The Department of Justice has again found itself at the center of a media storm. On Tuesday, a filing submitted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia accused several news outlets—CNN, MSNBC, and Politico—of disseminating “verifiable falsehoods” about national security and of exposing classified material. The document listed Michael Velchik as the department’s senior counsel overseeing the case, a detail that quickly ignited a secondary controversy tied to his past remarks about Adolf Hitler.
Velchik’s extremist remarks clash with a press-freedom battle
Investigative reporting from earlier this year revealed that, while studying at Harvard, Velchik allegedly expressed admiration for Hitler, even describing Mein Kampf as his favorite book. He reportedly praised the Nazi leader for recognizing the power of propaganda and for attempting to eradicate an independent press. Those statements resurfaced on social media shortly after the DOJ’s filing, prompting critics to question whether a lawyer who once glorified a regime that silenced journalists should be tasked with restricting contemporary media coverage.
The lawsuit’s language targeted three outlets for allegedly “trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information.” Ironically, one of the cited examples involved a story that framed the Republican mid-term convention as possessing “bad vibes”—a characterization that appeared more subjective than a breach of any security protocol.
Social media backlash from a former DOJ official
Liz Oyer, a former DOJ pardon attorney dismissed by the Trump administration in March 2025, amplified the controversy on her Instagram platform, where she commands nearly one million followers. In a post dated Monday, Oyer labeled Velchik’s filing “lunacy from a legal perspective” and highlighted the disquieting link between his historical admiration for Hitler and his present role defending a case that could curb press access.
Oyer reminded followers that Hitler systematically dismantled a free press in Germany, substituting it with state-run media that served only the regime’s agenda. She quoted Velchik’s alleged comments: he supposedly complained about being required to read books authored by women during his Harvard years and expressed a reverence for Hitler’s understanding of propaganda. “It is quite terrifying that this is the person now representing the Justice Department as senior counsel in litigation against the press,” Oyer wrote, emphasizing the potential conflict between Velchik’s past worldview and the constitutional principle of a free press.
Former DOJ chief of staff takes on think-tank litigation chair
In a separate development that underscores the revolving door between government and policy institutions, a Washington, D.C., think tank announced the appointment of a former Chief of Staff from the Trump-era Justice Department as its new litigation chair. The individual, whose identity was not disclosed in the brief notice, previously oversaw senior legal operations within the department and is expected to steer the think tank’s courtroom strategy and policy research.
The think tank, known for its focus on administrative law and regulatory reform, described the appointment as a “strategic addition” that brings insider experience to its advocacy work. While the announcement did not reference Velchik’s controversy, the timing has drawn attention from observers who see a pattern of former DOJ officials moving into influential policy-shaping roles after departing government service.
Both stories illuminate a broader narrative about the intersection of legal expertise, partisan affiliation, and the safeguarding of democratic institutions. As the press-access case proceeds, watchdog groups and media organizations are likely to monitor the proceedings closely, especially given the backdrop of Velchik’s extremist remarks. Simultaneously, the think tank’s new litigation leadership may influence future debates over the balance between governmental authority and civil liberties.
Neither the Department of Justice nor Michael Velchik have responded to requests for comment at the time of publishing.
