Erez Reuveni Whistleblower Reveals DOJ’s Disregard for Due Process and Rule of Law

Erez Reuveni, a fired Department of Justice lawyer who's now blowing the whistle, says he witnessed a disregard of due process and for the rule of law at the DOJ.

Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney with 15 years of service, has publicly revealed serious concerns about the Trump-era DOJ’s handling of legal processes and court orders, accusing the department of systematic abuses of power. Reuveni’s whistleblower disclosure centers on directives to violate court rulings during a mass deportation operation and his subsequent firing after refusing to sign a misleading legal brief in a mistaken deportation case. His revelations have sparked broader alarm within the legal community and calls for investigations into the Justice Department’s conduct.

• Reuveni, formerly promoted for his defense of Trump’s immigration policies, was fired after refusing to certify a brief falsely labeling a deported Salvadoran as a terrorist.
• At a March 2025 meeting, DOJ leaders instructed lawyers to proceed with deportations “no matter what,” including ignoring federal court orders.
• Reuveni witnessed government attorneys misleading judges and actively disregarding injunctions, violating legal and ethical standards.
• Legal experts warn these actions constitute severe breaches of lawyers’ ethical obligations and potential criminal offenses.
• The DOJ leadership, including Emil Bove, denies the claims; however, courts criticized the department for “poor attempts” to justify deportations and ruled unanimously that due process is required under the Alien Enemies Act.

From dedicated attorney to whistleblower

Erez Reuveni began his career at the Department of Justice in 2010, motivated by a commitment to public service and defending America’s laws in courtrooms nationwide. Specializing in immigration law, he defended multiple presidential policies regardless of political affiliation—including the controversial travel ban against predominantly Muslim countries during President Trump’s first term. Reuveni quickly rose within the department and, early in Trump’s second term, was appointed acting deputy director of the immigration section, overseeing roughly one hundred attorneys and all federal immigration litigation.

The fateful March 14 meeting and the Alien Enemies Act

On March 14, 2025—the day Reuveni learned of his promotion—he and several other DOJ attorneys were summoned to a meeting with Emil Bove, then the third-ranking official at the department and former Trump defense lawyer. Officials announced President Trump would be invoking the Alien Enemies Act—a law from 1798 last used during World War II—to deport over 100 Venezuelan nationals labeled as terrorists. Crucially, the administration planned to deny these individuals the right to a hearing before a judge.

Reuveni described Bove’s shocking directive: “Those planes need to take off, no matter what.” Furthermore, Bove added, “If some court should issue an order preventing that, we may have to consider telling that court, ‘f*** you.’” This explicit disregard for judicial authority stunned Reuveni, who felt “like a bomb had gone off,” signaling a fundamental breakdown in the department’s respect for the rule of law.

Defying court orders and misleading the judiciary

The following day, Saturday, as lawyers for the detainees filed lawsuits, Chief Judge James Boasberg held a hearing. When asked by the judge if the deportation flights were scheduled to leave that weekend, government counsel Drew Ensign claimed ignorance—despite attending the prior meeting confirming flights would proceed irrespective of judicial orders.

Reuveni called this “stunning” and a direct violation of a lawyer’s ethical duties not to mislead a court intentionally. During the hearing, deportation flights departed, violating a provisional order. Despite the judge’s injunction to halt removals and return anyone already airborne, detainees arrived hours later at a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. Reuveni sent urgent emails instructing compliance with the order, which were ignored.

Peter Keisler, former acting Attorney General under George W. Bush, emphasized that while the DOJ may appeal or seek reconsideration of court orders, it is legally required to obey them while they are in effect. “Everybody deserves their day in court,” Keisler noted, underscoring the constitutional guarantee of due process—even for immigrants designated as terrorists.

The Kilmar Abrego Garcia case: coerced false allegations and firing

Among those deported was Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia, mistakenly removed from the U.S. Typically, the government returns those deported in error. However, Reuveni revealed he was ordered by superiors to argue falsely in court that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 gang member and terrorist, to prevent his repatriation. He refused, stating the claims were “not correct, not factually correct… a lie,” and declined to sign the legal brief.

Reuveni underscored a disturbing broader implication: if government lawyers can falsely accuse and illegally deport one person without due process, anyone could be targeted arbitrarily, with legal rights denied through official deception.

Following his refusal to corroborate falsehoods, Reuveni was put on leave and eventually fired. Later, aided by the Government Accountability Project, he filed a whistleblower complaint in June 2025, drawing national attention to potential DOJ misconduct.

Patterns of misconduct and judicial criticism

Law professor Ryan Goodman of New York University, who heads the nonpartisan legal journal "Just Security," analyzed hundreds of lawsuits against the Trump administration and found alarming evidence of DOJ misconduct. Goodman reported over 35 cases where judges explicitly stated the government provided false or misleading information, including sworn declarations. Judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans criticized the Trump DOJ’s actions as “highly misleading” and recounted how "trust that had been earned over generations has been lost in weeks."

Goodman lamented that the primary casualty of these actions was the Justice Department’s institutional integrity, with long-term damage to public trust.

DOJ leadership responses and ongoing fallout

Interviews requested by 60 Minutes with Attorney General Pam Bondi, Emil Bove, and attorney Drew Ensign were declined. Bove, who was nominated and confirmed for a federal judgeship despite the controversy, denied Reuveni’s allegations, describing them as “a mix of falsehoods and wild distortions of reality.” He maintained that Reuveni, as a line attorney, was not in a position to direct leadership.

Meanwhile, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S., charged with transporting illegal immigrants, and pleaded not guilty. A judge dismissed the department’s “poor attempts” to link him to MS-13 and did not charge him with terrorism. The Venezuelans deported to El Salvador were subsequently released and returned to Venezuela.

In April 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all individuals deported under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to due process, reinforcing constitutional protections.

The broader implications for justice and democracy

In a rare and candid 60 Minutes interview, Reuveni expressed his deep concern about what he witnessed inside the DOJ. Having taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, he stated unequivocally that remaining silent would violate that oath.

Legal experts warn that if confirmed, the allegations of ignoring federal injunctions, fabricating court documents, and retaliating against whistleblowers could amount to criminal offenses such as obstruction of justice, fraud upon the court, and violations of whistleblower protection laws. Constitutional attorney Laurence Tribe described these potential crimes as “a direct assault on the separation of powers,” whereby the DOJ acts as judge, jury, and executioner rather than an impartial legal institution.

For many Americans, the Justice Department represents the last check against unchecked executive power. Reuveni’s revelations suggest that under certain political influences, the department may have been transformed into a political instrument rather than a neutral law enforcement agency. This development poses fundamental questions about the resilience of democratic principles and the rule of law in the United States.

Conclusion

Erez Reuveni’s whistleblower disclosure highlights a critical chapter in the ongoing debate over the politicization of the Department of Justice during the Trump administration. His first-hand account of orders to ignore court rulings, mislead judges, and compromise due process rights signals a potential crisis for the integrity of American justice systems. The controversy has prompted calls for congressional investigations and renewed scrutiny of the DOJ’s practices to ensure that the rule of law prevails over political expediency. As this story continues to unfold, it underscores the vital importance of legal ethics, government accountability, and the constitutional protections that safeguard individual rights.