Former Chicago FBI Chief Sues DOJ Over Alleged Political Pressure

A former senior FBI official has sued the US Justice Department, alleging that he was pushed out of his job after refusing demands for politically motivated investigations and being blamed for the collapse of a prosecution against immigration protesters in Chicago.

Douglas DePodesta, who led the FBI’s Chicago field office until July 2026, filed his case on 2 November. His lawsuit names Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, Chicago’s chief federal prosecutor Andrew Boutros, the Department of Justice and the FBI.

The case raises two distinct questions: whether federal investigations were being sought on political grounds and whether officials gave an accurate account of what happened when the prosecution of six anti-immigration-enforcement protesters unravelled. The allegations against the named officials are disputed and have not been proved in court.

What DePodesta alleges

DePodesta, an FBI veteran of about 24 years, says Boutros repeatedly pressed him to investigate people whose political views or affiliations opposed the Trump administration during a federal immigration operation known as Operation Midway Blitz. According to the complaint, DePodesta asked for the factual basis required to open each investigation and declined when it was not provided.

The lawsuit also describes a dispute over an alleged assault by a demonstrator. DePodesta says FBI personnel reviewed video footage and were unwilling to support an account that characterised incidental physical contact during an officer’s tackle as an assault.

Those are DePodesta’s allegations, not judicial findings. The complaint does not establish that all the requested investigations were unlawful, nor does it show that the White House personally ordered any of the actions attributed to Boutros.

Exterior of the FBI Chicago field office — The FBI Chicago field office. Photograph: Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Why the Broadview Six prosecution collapsed

At the centre of the dispute is the criminal case against six people accused of obstructing federal officers during a September 2025 protest outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview, a Chicago suburb.

Prosecutors pursued felony conspiracy charges, but a grand jury initially declined to indict the group. The case was presented again, and an indictment eventually followed. During subsequent proceedings, US District Judge April Perry examined transcripts that raised serious concerns about prosecutors’ interactions with grand jurors and how dissenting jurors were treated.

The felony counts were withdrawn in April 2026, and the remaining charges were dismissed in May. The abandonment of the prosecution is an established fact. Whether particular individuals deliberately misled the court, and whether any sanctions or other consequences should follow, are separate questions still under examination.

The six defendants included political activist Kat Abughazaleh, Oak Park trustee Brian Straw, Michael Rabbitt, Andre Martin, Catherine Sharp and Joselyn Walsh.

The allegation that he was made a scapegoat

DePodesta alleges that, after the prosecution failed, Boutros told senior officials in Washington that DePodesta had colluded with his sister-in-law Nancy DePodesta, a defence lawyer representing one of the protesters, to sabotage the case. DePodesta denies discussing the prosecution with her or interfering in charging decisions.

He says that allegation reached senior FBI officials and that he was ordered to resign, rather than choosing to retire voluntarily. His civil lawsuit seeks reinstatement, back pay and damages. It raises claims including defamation and alleged infringements of constitutional and employment rights.

In an interview with CBS Chicago, DePodesta described his resignation as involuntary and said he hoped the case would encourage other public officials to speak about pressure they had faced.

A separate judge is investigating the failed prosecution

The civil lawsuit is assigned to US District Judge Matthew Kennelly. Meanwhile, Judge Perry is examining the conduct of federal prosecutors in the earlier Broadview Six criminal case. These are separate proceedings, although they concern some of the same events and individuals.

On 2 November, Perry ordered Boutros and three prosecutors, William Hogan, Matthew Skiba and Andres Almendarez, to testify under oath on 16 November. She questioned statements about when Boutros became aware of problems in the grand jury proceedings, noting that he had been emailed a relevant transcript months earlier. Boutros has said he did not remember reading the transcript.

The inquiry also concerns whether Boutros’ office communicated with Justice Department leaders or others outside the office about investigative and charging decisions. The prosecution team had previously denied such communications; DePodesta’s complaint describes an October 2025 meeting attended by senior officials in which the case was allegedly discussed. The court has not determined whether that account is accurate.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward has challenged the court’s approach to obtaining material for its inquiry. The Justice Department was subsequently given until 2pm Chicago time on Monday 9 November to provide requested records. As of the preparation of this report, the deadline has not passed and we cannot say whether the records have been supplied.

One prosecutor, Hogan, has asked for the 16 November testimony to be delayed until 23 November, citing the need for legal preparation and the possibility that witnesses’ interests may differ. The original hearing date remained the reported date pending a confirmed ruling on that request.

What the Justice Department has said

The Justice Department told CBS Chicago that it does not comment on pending litigation and expects to refute the allegations in court. Boutros has previously rejected suggestions that political considerations dictate charging decisions in his office.

A judge’s decision to hold a hearing or question an explanation is not a finding that Boutros, Patel, Blanche or another official committed a criminal offence. Equally, the collapse of the Broadview Six case and the pending inquiry are matters of public record, not simply claims made by DePodesta.

What happens next

There are two developments to watch. In the civil lawsuit, the defendants will have an opportunity to respond formally to DePodesta’s claims. In the Broadview Six case, the court is seeking evidence and testimony about the grand jury proceedings and the accuracy of representations made to the judge.

The central question for both cases is how far federal prosecutors and FBI leaders can be shown to have acted on evidence and established procedure, rather than political pressure. The court filings may eventually help answer it, but the allegations themselves should not be mistaken for a verdict.