Topline
A federal grand jury declined to indict a Washington, D.C., resident charged with throwing a sandwich at a federal agent, multiple outlets reported Wednesday, the latest instance of residents blunting the effects of President Donald Trump’s military takeover by declining to endorse the government’s increased efforts to arrest people for minor infractions.
Members of the National Guard patrol Union Station on August 25 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images
Key Facts
A grand jury in Washington declined to indict Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department employee who was charged with assaulting a federal officer after he threw a “sub-style” sandwich at a federal immigration agent, The New York Times first reported.
The reported grand jury action came after the Trump administration previously failed three times to get a grand jury to bring charges against a Washington woman who was charged with assaulting an FBI agent, after the woman allegedly tried to forcibly stop immigration officials from taking two people into federal custody.
Prosecutors present evidence to grand juries in cases where a defendant faces felony charges, and the jurors then decide whether an indictment can be brought—with the Times noting it’s extremely rare for them to reject the request to indict.
The grand jury process is heavily biased in favor of prosecutors, who can present whatever evidence they want to the jury, so it’s notable to have grand juries routinely rejecting the government’s cases.
But it’s becoming more commonplace as Trump sends the military to Democratic-leaning cities: Grand juries also rejected indictments against protesters when the National Guard was deployed to Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Times reported in July, noting that out of the more than three dozen people who were targeted with federal charges, only seven were actually indicted.
The Trump administration’s failure to secure indictments come as U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has directed prosecutors to seek the harshest charges possible against people who are arrested in Washington—but prosecutors are now having to either reduce or drop charges altogether as they fail in court, the Times notes.
What To Watch For
It’s still possible the Trump administration could ask a grand jury a second time to approve an indictment against Dunn, the Times notes, though it’s unclear whether it intends to. Trump has suggested he wants to keep using the military in other Democratic-controlled cities, like Chicago and New York, suggesting similar trends with grand juries could be seen in other places going forward.
Chief Critic
Pirro, the former Fox News host who’s now overseeing prosecutions in Washington, D.C., has defended the government’s actions despite the repeated grand jury refusals. “The burden is on us to prove these cases, and we welcome that burden — beyond a reasonable doubt,” Pirro told reporters Tuesday. “Sometimes a jury will buy it and sometimes they won’t. So be it. That’s the way the process works.”
Big Number
Less than 1% of the time. That’s how often grand juries typically reject indictments, historical data suggests. In 2016, the most recent year that the Justice Department publicly specified its reasons for declining to bring prosecutions, federal data shows that out of 155,615 total offenses the government investigated, only six cases were dropped because prosecutors failed to get an indictment. (Numerous cases were dropped without being prosecuted for other reasons, like insufficient evidence or the case getting moved to a different jurisdiction.) The figures were similar in previous years, with only 19 out of 163,005 total offenses in 2015 getting dropped because of the grand jury’s refusal to prosecute, along with 14 out of 170,161 offenses in 2014 and five out of 196,969 in 2013.
Tangent
Judges have also been pushing back against the Trump administration’s efforts to ramp up arrests against Washington residents, The Washington Post reports, rebuking the government for bringing cases that traditionally either wouldn’t be prosecuted at all, or would be handled in local, rather than federal, court. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui has repeatedly condemned the Trump administration in multiple cases, the Post reports, saying law enforcement’s decision to search one man’s bag—where they found firearms—was “without a doubt, the most illegal search I’ve seen in my life.” In another case, in which federal agents tackled and detained a delivery person leaving a coffee shop, the judge commented, “This is not consistent with what I understand the United States of America to be.”
Key Background
Trump sent federal troops to Washington, D.C., earlier this month and temporarily took control of the city’s police department, part of a purported crackdown on crime in the Democratic-led city—despite statistics showing crime was already on the decline. The takeover is the second major incursion Trump has made into left-leaning cities, following his decision to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this year in response to protests against his hardline immigration agenda. Trump has deployed thousands of troops to Washington, with other GOP governors also sending their own National Guard forces to the capital city as well. He has said he intends to continue the takeover longer-term, suggesting he wants Congress to extend his control over the city’s police past the 30-day period he’s allowed under law.
Further Reading
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/08/27/how-dc-residents-are-pushing-back-against-trumps-military-takeover-in-court/
