war – not for despotic power but for a “free,
peaceful and happy Country.” Tens of thousands of patriots died in
the Revolutionary War. On this Memorial Day, a quarter of a millennium
later, we should mourn and give special honor to their sacrifice as if
it were yesterday.

Until next week,



[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


[image]
[[link removed]]


RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN PERIL

_"When it comes to fighting for the American people’s ‘right to
know,’ no one holds a candle to Tom Fitton and his team at Judicial
Watch"_ - SEAN HANNITY

Tom Fitton returns with an exhaustive investigation into the
progressive movement’s efforts to dismantle the venerable
institutions of American rights and freedoms.

Order Tom Fitton's Must-Read Today!
[[link removed]]

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2025, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]
| Privacy Policy
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]