Facebook to remove imposter accounts tied to immigration scams, DA’s office says
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks at a press conference joined by members of his prosecution team as he comments on the outcome in the retrial of former film producer Harvey Weinstein on June 12, 2025, in New York City. (Photo by Yuki Iwamura-Pool/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Meta, the parent company of Facebook and WhatsApp, has pledged to remove imposter accounts tied to scams that were recently flagged by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, following a phone call between the two parties this week, the DA’s office told ABC News Friday.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg last week accused Meta of failing to remove imposter accounts that Bragg said pose as organizations like Catholic Charities to offer fake immigration services that scam money from unsuspecting victims.
“These imposter accounts have led to tens of thousands of dollars of fraudulent transfers,” Bragg said in a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg demanding the company take action after requests to remove false profiles were declined.
“Scammers frequently target immigrant populations because they are perceived to be, and often are, more vulnerable to fraud and in need of a specific type of legal assistance,” Bragg wrote.
In some instances, scammers create public Facebook accounts that mirror real accounts belonging to pro bono legal services organizations, Bragg said. In others, they create WhatsApp profiles posing as immigration lawyers associated with those same organizations, frequently using the names and logos of legitimate organizations to give the appearance of credibility.
“Your company has made representations about the importance of the safety and security of your platform for its users,” Bragg’s letter to Zuckerberg said. “If you sincerely wish to protect the safety of your users from fraud, we urge you to take necessary, proactive steps.”
In a statement issued in response to Bragg’s letter, a Meta spokesperson said, “Account impersonation violates our policies, and we take action against people and groups that attempt to misuse our platforms. We’re committed to engaging constructively with all levels of government, law enforcement and cross-sector partners to tackle this industry-wide challenge.”
Bragg is the latest prosecutor to go public with criticism of Meta for failing to protect the public from criminals lurking on its social media platforms. New Mexico recently won a $375 million civil case that held Meta liable for failing to police its sites for child predators, and a jury in Los Angeles found Meta, along with Google, liable for a 20-year-old woman’s social media addiction.
Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff for policy, walks on the South Lawn of the White House after arriving on Marine One in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026. US President Donald Trump threw his support behind a legislative proposal that would expand sales of higher-ethanol E15 gasoline as he looked to build support for his economic record with a crowd that included farmers in Iowa. (Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Over the weekend, the former chief of staff of the Justice Department — who was one of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s top advisers during her first seven months on the job — issued a public call for lawyers who “support President Trump” to join the Justice Department’s ranks.
In a post on X, the former chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, seemed to suggest he could help such applicants become career federal prosecutors — who by law are supposed to be apolitical.
“DM me,” Mizelle wrote, referring to direct messages sent privately to him. “We need good prosecutors.”
Forty minutes later, one of President Donald Trump’s top policy advisers, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, reposted Mizelle’s message, adding, “Patriots needed.” And then on Monday, the current U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quinones, also reposted Mizelle’s message, saying, “We are hiring!”
There are political appointees within the Justice Department, including certain leaders based in Washington and the U.S. attorneys who oversee offices around the country — but the assistant U.S. attorneys, or AUSAs, who investigate and prosecute cases in those offices are supposed to be nonpolitical and nonpartisan.
Appearing on a conservative podcast on Monday, Mizelle said he has received “hundreds and hundreds of inquiries already” from lawyers looking to become AUSAs. But his posting, and the subsequent promotion of it by current senior government officials, has roiled some former federal prosecutors on both sides of the political spectrum.
“We shouldn’t have a favorite politician in the Justice Department; we should have a favorite document, and that’s the Constitution,” former prosecutor Perry Carbone told ABC News.
Carbone, who spent more than three decades as a federal prosecutor and until May was the chief of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, said that Mizelle’s post has “generated a lot of discussion” among former federal prosecutors, who are concerned about its implications.
“It’s dangerous,” he said of what the post could mean. “The day that Department of Justice lawyers are hired based on loyalty to a person … is the day the rest of us should get very nervous.”
He said the message in Mizelle’s post — and the reposts by Reding Quinones and Miller — “flatly contradict” federal laws and regulations pertaining to the hiring of career federal employees.
He cited federal laws, including the Civil Service Reform Act, that specifically prohibit favoring or discriminating against applicants for federal civil-service jobs based on their “political affiliation.”
“The law is very clear,” Carbone said.
