FBI agents file suit to block DOJ from compiling list of those who investigated Jan. 6
Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — A group of FBI agents who assisted in criminal investigations stemming from the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol filed suit Tuesday in an effort to block the Justice Department from assembling lists of agents for potential disciplinary actions or firings.
The class-action lawsuit, filed anonymously by the agents Tuesday afternoon in D.C. federal court, includes screenshots showing a survey that was sent this week about their actions related to the Jan. 6 cases.
“Plaintiffs are employees of the FBI who worked on Jan. 6 and/or Mar-a-Lago cases, and who have been informed that they are likely to be terminated in the very near future (the week of February 3-9, 2025) for such activity,” the lawsuit said. “They intend to represent a class of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and employees who participated in some manner in the investigation and prosecution of crimes and abuses of power by Donald Trump, or by those acting at his behest.”
The suit specifically seeks to enjoin the DOJ from “aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities,” referring to the Capitol attack and the probe into President Trump’s retention of classified documents after leaving the White House in 2021.
The Justice Department, under leadership appointed by the Trump administration, has asked for information about potentially thousands of FBI employees across the country who were involved in work related to investigations stemming from the Jan. 6 attack.
According an email sent to the FBI workforce on Friday, and obtained by ABC News, the requested information was to be provided by Tuesday afternoon to the office of the acting Deputy Attorney General, Emil Bove, whose office will then conduct a review to determine if any “personnel actions” are warranted.
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump this week voiced support for tens of thousands of unionized dockworkers in a dispute with major shipping companies.
Negotiations between workers and management are deadlocked over the companies’ plan for further automation of ports, which the union said would eliminate jobs.
“I’ve studied automation, and know just about everything there is to know about it,” Trump said Thursday in a post on Truth Social. “The amount of money saved is nowhere near the distress, hurt, and harm it causes for American Workers, in this case, our Longshoremen.”
The vow of support for dockworkers aligns with Trump’s campaign promise to safeguard blue-collar workers threatened by global capitalism, depicting automation as an unwelcome change foisted on workers by foreign-owned shipping firms, some experts said.
Trump’s rejection of automation highlights a tension found in his economic policy, however, some experts added.
Like tariffs, the policy aims to protect a narrow set of workers at the possible expense of importers and consumers, who could suffer higher costs as a result of a missed opportunity to improve the supply chain, some experts said. While others defended Trump’s attempt to protect dockworkers from technological change.
The Trump transition team did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Here’s what to know about the labor dispute over automation at East and Gulf Coast docks, and what it says about how Trump may approach the economy in his second term.
Dockworkers and freight companies feud over automation
A strike in October at docks across the East and Gulf coasts threatened to upend the economy and drive up prices, but workers and management ended the stoppage with a tentative agreement after three days.
The deal includes a 62% wage increase over the life of the six-year contract, but the two sides have yet to finalize it due to a disagreement over plans for further automation.
The standoff centers on the potential installation of cranes that would facilitate the retrieval and storage of freight containers, said John McCown, a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for Maritime Strategy who closely tracks the shipping industry.
Cranes already help remove containers from a ship and place it in a nearby port terminal, but shipping companies have sought the use of additional automated cranes once goods have reached land, McCown said.
The cranes work like an old-fashioned juke box, he added. “You hit a number and it goes to pick a record and play a record,” McCown said, noting the cranes would similarly mechanize sorting and transport of containers.
The U.S. Maritime Alliance, or USMX, the organization representing shipping firms in negotiations, said on Thursday that such automation would improve efficiency and increase capacity. Those enhancements would benefit U.S. companies and consumers that depend on goods from abroad, the group added.
“We need modern technology that is proven to improve worker safety, boost port efficiency, increase port capacity, and strengthen our supply chains,” USMX said in a statement.
The USMX did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
The plans have drawn rebuke from the International Longshoremen’s Association, or ILA, the union representing dockworkers. The union has pointed to massive profits enjoyed by the shipping firms during the pandemic, saying further automation would invest those gains in job-cutting machinery rather than increased compensation. Workers have also disputed the supposed productivity benefits of the technology.
“This isn’t about safety or productivity — it’s about job elimination,” ILA President Dennis Daggett, said in a statement earlier this month. The union has proven that the automated cranes at issue “are not more productive than traditional equipment operated by human workers,” Daggett added.
