Justice Department whistleblower Erez Reuveni sounded the alarm about those in the department around Kilmar Ábrego García's case involving the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport people to a brutal prison in El Salvador.
In April, U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia Judge James Boasberg found "probable cause" to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt. He said that there was enough evidence to indicate the Department of Homeland Security violated his order.
"The Court ultimately determines that the Government's actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt," Boasberg wrote in April.
In a Lawfare column, analyst Benjamin Wittes wrote that Reuveni's tale "fits an increasingly common trope."
That familiar image is "an official—generally career but occasionally political—perfectly willing to defend or implement Trump administration policy, is not willing to lie or cheat by way of doing so," wrote Wittes. That person then "runs afoul of the powers that be" and is shoved out.
While others at the Justice Department have gone up against the Trump appointees, Wittes said that Reuveni's case is different because he "brought a remarkable collection of receipts." First, there was the 27-page whistleblower complaint, and then, 150 pages of supporting documentation, including texts and emails.
Wittes noted that the documents from Reuveni have bearing on three cases: the Alien Enemies Act case, the case involving Ábrego García, and the case about whether Homeland Security can deport someone to a third-party country where the deportee has no connection and could face persecution.
While Reuveni specifically cited associate deputy attorney general Emil Bove, who is up for a federal appeals court judgeship, he also makes allegations about DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign. Reuveni specifically alleges that Ensign misled the court, and he could have cleared it up, but didn't.
Reuveni’s complaint accused DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign of misleading Boasberg. During a March 15 hearing, Ensign assured the court that none of the named plaintiffs would be removed while the restraining order was in effect, but admitted he did not know the status of the planes.
"If there are removal flights, the five would not be on them," claimed Ensign.
Reuveni contends that Ensign’s statements were false, as internal communications indicated DOJ officials were aware that deportations were imminent.
When Ensign couldn't answer the judge's questions, he paused the hearing to allow Ensign time to figure out the answers to his questions. They would return at 6 p.m. that day. But by 5:24 p.m., two minutes after they adjourned the court, "DOJ attorneys, including Ensign and Mr. Reuveni, received an email from plaintiffs’ attorney citing public reporting of flight information and stating that they had reason to believe that people were on planes for imminent deportation," the report said.
Ensign still appeared in court after that, doubling down on his claims.
What Reuveni didn't write about was Ensign's appearance before Boasberg two weeks later.
When pressed by the judge, Ensign claimed, again, he had no knowledge from his client about the flights, only from the plaintiffs’ submissions. However, Reuveni’s documentation suggests otherwise, alleging a pattern of obfuscation and lack of candor.
According to Reuveni’s account, this wasn't true either, Wittes argued.
Wittes described Reuveni’s experience as emblematic of a broader trend: career officials willing to defend administration policy, but not to lie or break the law, are pushed out. Wittes argues that the administration’s approach reflects a willingness to ignore legal constraints, demand total loyalty, and reject mechanisms of accountability.