A longtime Justice Department (DOJ) official has filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Pamela Bondi and the U.S. government, claiming he was illegally terminated following a hidden-camera “honeypot” sting orchestrated by conservative operative James O’Keefe.
The official, Joseph Schnitt, served for over two decades at DOJ, most recently as acting deputy chief of the Special Operations Unit, overseeing the Federal Witness Security Program. His lawsuit contends that he was removed without due process after a secretly recorded Hinge date captured private comments he made during what he believed was a personal meeting.
Background of the Honeypot Sting
According to court filings, the sting was conducted by an undercover operative affiliated with O’Keefe Media Group, using the alias “Skylar” to elicit information from Schnitt. The operative reportedly sought Schnitt’s perspective on the Jeffrey Epstein files, which had been dominating news headlines.
The video later released by O’Keefe suggested Schnitt disclosed insider knowledge about DOJ plans to redact certain political names from the files—specifically, allegedly favoring Republican or conservative individuals over Democrats. Schnitt denies these claims, insisting he only offered opinions based on publicly available information and had no official knowledge.
The operative was later identified as Dominique Phillips, previously associated with Turning Point USA, according to the complaint.
Termination and DOJ Response
On September 5, 2025, Bondi personally terminated Schnitt via a one-page memo citing Article II authority. The memo described Schnitt’s date-night remarks as “publicly inappropriate” and “detrimental to the interests of the Department.”
Following the release of the sting video, the DOJ posted an internal explanation of Schnitt’s comments on X (formerly Twitter), later issuing a public apology to distance the department from him. Schnitt’s legal team argues that this action violated multiple rights and laws, including:
- First Amendment – free speech protections
- Fifth Amendment – due process
- Administrative Procedure Act
- Privacy Act – unlawful access and publication of internal records
Schnitt’s attorney, Mark Zaid, emphasized that Schnitt’s remarks were made in a private setting outside of work hours, constituting protected speech on a matter of public concern.
“Had he possessed any information about the topic through his official duties, he never would have said anything,” Zaid wrote. “Like most people in the United States, it was a topic he was familiar with and seemingly normal to discuss.”
Lawsuit Demands and Legal Claims
Schnitt’s lawsuit seeks:
- Reinstatement to his DOJ position
- Back pay for lost wages
- Damages for wrongful termination
- A court-ordered name-clearing hearing
The lawsuit frames the termination as part of a broader pattern of politically motivated firings under Attorney General Bondi and former President Donald Trump, who have dismissed multiple federal staff since January 2025.
The DOJ, O’Keefe Media Group, and Turning Point USA have declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.
Context and Broader Implications
This case underscores rising concerns about political influence, privacy, and whistleblower protections within federal agencies. Legal experts suggest the lawsuit could set a precedent regarding employee rights under First and Fifth Amendment protections, particularly when private communications are secretly recorded and used for disciplinary action.
As the lawsuit proceeds, courts will determine whether the DOJ’s actions violated constitutional protections and federal statutes governing employee privacy and procedural fairness.
Conclusion
The lawsuit by Joseph Schnitt against Pam Bondi and the DOJ highlights a clash between federal employee rights and political maneuvers. With demands for reinstatement, back pay, and a formal hearing, the case is poised to attract national attention and may influence future policy on undercover operations, employee privacy, and whistleblower protections.
Leave a Reply