DOJ Weaponization: Overview of Biden’s Campaign Against Pro-Life Groups and Individuals

For years, many Americans have suspected that the federal government was no longer applying the law evenly, especially when it came to deeply divisive cultural issues.

Now, the Department of Justice’s own report appears to confirm those concerns.

In a sweeping internal review, the DOJ examined hundreds of thousands of records, internal communications, and enforcement decisions tied specifically to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, commonly known as the FACE Act. According to the report, investigators reviewed approximately 700,000 documents as part of this effort.

What they say they found is deeply troubling.

The report concludes that under the Biden administration, the DOJ “weaponized the FACE Act in several key ways.”

This is not a claim made by outside critics. It is the conclusion of the DOJ’s own internal review.

A Law Meant to Protect, Allegedly Used to Target

The FACE Act was originally designed to protect access to reproductive health services, including abortion clinics, as well as places of worship. In theory, it is a neutral law, one that applies equally regardless of ideology.

But according to the DOJ’s findings, that neutrality did not hold.

Instead, the report alleges that enforcement during the Biden years became selective. Cases involving abortion clinics were prioritized, while attacks on pregnancy resource centers and churches were often minimized or ignored.

At the same time, the DOJ maintained regular contact with pro-abortion advocacy groups, while similar engagement with pro-life organizations was notably absent.

The result, according to the report, was not simply uneven enforcement, but a pattern.

Coordination and Monitoring of Pro-Life Activists

One of the most serious allegations in the report involves coordination between federal authorities and outside advocacy organizations.

According to the findings, pro-abortion groups provided information about pro-life activists, including their movements, protest activity, and identities. That information was allegedly retained and used over time by federal authorities before charges were brought.

If accurate, this raises significant concerns about the monitoring of Americans engaged in constitutionally protected activity.

It also introduces a troubling question. At what point does coordination become targeting?

Case Studies That Raise Red Flags

The report does not rely on generalities alone. It highlights specific prosecutions that, taken together, paint a broader picture.

In one case, evidence that was not provided to the defense was allegedly made available to abortion providers. In another, concerns were raised about potential bias against Christian defendants during jury selection. In yet another, a pro-life activist was arrested at his home in a highly visible federal operation, only to be acquitted by a jury.

Each case, on its own, might be explained away. But the report presents them as part of a consistent pattern.

A Stark Disparity in Sentencing

Perhaps the most quantifiable finding involves sentencing.

According to the report, federal prosecutors sought significantly longer prison sentences for pro-life defendants compared to pro-abortion defendants. The numbers cited show an average request of approximately 26.8 months for pro-life individuals versus 12.3 months for their counterparts.

Actual sentences followed a similar trend, with pro-life defendants receiving substantially longer prison terms on average.

Numbers do not tell the whole story, but they do reveal patterns that are difficult to ignore.

Beyond Prosecution: Questions of Alignment

The report also raises concerns that go beyond courtroom decisions.

It alleges that DOJ personnel may have assisted pro-abortion organizations in securing funding, including providing support or references for grant applications.

If true, this suggests a level of alignment between federal authorities and one side of a deeply contested national issue that goes well beyond enforcement.

What Changed—and Why This Matters Now

This review did not happen in a vacuum.

It followed a series of major developments, including presidential pardons issued on January 23, 2025, as well as new executive directives and internal DOJ guidance.

In response to the findings, the DOJ states that it has already begun limiting future FACE Act prosecutions to cases involving serious aggravating factors or extraordinary circumstances. Some existing cases have reportedly been dismissed, and internal disciplinary actions have been initiated, though details remain undisclosed.

The Beginning of a Larger Examination

This report is not the end of the story. It is the beginning.

If its findings are accurate, they raise fundamental questions about equal justice, the role of federal law enforcement, and the protection of First Amendment rights in America.

In the days ahead, we will examine the evidence in detail.

We will look closely at the cases highlighted in the report. We will analyze the data behind the sentencing disparities. And we will explore the broader question of whether federal power was used not just to enforce the law, but to shape the outcome of a national debate.

Because in a country built on equal justice under law, even the appearance of imbalance demands scrutiny.

And if that balance has truly been lost, the consequences reach far beyond any single case.

Next in the series:
DOJ Weaponization: The Double Standard in Prosecuting Pro-Life vs. Pro-Abortion Activists

AUTHOR

Martin Mawyer

Martin Mawyer is the founder of the Digital Intelligence Project and the President of Christian Action Network. He is the host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. For more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom, subscribe to Patriot Majority Report.

©2026 Majority Report. All rights reserved.

Please visit the Patriot Majority Report substack.