The Department of Justice is currently investigating whether former officials from the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) engaged in illegal activities by obstructing leadership changes implemented by the Trump administration. This probe includes actions like the removal and destruction of door locks and distributing flyers that discouraged cooperation with new officials.
According to the Daily Caller, the DOJ is scrutinizing the actions of ex-USIP leaders who allegedly tried to prevent the enforcement of a presidential executive order.
Leading up to March 2025, the USIP engaged in preparatory actions against anticipated changes by the Trump administration. This included denying building access and controlling security systems to outside officials, setting the stage for a significant resistance movement within the federally funded peace institute.
On March 14, following a February 19 executive order requiring federally funded organizations to minimize operations, President Trump appointed Kenneth Jackson as the new president of USIP. This move sparked immediate resistance from the existing USIP leadership.
The day Kenneth Jackson was set to assume his role, former USIP leaders took drastic measures to block his entry. Along with other Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) officials and law enforcement, Jackson found entry barred, a scene that led to further actions over the weekend.
In response to the leadership installation, USIP leaders terminated their contract with the private security team, disabled telecommunication systems within the building, and utilized walkie-talkies to communicate internally, further solidifying their stand against the new administration's officials.
On that critical weekend following Jackson's attempted installation, the USIP building was found locked and staff barricaded inside. This led to the involvement of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), responding only after the U.S. Attorney’s Office called their assistance due to reports of obstruction.
Despite the significant police presence, a federal judge on the following Wednesday fell short of issuing a restraining order against the leadership change but scrutinized DOGE’s coordination with law enforcement during the situation.
A senior DOJ official, who remains unnamed, specified that their department is looking into whether the action of removing and destroying internal and external door locks at USIP might pose illegal fire hazards. This underlines the severity with which the DOJ is approaching potential criminal elements of this resistance.
Additionally, these officials are accused of circulating flyers within USIP directing employees not to cooperate with the incoming Trump administration officials. According to the same DOJ official, these flyers could represent obstructive conduct, signaling an organized effort to undermine the new leadership.
Anna Kelly, White House deputy press secretary, weighed in on the turmoil, stating that eleven board members were lawfully replaced, and Kenneth Jackson was appointed as acting president. She emphasized that rogue bureaucrats would not be permitted to immobilize agencies and assured that the administration would maintain its executive authority and accountability.
The ongoing investigation by the DOJ suggests that the agency is taking a serious approach to unruly elements within USIP. Accusations of significant resistance to federally mandated changes underscore a pivotal moment for the institute tasked with promoting peace and conflict resolution.
In light of these events, the US justice system finds itself at a crossroads, needing to uphold law and order within governmental agencies while respecting the complex dynamics involved in administrative transitions. This situation brings various aspects of federal authority, agency autonomy, and the role of civil servants into sharp focus.
As the DOJ continues to gather evidence and weigh the possibilities of bringing charges, the broader implications for government-operated entities facing contentious leadership changes are immense. How this situation resolves could set precedents for similar conflicts in the future, impacting how administrative transitions are conducted across the federal landscape.