Internal Emails Reveal DOJ Coordination With White House Before School Board Protest Crackdown

A new batch of internal emails from the Department of Justice (DOJ), released by the conservative legal watchdog America First Legal, reveals early coordination between top DOJ officials and the White House in the lead-up to a controversial 2021 directive targeting protests at school board meetings.

The emails offer previously undisclosed insight into how the Biden administration responded to a letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) that characterized some parent-led protests over school policies as potentially rising to the level of “domestic terrorism.” The NSBA’s letter, sent on September 29, 2021, called on the federal government to take action against what it described as escalating threats and intimidation against school officials — in connection to disputes over COVID-19 mandates, critical race theory, and gender policies.

Although the NSBA eventually retracted and apologized for the language in the letter, its impact was swift. Within five days, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum instructing the FBI to work with local law enforcement to investigate what the DOJ described as a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” against educators and school board members.

Newly Released Emails Reveal Earlier White House Contact

Among the emails obtained by America First Legal is a message dated October 1, 2021, from Kevin Chambers, a senior aide to the deputy attorney general, who wrote to a colleague: “We’re aware; the challenge here is finding a federal hook. But WH [White House] has been in touch about whether we can assist in some form or fashion.”

This email predates the official DOJ directive and suggests that discussions about federal involvement were underway before Garland’s public response. That timeline contradicts previous testimony in which Garland stated under oath that his memo was issued in response to the NSBA’s letter.

Internal communications also indicate there was dissent within the DOJ. One DOJ attorney, in an October 3, 2021 email, expressed skepticism about the NSBA’s claims, writing: “I read the letter from NSBA and looked at the links for a handful of footnotes, and it appears to me that the vast, vast majority of the behavior cited cannot be reached by federal law.” The attorney went on to note that most of the conduct described in the NSBA letter appeared to be protected under the First Amendment and better handled by local authorities.

“There’s nothing remotely federal about most of this,” the same attorney added, raising concerns internally about the appropriateness of DOJ involvement.

Sparkle Sooknanan’s Role and Later Appointment

The emails also reveal that Sparkle Sooknanan, then a DOJ official, initiated internal discussions about the NSBA letter. On October 2, 2021, she sent what was described as a “quick-turn request” to colleagues, asking if the Civil Rights Division had any legal authority that could be used in response.

Sooknanan has since been appointed as a federal judge by President Biden.

Criticism and Accusations of Political Targeting

The fallout from the DOJ’s involvement in school board-related protests has been ongoing. Critics, particularly among Republican lawmakers and conservative legal groups, have accused the Biden administration of attempting to intimidate parents and suppress public dissent against controversial school policies. Many argue the use of federal law enforcement in this context marked an unprecedented and politically charged move.

Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal and a former DOJ official, said the documents “show a clear pattern of coordination between political operatives and law enforcement in an effort to suppress protected speech.”

“They tried to create a pretext to label parents as domestic threats simply for speaking up,” Hamilton said. “It’s a serious violation of constitutional rights and public trust.”

Concerns Over DOJ Independence

The email revelations have also renewed concern about the blurred lines between the executive branch and the Department of Justice. Traditionally, the DOJ has operated with a degree of independence to avoid perceptions of political influence.

A former DOJ employee with nearly two decades of service told CBS News, “There used to be a line — a clear boundary — between the White House and the DOJ. That line is gone.”

Legal experts warn that even the appearance of political coordination can damage the public’s perception of impartial justice. “When the DOJ is seen as working hand-in-glove with the White House on politically sensitive matters, it undermines confidence in its ability to enforce the law fairly,” said one former U.S. attorney who reviewed the emails.

What Comes Next

America First Legal has pledged to continue pursuing internal records related to the DOJ’s actions surrounding the NSBA letter and school board protests. The group argues that further disclosures are necessary to fully understand the scope of what it sees as the “weaponization” of federal law enforcement against concerned citizens.

While no legal action has been taken against the officials involved, pressure is mounting from lawmakers who are calling for oversight hearings and additional investigations.

As the political landscape shifts heading into the 2026 midterms, the debate over DOJ independence, public protest rights, and the federal government’s role in local education remains far from over.