In response to ABC News’ request for comment, the ILA shared a statement from Daggett praising Trump.
“Throughout my career, I’ve never seen a politician — let alone the President of the United States — truly understand the importance of the work our members do every single day,” Daggett said.
What could Trump’s approach to the standoff mean for his 2nd term?
In his social media post backing the workers and opposing port automation, Trump criticized foreign-owned shipping firms for what he described as penny pinching.
“For the great privilege of accessing our markets, these foreign companies should hire our incredible American Workers, instead of laying them off, and sending those profits back to foreign countries,” Trump said. “It is time to put AMERICA FIRST!”
The framework presents U.S. workers as victims of foreign companies, which he says aim to make use of America’s economic resources at the expense of its citizens. As such, Trump’s intervention in this case favors the ILA in its longstanding fight against automation, Peter Cole, a professor at Western Illinois University who studies the history of dockworkers, told ABC News.
“The ILA will really benefit if in fact Trump pushes employers to back off automation,” Cole said, noting that the explanation offered up by Trump reflects a larger political shift in the U.S. against unrestricted global trade.
“Presidents in both main parties have supported more manufacturing domestically,” Cole said.
However, Trump’s opposition to automation risks imposing higher costs on consumers and even some domestic manufacturers, since advances in productivity would help lower supply costs otherwise passed along to buyers at the end of the chain, some experts said.
Trump mistakenly claims that foreign shipping companies would bear the cost of forgone automation, just as he inaccurately says that foreign countries would pay the cost of tariffs, David Autor, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who specializes in technological change and the labor force, told ABC News.
“The assertion that raising tariffs at our ports will force foreigners to cover these costs is beyond naive,” Autor said. “It’s simply false.
Autor said the hardship that dockworkers would face if automation were to advance and put many of them out of work. “It will not be good for the livelihoods of longshoremen and we should not pretend otherwise,” Autor said, adding that the workers should receive compensation or other protections under such circumstances.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Department of Labor is proposing a rule that will eliminate the certificates that allow employers to pay some workers with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage, which stands at $7.25 an hour.
The department announced the change on Tuesday, which also marked the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.
“One of the guiding principles of the American workplace is that a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay, and this proposal ensures that principle includes workers with disabilities,” said Wage and Hour Administrator Jessica Looman in a statement on the proposed rule.
She continued, “Since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, opportunities and training have dramatically expanded to help people with disabilities obtain and maintain employment at or above the full federal minimum wage. Similarly, employers today have more resources and training available to recruit, hire and retain workers with disabilities in employment at or above the full minimum wage, and this proposed rule aligns with that reality.”
The rule, if passed, would no longer allow employers to apply for certificates under Section 14(c) of Fair Labor Standards Act, which allows for the subminimum wage. It would set a three-year phase-out period for employers who currently have existing certificates.
A 2020 report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that some workers were being paid less than a dollar an hour for their work.
The disability community faces higher rates of poverty and lower rates of employment in the workforce, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Council on Disability. Disabled advocates have long criticized Section 14(c) for perpetuating what they call discrimination and stigma.
(NEW YORK) — President-elect Donald Trump’s criminal hush money conviction in New York must be dismissed “to facilitate the orderly transition of Executive power,” Trump’s defense attorneys argued Wednesday in a letter to the court.
Defense attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove — both of whom Trump nominated last week to top DOJ posts in his new administration — sought the judge’s permission to file a motion to dismiss the case.
“Continuing with this case would be uniquely destabilizing,” the defense letter argued. “Just as a sitting President is completely immune from any criminal process, so too is President Trump as President-elect.”
The defense filing comes one day after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg opposed dismissing the case but consented to freeze of all remaining proceedings, including sentencing, until after Trump completes his term.
The defense sought a Dec. 20 deadline to file its motion to dismiss Trump’s 34-count felony conviction for falsifying business records.
Blanche and Bove said that would give Trump time to address “the positions taken by DOJ in the federal cases” Trump faces over the his election interference efforts and his handling of classified documents.
Both of the federal cases are currently paused while the Justice Department evaluates how to proceed.
Trump was convicted in May of all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to silence allegations about a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
His conviction carries a maximum penalty of up to four years in prison, but first-time offenders would normally receive a lesser sentence.
