The Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently investigating the actions of two officials from the Trump administration, Ed Martin, the U.S. Pardon Attorney, and Bill Pulte, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. This inquiry focuses on allegations that these officials may have interfered with ongoing criminal investigations involving political opponents of former President Donald Trump, specifically Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Sources indicate that Martin and Pulte may have engaged individuals outside the DOJ to investigate claims of mortgage fraud while these investigations were active. A witness in the Schiff investigation has reportedly received a grand jury subpoena for communications with Martin and Pulte. Allegations suggest that Martin may have shared sensitive grand jury information with unauthorized individuals and collaborated with external parties to gather evidence related to the Schiff and James cases.

Concerns have been raised by senior officials within the Trump administration regarding the potential misconduct of Martin and Pulte, which could undermine the integrity of the investigations. Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Martin as a special attorney for mortgage fraud, but his actions, which appear to bypass established DOJ protocols, have prompted calls for a thorough review of his conduct.

The investigations into Schiff and James have been characterized by some as politically motivated, with both individuals denying any wrongdoing. Schiff's legal team has described the inquiry as lacking evidence and driven by political bias. James has publicly stated that the justice system is being weaponized for retribution against political adversaries.

These investigations raise broader implications about the use of state power against political opponents, questioning the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process under the Trump administration. The DOJ has not publicly commented on the specifics of the Schiff investigation, but sources indicate that prosecutors are facing challenges in building a viable case, partly due to the expiration of the statute of limitations on the alleged mortgage fraud.

In a separate but related development, the DOJ has initiated a lawsuit against California Governor Gavin Newsom regarding a state law that allows undocumented immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition rates at California public colleges and universities. Filed in the Eastern District of California, the lawsuit asserts that this law results in U.S. citizens from out of state facing higher tuition costs than those unlawfully residing in the country. The DOJ's legal representatives characterized this situation as 'unequal treatment' that contradicts federal law, which prohibits providing tuition benefits to individuals unlawfully present in the U.S. that are not also available to U.S. citizens.

This lawsuit is part of a broader pattern, as the DOJ has pursued similar legal actions in other states, including Minnesota. In Minnesota, the case has been temporarily suspended due to a government shutdown, with the state's Attorney General, Keith Ellison, arguing for its dismissal. Ellison contends that the DOJ's interpretation of federal law is incorrect and that U.S. citizens do have access to the same educational benefits as undocumented immigrants.

Governor Newsom, a prominent figure within the Democratic Party, faces these legal challenges amid speculation about his potential candidacy for the 2028 presidential election. The ongoing disputes reflect the contentious nature of immigration and education policy in the United States, highlighting the complexities of equity and access in higher education.