He also cited the Justice Department’s own manual, which says, “All personnel decisions regarding career positions in the Department must be made without regard to the applicant’s or occupant’s partisan affiliation.”
“Efforts to influence personnel decisions concerning career positions on partisan grounds should be reported to the Deputy Attorney General,” the manual states.
Andy McCarthy, a conservative commentator and frequent Trump critic who himself served as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York for nearly two decades, also blasted Mizelle’s post.
“If support for [the current] president is now a condition of enforcing federal law, Congress should defund DOJ. DOJ should only exist if it’s nonpartisan. Too dangerous to liberty otherwise,” McCarthy wrote.
“If AG Garland’s office had posted this, MAGA & GOP would be calling for impeachment,” he added, referring to Merrick Garland, the Biden administration’s attorney general.
Appearing on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s podcast Monday, Mizelle defended his post, saying that Article II of the Constitution explicitly states that “all executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States,” so “any time an executive branch officer is using executive power — an AUSA indicting somebody or … bringing criminal evidence against somebody — all of that is executive power that’s included.”
Mizelle said that when he was working for Bondi last year, his “job as chief of staff” was to “root out a lot of this stuff,” so, “On Day 1 we dismissed about 100 people who we thought were working against Donald J. Trump,” and then “thousands” more left.
“That’s how government should work. It should work that if you can’t follow the wishes of the duly elected president of the United States, then you need to leave. And all we’re looking for now are people who want to follow his agenda,” Mizelle said.
But Carbone said he rejects Mizelle’s analysis of the Constitution and the work of federal prosecutors under changing administrations. While policies may change, prosecutors “have to exercise independent professional judgment, not political obedience,” he said.
That’s underscored by a 2008 report from the Justice Department’s inspector general, who launched an investigation at the time into allegations that the Justice Department under President George W. Bush had been improperly using political affiliations to screen candidates for an apolitical summer internship program and a program that hired recent law graduates without prior legal experience.
In his report, the inspector general noted that “both DOJ policy and civil service law prohibit discrimination in hiring for DOJ career positions on the basis of political affiliations,” and said courts have considered “political affiliation” to include “commonality of political purpose, partisan activity, and political support.”
After his office’s investigation, the inspector general concluded that two political appointees in the department “took political or ideological affiliations into account in deselecting candidates in violation of Department policy and federal law.”
As for Mizelle’s recent post, Carbone said it is “just another symptom” afflicting a Justice Department that “has been building this reputation of independence for 50 years, since Watergate, and now here we are in a place where we’ve taken a giant step back.”
Mark Rotert, an AUSA in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago during the 1980s and 1990s, who was also on his office’s hiring committee, agreed, calling Mizelle’s post “disgraceful.”
“It never would have occurred to us to explore what the candidate’s views were about the president, or what kind of job the president is doing,” Rotert said of his time on the hiring committee. “Partisan politics were never considered a relevant or even an appropriate discussion point.”
Carbone also said that while Mizelle may not work at the Justice Department anymore, the boost it received from Miller, a senior White House official, and Reding Quinones, a U.S. attorney, shows how connected Mizelle still is — or at the least how his message “is supported by high-level people in the Justice Department.”
Mizelle’s post comes as the Justice Department faces increasing pressure over its handling of a wide array of politically charged matters, including firing prosecutors and investigators who were involved in previous Trump-related investigations; filing federal charges against or otherwise investigating many of President Trump’s political enemies; failing to initially investigate the officer who fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis last month; and most recently last week’s FBI seizure of ballots and other records related to the 2020 election from an elections office in Fulton County, Georgia.
A Justice Department spokesman did not respond to a message from ABC News seeking comment. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida also did not respond to a message seeking comment from ABC News.
Maria Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition figure and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, attends a press conference on December 11, 2025 in Oslo, Norway. (Rune Hellestad/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado said Friday she was “absolutely grateful” to President Donald Trump after meeting with him Thursday and presenting him with her Nobel Peace Prize medal. The president called it a “wonderful gesture of mutual respect.”
“María presented me with her Nobel Peace Prize for the work I have done,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. He also said that Machado was a “wonderful woman who has been through so much” and that it was a great honor to meet her.
Machado, in turn, said Friday it “took a lot of courage” for Trump to take action against Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.
Following the Thursday meeting, a White House official confirmed to ABC News that Trump did accept the medal.
