Report Details How Biden DOJ Weaponized FACE Act Against Pro-Life Activists

Report Details How Biden DOJ Weaponized FACE Act Against Pro-Life Activists

The DOJ released a report almost 900 pages long alleging that President Joe Biden’s administration weaponized the FACE Act to prosecute pro-life Americans.

“This Department will not tolerate a two-tiered system of justice,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “No Department should conduct selective prosecution based on beliefs. The weaponization that happened under the Biden Administration will not happen again, as we restore integrity to our prosecutorial system.”

.@DAGToddBlanche: We saw internal emails where @TheJusticeDept prosecutors were working with NGOs and nonprofits to go after pro-life individuals who were not breaking the law. I'll tell you what, there are no emails in my inbox from NGOs telling me what to do. https://t.co/7tE1GG3Uij pic.twitter.com/tKBLS4yU9M

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 14, 2026

The report alleges that the Biden DOJ worked with pro-abortion groups, including securing funding for said groups:

• The Biden DOJ closely collaborated with pro-abortion groups to track pro-life activists’ First Amendment activity. Pro-abortion groups—especially the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, and Feminist Majority Foundation—capitalized on their relationship with the Biden DOJ to gain internal information and push targets for enforcement. These groups compiled evidence and dossiers that ultimately gave rise to search warrants and charges. The Biden DOJ affirmatively asked pro-abortion groups about pro-life individuals’ travel and constitutionally protected advocacy. The Biden DOJ and career attorneys monitored pro-life activists for years before charging them.
• The Biden DOJ’s prosecutors engaged in inappropriate conduct and comments. Prosecutors knowingly withheld evidence that defense counsel requested to prepare an affirmative defense, tried to screen out jurors based on religion, and authorized aggressive arrest tactics instead of allowing pro-life defendants to self-surrender.
• The Biden DOJ helped a pro-abortion group secure funding. The lead prosecutor on each FACE Act prosecution served as a reference on the National Abortion Federation’s application for a private grant. We found no record of ethics approval for the attorney to take an interest in the financial outcome of a party having business before the Biden DOJ.
• The Biden DOJ pursued significantly harsher sentences for pro-life defendants than violent pro-abortion defendants. The Biden DOJ requested an average sentence of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants, compared to 12.3 months for pro-abortion defendants.
• The Biden DOJ violated the rights of Americans through its biased enforcement of the FACE Act. Though the Act was supposed to protect both pro-choice and pro-life facilities, the Biden DOJ provided extensive support to abortion clinics, while ignoring and downplaying vandalism and attacks against pregnancy resource centers.

On page 10, the DOJ claims that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta met with NARAL Pro-Choice of America, Planned Parenthood, and other NGOs after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke continued meeting with the National Abortion Federation (NAF), which bragged about its involvement in “several FACE Act investigations, working with AUSAs and FBI in TN, FL, VA, CA, NY, MD and NC[.]”

A major flag here: the chief legal and strategy officer for the @NatAbortionFed told Chip Roy that she had pretty much no influence over the Biden FACE Act prosecutions.

As this report shows – NAF was pivotal to those prosecutions.https://t.co/qQxHXsMY9M

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) April 14, 2026

Disturbing:

NAF’s characterization of its relationship with the Biden DOJ was accurate.v The Biden DOJ closely coordinated with abortion providers and NGOs, particularly NAF, to identify potential pro-life targets for investigation and build cases against them. Coordination primarily took place between [CRT Trial Attorney Sanjay] Patel, as Task Force Director, and NAF Security Director, Michelle Davidson, who remained in routine communication. Patel described Davidson as an “MVP” at bringing incidents to his “attention, often in real-time, which usually result in an investigation/ prosecution.” He viewed NAF as a “great resource for any investigation we have that involves clinic violence,” and a “wonderful contact for [him] as it relates to FACE Act investigations.”

One email shows a DOJ prosecutor, Sanjay Patel, referring to @NatAbortionFed‘s Michelle Davidson as an “MVP” for flagging pro-life protests to prosecute, “which usually result in an investigation/prosecution.”

Patel was fired yesterday by Todd Blanche for weaponizing the FACE… pic.twitter.com/gQTc8zMwNe

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) April 14, 2026

CBS News reported that Trump’s DOJ fired four prosecutors connected to the report, including Patel.

DOJ has terminated the employment of personnel responsible for weaponizing the FACE Act who still remained at the department. https://t.co/qKpoh5uGsb

— DOJ Rapid Response (@DOJRR47) April 13, 2026

On page 20, the DOJ explained how Biden’s DOJ engaged in inappropriate prosecutorial conduct:

DOJ prosecutors engaged in inappropriate conduct and comments directed toward pro-life defendants. Prosecutors disparaged defendants’ religious beliefs, Catholic judges, and defense counsel. Prosecutors sought to exclude religious jurors. They declined to allow some defendants to self-surrender, instead authorizing aggressive arrest tactics. And, when defense counsel requested data on historic FACE Act prosecutions, Patel asserted that he did not maintain those records, referring counsel to the FOIA process, although he had the data on hand and had provided similar information to abortion NGOs a year prior. The following three examples provide case studies of these inappropriate prosecutorial decisions and conduct.

Remember Mark Houck? In September 2022, FBI agents raided his house, leaving his wife and seven children terrorized.

The DOJ charged Houck with violating the FACE Act.

What did Houck do? He defended his child: “While speaking outside of the facility, Houck encountered a Planned Parenthood escort. When the clinic escort confronted his son with ridicule and profanity, Houck stepped in to protect his child and pushed the escort, scraping his arm.”

That guard is damn lucky he didn’t encounter me because if I see anyone acting like that towards any child, I will release the ginger.

Patel fought hard to convince prosecutors to bring charges against Houck:

That week, Planned Parenthood’s local Senior Director of Security contacted the FBI, requesting assistance and stating the “objective of this would be to obtain an injunction similar” to a 2011 civil action filed by DOJ. The FBI forwarded this email to Patel, who forwarded the Planned Parenthood inquiry to one of the deputy chiefs, saying that this “looks like a good felony FACE matter” and that he would open a new matter and assign it to himself. Patel spent the next several months persuading his supervisors to allow him to file charges against Houck. Supervisors voiced concerns that the incident seemed unrelated to any intent to interfere with clinic access. They agreed that Patel’s additional investigation mitigated litigation risk and noted that the “USAO really wants to proceed in this matter, and the FBI is on board.”

Thank goodness a jury acquitted Houck in January 2023.

“The behavior unearthed in this report is shameful,” said Assistant Attorney General Daniel Burrows, Office of Legal Policy. “Lawyers who should have known better withheld evidence, worked to keep committed religious people off juries, and generally allowed the Department of Justice to be used as the enforcement arm of pro-abortion special interests.”

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.