Press Releases

WASHINGTON, October 13, 2021 — House Judiciary Committee Republicans sent a letter today to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland requesting an ethics inquiry and public report concerning his controversial Department of Justice memo dated October 4, 2021.

The lawmakers note that the memo—which directs the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Attorneys to mobilize against parents who protest curricula and mask mandates in local school boards—appears to have been motivated in part by the financial interests of Garland’s family members. Garland’s son-in-law is reportedly a co-founder and owner of a company that promotes far-left curriculum materials which are the subject of many parent protests.

“As our nation’s top law enforcement official, your most fundamental responsibility is to uphold the standards of equal justice under the law and to protect the constitutional rights and liberties of all Americans,” the letter reads. “The circumstances around the issues of your memorandum jeopardize these standards and call into question the propriety of your actions. More fundamentally, your directive to insert the might of the federal government into legitimate debates about local education policies shows a serious misunderstanding of the duties of your office.”

The letter concludes: “We request you promptly consult with the designated agency ethics official to determine if your actions in this matter have resulted in an ethics violation for a breach of impartiality. The results of this inquiry must be made public and reported to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary in order to protect the integrity of the office of Attorney General. Furthermore, depending on the result, your recusal from this issue may be warranted, and the rescission of the memorandum required.”

The letter was signed by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan (OH-04) and committee members Rep. Mike Johnson (LA-04), Rep. Steve Chabot (OH-01), Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01), Rep. Darrell Issa (CA-50), Rep. Ken Buck (CO-04), Rep. Matt Gaetz (FL-01), Rep. Andy Biggs (AZ-05), Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-04), Rep. Greg Steube (FL-17), Rep. Tom Tiffany (WI-07), Rep. Thomas Massie (KY-04), Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21), Rep. Dan Bishop (NC-09), Rep. Michelle Fischbach (MN-07), Victoria Spartz (IN-05), Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05), Cliff Bentz (OR-02), and Burgess Owens (UT-04).

Read the full letter here or below:

Dear Attorney General Garland:

This letter is to express our serious concerns about your recent decision to involve federal law enforcement entities in local school board debates and to stifle First Amendment-protected political speech. Your actions are not just inappropriate, but also appear to have been improperly influenced by politics and by your family’s interest in the matter. As members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, we have a responsibility to conduct oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and we trust that you will fully cooperate with our inquiry.

On October 4, 2021, you issued a memorandum directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Attorneys’ offices to strategize with state and local leaders in response to perceived threats against public school officials.  Local law enforcement should properly address and prevent legitimate threats and any actual violence against school board officials. But there is little—if any—basis to interject the immense powers of the federal government into these local matters. Your directive to do so will only serve to discourage parents from voicing concerns or disagreement about the important issues of education policy in their communities.

Your memorandum appears to be motivated by politics more than by any pressing federal law enforcement need. You issued your directive just days after President Biden received a letter from the National School Board Association (NSBA) that equated concerned parents with domestic terrorists and perpetrators of hate crimes.  This letter referred to what are legitimate parental concerns about far-left curricula such as Critical Race Theory, radical gender identity ideology, and oppressive coronavirus-related mandates in their local schools.  The NSBA urged “the federal government’s intervention against individuals or hate groups who are targeting our schools and educators.” 

Even more concerning is the appearance that a member of your family has a financial stake in local school boards adopting a far-left educational curriculum. Reports allege that your son-in-law is the co-founder of Panorama Education, Inc., a company that publishes and sells Critical Race Theory and “anti-racism” materials and works with school districts nationwide to obtain and analyze data on students.  The company’s surveys reportedly include intrusive questions such as whether a student feels “gender fluid.”  To avoid student privacy laws and collect student data without parental consent, Panorama Education staff members are classified as “school officials.”  The company has reportedly surveyed more than 13 million students in 21,000 schools in all 50 states to date  and has received funding from liberal activists such as Mark Zuckerberg. 

Your actions appear to run afoul of relevant rules of federal ethics. According to the Code of Federal Regulations, an employee of the Executive Branch is discouraged from engaging in conduct that is likely to affect the financial interests of “a person with whom he has a covered relationship.”  A covered relationship includes “a relative with whom the employee has a close personal relationship.”  You and your daughter and son-in-law may meet this criterion, and it is unclear whether you consulted with the Department’s designated agency ethics official on this matter prior to issuing your memorandum. 

As our nation’s top law enforcement official, your most fundamental responsibility is to uphold the standards of equal justice under the law and to protect the constitutional rights and liberties of all Americans. The circumstances around the issues of your memorandum jeopardize these standards and call into question the propriety of your actions. More fundamentally, your directive to insert the might of the federal government into legitimate debates about local education policies shows a serious misunderstanding of the duties of your office.

Thus, we request you promptly consult with the designated agency ethics official to determine if your actions in this matter have resulted in an ethics violation for a breach of impartiality. The results of this inquiry must be made public and reported to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary in order to protect the integrity of the office of Attorney General. Furthermore, depending on the result, your recusal from this issue may be warranted, and the rescission of the memorandum required.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.  We await your response.

###