A chilling assault on free speech

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

In a disturbing escalation of federal overreach, the Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ), under Attorney General Merrick Garland, has been accused of targeting parents who dared to speak out at school board meetings. The narrative peddled by the administration—that these parents posed a violent threat tantamount to “domestic terrorism” – their words – has unraveled under scrutiny, revealing a calculated effort to silence dissent and intimidate many more concerned citizens. A recent Breitbart article, alongside congressional investigations led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), exposes a troubling pattern of federal agencies under Biden, including Merrick Garland’s DoJ and the FBI, colluding with local school boards and law enforcement to suppress free speech under the guise of public safety.

The saga earnestly began in the spring of 2021, when parents, wincing mainly from some of the more draconian mandates by their school boards regarding their COVID policies, appeared at their local school board meetings to voice their disagreement and concerns. Then, in September 2021, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) sent a letter to President Joe Biden, comparing parents’ protesting restrictive policies and some of the less traditional teachings at school board meetings to “domestic terrorism.” The letter, which the NSBA later retracted, cited concerns over COVID-19 policies, Critical Race theory, and transgender issues as fueling a supposed spike in threats. Within days, on October 4, 2021, Garland issued a memo directing the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to collaborate with local law enforcement to address this “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” against school officials. The speed of this response raised eyebrows at the time, but unfortunately, the wheels of the attack against parents were already set in motion.

More recently, emails uncovered by America First Legal, a conservative watchdog group, revealed the DOJ was seeking a “federal hook” to justify investigating and potentially criminally
charging parents for their activism.

Garland’s memo sparked immediate backlash, with critics arguing it was designed to chill free speech. During congressional testimony in October 2021, Garland insisted his directive targeted only “violence and threats of violence,” not parents exercising their First Amendment rights. He stated, “I can’t imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism.” Yet, evidence uncovered by whistleblowers and detailed in a House Judiciary Committee report led by Jim Jordan paints a starkly different picture.

Jordan’s interim report, released in March 2023, found “no legitimate basis” for Garland’s directive, asserting that the Biden administration “misused federal law-enforcement and counterterrorism resources for political purposes.” The report revealed that the FBI opened 25 “Guardian assessments” related to school board threats, but only one warranted a full investigation, with the rest referred to state and local authorities. Critically, the report concluded there was no evidence of a “legitimate nationwide basis” for federal intervention, as local law enforcement reported no significant rise in threats against school boards. This directly contradicts Garland’s claim that his memo was a response to a surge in violent threats, suggesting instead a deliberate effort to intimidate parents into silence.

Real-world examples underscore the chilling effect of this policy. In one case, the FBI interviewed a father who opposed mask mandates, based on a tip that he “fit the profile of an insurrectionist” and owned guns—claims the complainant later admitted lacked any evidence of crimes or threats. In another instance, a mother affiliated with Moms for Liberty was reported to the FBI for allegedly telling a school board member, “We are coming for you.” The investigation found no credible threat, yet the FBI applied a “threat tag” (EDUOFFICIALS) to track her, a tactic created by the agency’s Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions to monitor school board-related cases. These tags, intended to track trends, were applied to dozens of parents, raising alarms about the misuse of counterterrorism tools against citizens advocating for their children’s education.

The Breitbart article published on July 20, 2025, amplifies these concerns, reporting that newly released documents show the Biden White House and DOJ coordinated to “chill local parents’ school board protests.” The article highlights emails indicating the DOJ sought a legal pretext to target parents, despite internal acknowledgment that most of their actions were protected by the First Amendment. One DOJ attorney noted, “almost all of the language being used is protected by the First Amendment,” yet the agency pressed forward with its directive. This coordination, coupled with the NSBA’s retracted letter, suggests a concerted effort to paint parents as threats to justify federal intervention, silencing, and intimidation of other parents from engaging.

The implications are profound. Parents, many of whom were simply voicing concerns about curricula or policies they believed harmed their children, found themselves under FBI scrutiny. The House Judiciary Committee’s findings, bolstered by whistleblower disclosures, indicate that the Biden administration colluded with the NSBA to manufacture a crisis, ostensibly to punish parents who dared challenge the school and/or the Biden administration’s policies. Emails show the White House had advance knowledge of the NSBA’s letter, and the DOJ shared a draft of Garland’s memo with the group before its release. This coordination undermines Garland’s claims of independence and fuels suspicions of political motivations.

Critics, including Jordan, argue this was a deliberate attempt to suppress conservative voices. “This is about intimidation. This is about chilling free speech,” Jordan said during a 2022 hearing. The lack of evidence for widespread violence at school board meetings—coupled with the FBI’s aggressive response—suggests a broader agenda to deter parental activism. The NSBA’s own review found no evidence that the Biden administration requested the letter, but the timing and coordination raise questions about the administration’s role.

As the evidence mounts, the Biden administration’s actions appear less about protecting school officials and more about weaponizing federal power against dissenting parents. The House Judiciary Committee continues to demand transparency, with Jordan issuing subpoenas to Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and others for related documents. The absence of federal prosecutions from these investigations further undermines the Garland DOJ’s narrative of a national threat, suggesting the DOJ’s actions were more about political posturing than public safety.

Setting aside motive for a moment, consider the plight of the unfortunate parents who, advocating only for the mental and physical well-being of their children, ended up in the Garland DOJ crosshairs and had the weight of the FBI and local law enforcement descend upon them. Parents Demanding Justice Alliance has assembled a dossier documenting over forty of these cases, and in many, lives were destroyed by the punitive actions of local school board officials. Some were simply banned from school property, an egregious violation in its own right, but others had their livelihoods threatened by strategically-placed phone calls, bogus arrests, or simply verbally, from opposing activists. Many were fined for concocted charges or ordered to issue their own apologies (for disagreeing). Despite exculpatory evidence, the punitive nature of the Garland-encouraged, FBI-condoned aggression against these parents is difficult to excise. Their harms are ongoing.

Parents have a fundamental right to advocate for their children’s education without fear of federal retaliation. Not only that, but parental involvement is the number one predictor of students’ academic success. It is imperative for the welfare of the children to include the parents in every conversation about their children’s education. An administration that puts that dialogue at risk is not seeking the best academic outcome for the students.

The Biden administration’s misuse of the DOJ and FBI to target these parents not only violates their First Amendment rights but also erodes trust in our institutions. As Jordan’s report and Breitbart’s July 20th revelations make clear, this was a dangerous overreach that demands accountability. The American people deserve answers, and those responsible must be held to account before this precedent emboldens further assaults on free speech.

Latest posts by Sam Sorbo (see all)

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.