The former head of the FBI in Chicago has accused the Trump administration of pressuring him to investigate the president’s political opponents and making him a “scapegoat” after a major federal case against anti-ICE protesters fell apart.

Douglas DePodesta, who served as FBI special agent in charge from 2024 until July 2026, alleged in a federal lawsuit filed on Monday that the Department of Justice (DoJ) had engaged in “misconduct” and “malfeasance” in its pursuit of unjust prosecutions – and that he was wrongly blamed for the DoJ’s missteps and unlawfully forced out of his job.

The suit names Kash Patel, the FBI director; Todd Blanche, the attorney general; and Andrew Boutros, the US attorney who leads the DoJ’s Chicago office.

DePodesta’s complaint alleges that Boutros pursued “politically motivated prosecutions” of protesters that turned into an “unprecedented disaster” for the DoJ and accuses the US attorney of making “intentionally” false statements to a judge.

DePodesta’s lawsuit provides a rare first-hand account from a senior FBI official of the fallout from the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to criminally charge leftwing activists even when the charges are opposed by law enforcement officials.

During Operation Midway Blitz, ICE’s intense crackdown on Chicago last year, Boutros repeatedly pressured DePodesta to launch investigations that were “politically motivated”, the suit alleges.

On one occasion, Boutros was “openly hostile” when the FBI refused to write an affidavit saying a protester had “assaulted” an officer after the FBI reviewed video, which showed there was only “incidental touching as a result of the federal immigration agent’s tackling of the protester”, the complaint says.

“On other occasions, Boutros sent DePodesta emails demanding that DePodesta open FBI investigations into individuals with political views or affiliations in opposition to the Trump administration,” the complaint continues.

The suit centers on the spectacular collapse of the DoJ’s criminal case against six activists who were protesting against an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in the Broadview suburb of Chicago in September of 2025. The activists, who became known as the Broadview Six, were charged with conspiracy to impede an ICE officer, and the case dragged on for months before prosecutors were forced to dismiss the case after a series of missteps.

A grand jury initially rejected the charges presented by federal prosecutors, an extremely rare outcome as the standard of proof is low in those proceedings, with grand juries typically bringing the indictments sought by the DoJ. Even after grand jurors had expressed skepticism about the charges after reviewing footage, prosecutors went back to the grand jury to continue to pursue an indictment, with Boutros himself appearing in court to urge charges, DePodesta’s suit says.

Boutros had publicly suggested the charges were not based on political considerations, with his office saying he had not communicated with DoJ headquarters about the case, the lawsuit says. But DePodesta said those claims were false and that he himself had sat in on two meetings where Boutros discussed the Broadview Six with DoJ officials, including one meeting with Patel and Blanche.

DePodesta’s suit suggests the US attorney’s office in particular faced pressure from the Trump administration to bring charges against Kat Abughazaleh, an activist who then was running for Congress.

A judge later found that prosecutors had engaged in misconduct in the grand jury proceedings. Boutros told the court at the time that he was “completely unaware” of the problems, but DePodesta’s suit says the US attorney did know about the misconduct and that his remarks to the judge were “intentionally false”.

After the case fell apart, Boutros faced “public humiliation”, the suit says. “To deflect attention from his own malfeasance, Boutros began a campaign within the Department of Justice to blame DePodesta for the unraveling of the case.”

“Despite knowing that the case was dismissed because of improprieties by those under Boutros’s supervision, and Boutros himself,” the suit continues, “Boutros repeatedly complained to his superiors in Washington that DePodesta was responsible for the disintegration of the Broadview Six case.”

Boutros falsely accused DePodesta of conspiring with his sister-in-law, Nancy DePodesta, to destroy the case, according to the suit. Nancy DePodesta, a defense lawyer, represented one of the Broadview Six defendants.

DePodesta told his superiors he had not discussed the case with his sister-in-law, and senior FBI officials supported him, but were ultimately pressured to force DePodesta out of his position, the suit alleges.

DePodesta, who had been with the FBI since 2002, resigned in July. At the time, the FBI, in response to a post about his departure, wrote on X.com: “Anyone who is not on board with THIS FBI under the leadership of President Trump … is free to leave.” That post, the lawsuit alleges, was a “false and defamatory explanation of his removal”.

The suit alleges defamation and violations of due process and free speech rights.

DePodesta’s attorneys did not immediately respond to inquiries.

In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, DePodesta said: “The American people need to know what is happening within their government … I will not let fear silence me.”

Spokespeople for the DoJ, Boutros and the FBI did not respond to inquiries.

Trump-appointed DoJ leaders across the US have faced scrutiny for pursuing weak cases that align with the president’s agenda and ultimately end in failure. Boutros’s lawsuit notes that only around 6% of cases brought by Boutros against anti-ICE protesters during Operation Midway Blitz have resulted in a finding of guilt – “an unprecedented failure rate” for his office.