The Trump administration has leaned heavily on aggressive federal prosecutions in Washington, D.C., and beyond, but recent cases show how grand juries, courts, and DOJ reviews continue to act as important checks on overreach. In Washington, D.C., federal prosecutors charged Sydney Reid with assaulting an FBI agent during a July 2025 immigration sweep. Remarkably, three separate grand juries refused to indict on felony charges, an extremely rare outcome, as grand juries typically defer to prosecutors. As a result of repeated failures, authorities downgraded the charges to a misdemeanor. Reid’s defense called it proof the government was “concocting crimes,” while jurors upheld citizen oversight as a counterbalance to prosecutorial aggression.
In Los Angeles, following June 2025 protests over immigration policy, dozens of demonstrators were facing federal felony charges. Yet internal reviews uncovered that DHS and other agents had provided false or misleading accounts in many incident reports. These revelations led the DOJ to drop or downgrade numerous charges to misdemeanors, a level of reversal that legal experts characterized as highly unusual. The case highlights how politically motivated prosecutions can collapse once the integrity of the evidence is scrutinized.
This pattern underscores why it is absolutely critical for individuals to always record their interactions with federal officials. There is growing evidence that DHS personnel have fabricated or embellished accounts to justify arrests and charges and under Trump’s Executive Order 14159, titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” (signed January 20, 2025), they are shielded even further. The order directs DHS to exploit all lawful means to enforce immigration laws, expands detention and removal authority, and authorizes aggressive civil and criminal enforcement, all without explicit limitations on the use of force. Though it does not literally state “use any force necessary,” the sweeping language effectively opens the door for broad interpretations in enforcement actions. That, combined with promises of legal representation and indemnification for DHS staff, who know they’re backed by the administration, creates an environment of impunity, where misconduct can be played down or ignored.
Taken together, these episodes show that while the administration may push propaganda and pursue heavy-handed prosecutions, the justice system’s guardrails remain. Grand jurors, judges, and internal Department of Justice reviews are still capable of blocking or reversing overreach. But the combination of fabricated narratives and presidentially backed protection for DHS agents makes it more crucial than ever for individuals to document and record encounters because in their absence, misconduct risks being hidden behind administrative impunity. All in all, what this shows is that the American people have the final word, not Trump.
Source