Further details about the closed-door meeting were not immediately revealed by the White House. Asked about the meeting by ABC News’ Mary Bruce, Trump said it went “great.”
Machado told reporters as she was exiting the White House that she presented Trump with her prize and reflected on the history between the two countries.
“I told him this … Listen to this — 200 years ago, General Lafayette gave Simon Bolivar a medal with George Washington’s face on it. Bolivar, since then, kept that medal for the rest of his life,” she told reporters.
“Actually, when you see his portraits, you can see the medal there. And it was given by General Lafayette as a sign of the brotherhood between the United States, people of United States, and the people of Venezuela in their fight for freedom against tyranny. And 200 years in history, the people of Bolivar are giving back to the heir of Washington, a medal, in this case a medal of a Nobel Peace Prize, and a recognition for his unique commitment with our freedom,” she added.
Simon Bolivar liberated Venezuela and several other Latin American countries from Spanish rule in the 1800s. The Marquis de Lafayette was a French national who volunteered to fight with American colonists during the Revolutionary War and eventually rose to be one of George Washington’s most trusted generals.
Machado didn’t offer any more details about her meeting with Trump.
She won the Nobel Peace Prize last year for her work “promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela” and her push to move the country from dictatorship to democracy.
Machado dedicated the prize to Trump, along with the people of Venezuela, shortly after it was announced in October 2025.
She said last week that she would like to give or share the prize with Trump, who oversaw the successful U.S. operation to capture Maduro. Maduro faces drug trafficking charges in New York, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
“I certainly would love to be able to personally tell him that we believe — the Venezuelan people, because this is a prize of the Venezuelan people — certainly want to, to give it to him and share it with him,” Machado told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday. “What he has done is historic. It’s a huge step towards a democratic transition.”
The Norwegian Nobel Institute issued a statement last week saying that once the Nobel Peace Prize is announced, it “can neither be revoked, shared, nor transferred to others. Once the announcement has been made, the decision stands for all time.”
When asked earlier this month whether Machado could become the next leader of Venezuela, Trump said it would be “very tough for her” because she “doesn’t have the support or the respect within the country.”
Trump said Wednesday he had a “great conversation” with Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez, their first since authoritarian Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro was seized by the U.S. on Jan. 3.
“We had a call, a long call. We discussed a lot of things,” Trump said during a bill signing in the Oval Office. “And I think we’re getting along very well with Venezuela.”
The president said last week on his social media platform that he had “cancelled the previously expected second Wave of Attacks” on Venezuela after the government released several political prisoners, but he added that “all ships will stay in place for safety and security purposes.”
Trump has coveted and openly campaigned for winning the Nobel Prize himself since his return to office. White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung slammed the Nobel Committee for its decision after Machado was announced as the most recent winner.
“[Trump] has the heart of a humanitarian, and there will never be anyone like him who can move mountains with the sheer force of his will,” Cheung said in an X post. “The Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace.”
Jorgen Watne Frydens, the Nobel Committee chair, was asked about Trump’s “campaign” for the prize last year but denied it had any impact on the decision-making process.
“We receive thousands and thousands of letters every year of people wanting to say what, for them, leads to peace,” Frydens said. “This committee sits in a room filled with the portraits of all laureates and that room is filled with both courage and integrity. We base only our decision on the work and the will of Alfred Nobel.”
U.S. President Donald Trump (L) speaks alongside U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin during an event to announce a rollback of the 2009 Endangerment Finding in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on February 12, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Less than a week after the Environmental Protection Agency repealed its own endangerment finding, which gave the agency authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, a coalition of health and environmental organizations sued the agency over its decision.
The case, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is being brought by the American Public Health Association, the American Lung Association, the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, among others.
The lawsuit names EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the EPA as defendants.
Made during the Obama administration, the 2009 decision found that certain greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The regulations that resulted cover everything from vehicle tailpipe emissions to the release of greenhouse gases from power plants and other significant emission sources.
President Donald Trump announced the repeal at the White House last Thursday, alongside Zeldin.
“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans,” Zeldin said in a statement at the time.
The litigants in the case say that “Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is legally required to limit vehicle emissions of any ‘air pollutant’ that the agency determines ’cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.’ “
The coalition says the Trump Administration is “rehashing legal arguments” that were already rejected by the Supreme Court in its 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA case.
“In keeping with a longstanding practice, EPA does not comment on current or pending litigation,” the agency said in a statement to ABC News.
