Trump Administration DOJ Scrutiny on Mayor Brandon Johnson and Rep. McIver Sparks Outcry Over Racial, Political Targeting

In a move drawing sharp criticism from civil rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers, the U.S. Department of Justice under the Trump administration has launched a series of legal actions against Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Rep. Lamonica McIver (D-NJ). This action has ignited accusations that federal prosecutors are weaponizing civil rights laws and federal authority. The accusation suggests they target Black elected officials in Democratic strongholds.

The highest-profile target is Mayor Johnson, whose administration is being sued for allegedly violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The DOJ claims there is racially preferential hiring. The lawsuit stems, in part, from a speech Johnson gave at a Black church on Chicago’s South Side. In that speech, he touted his administration as one of the most diverse in city history. “Our administration is 45% Black, 25% Latino, 8% Asian, and 30% white,” he stated. According to DOJ filings, that declaration amounts to an admission of race-based hiring.

The legal action marks the third federal probe into Johnson’s administration this year. Previous DOJ challenges have targeted Chicago’s sanctuary city policies—prohibiting police cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. There is also an ongoing civil rights investigation into the Chicago Public Schools regarding alleged antisemitism. At stake, city officials say, is more than $3.5 billion in annual federal grants.

“This is a coordinated attack on efforts to ensure equitable representation in government,” said Rev. Michael Abrams, a longtime Chicago activist and advisor to the Johnson administration. “They’re sending a message: if you hire too many Black people, we will come after you.”

The Justice Department has not responded publicly to accusations of racially or politically motivated enforcement. However, legal experts note that civil rights law prohibits hiring based solely on race, even with the intent of promoting diversity. They add that enforcement is rare and typically pursued only when there are clear, systemic patterns of exclusion or reverse discrimination proven.

“This case is extraordinary in both its timing and tone,” said Vanessa Jordan, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University. “Announcing it following a public speech in a church—where politicians regularly tout their record to constituents—adds a political dimension that DOJ usually avoids.”

DOJ Also Targets New Jersey Congresswoman

In a parallel controversy, the Trump administration’s interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Alina Habba—better known as a former personal attorney to Trump—has filed misdemeanor trespassing charges against Rep. Lamonica McIver. The charge stems from McIver’s unannounced visit to a federal immigrant detention facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey, earlier this month.

McIver, who serves on the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, argues that her visit was not only legal but essential to her role in monitoring federal spending and detention conditions. Under the law, members of Congress are granted broad authority to enter federal facilities without prior notice.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) issued a scathing statement Sunday: “The proceeding initiated by the so-called U.S. Attorney in New Jersey is a blatant attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate Congress and interfere with our constitutional obligation. This is intended to provide checks and balances on an out-of-control executive branch. House Democrats will not be intimidated.”

The prosecution has prompted calls for an investigation into DOJ independence. Congressional aides told The Wall Street Journal that several Democratic leaders are requesting a formal inquiry. This inquiry is to determine whether political loyalty played a role in Habba’s appointment and charging decisions.

Critics argue that the actions reflect a broader shift under Trump’s second-term Justice Department. Since retaking office, President Trump has openly vowed to “restore law and order” and “clean up radical Democratic cities.” This rhetoric is perceived by some as code for targeting progressive leaders of color.

“This is about criminalizing governance that doesn’t look like them,” said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), responding to the Chicago and New Jersey cases. “It’s part of a strategy to undermine Black political power.”

Still, supporters of the administration counter that the law must be enforced equally, regardless of race or party affiliation. “No one is above the law,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO). “If you hire based on race, that’s discrimination. If you trespass, that’s a crime. Period.”

As the lawsuits play out in federal court, the political fallout may only deepen. With more than $3 billion in funding for Chicago potentially at risk, and McIver facing a criminal trial during a contentious election year, many Democrats are framing the DOJ’s moves as a constitutional crisis in the making.

“This isn’t just about two individuals,” said Prof. Jordan. “It’s about whether the Justice Department is serving justice—or political vengeance.”