CHICAGO — Lawyers in the politically charged “Broadview Six” conspiracy case filed a motion Friday demanding any communications from top Trump administration officials — including White House chief of staff Susie Wiles — that could show an effort to influence the bringing of charges in Chicago.

The explosive filing alleges the Trump administration “has a demonstrated track record of using indictments as a way to silence its critics” and that the president himself has “repeatedly and openly taken steps to improper(ly) bend the Department of Justice toward his personal and political interests.”

Included in the filing was a recent photo of the Department of Justice headquarters in Washington D.C., where a large banner depicting Trump was unfurled on the side of the building with the words, “Make America Safe Again.”

The motion seeks “all communications” between law enforcement and government personnel, “including White House staff and specifically White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles,” related to the defendants, as well as “any public comments and criticisms any of the defendants made about the Broadview Facility or the government’s immigration enforcement activities in Chicago.”

The defense also wants any communications between Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros and “any other individuals” regarding the presentment of the case for charges.

The “Broadview Six” indictment is the last high-profile federal criminal case to stem from Operation Midway Blitz and has been a particularly thorny one for the U.S. attorney’s office, which as so far failed to secure a single conviction against protesters and others accused of assaulting or threatening agents.

The 26-page motion, filed by lawyers for the four remaining defendants in the case, pointed specifically to the reactions of Trump officials to Katherine “Kat” Abughazaleh, an outspoken opponent of the administration’s aggressive immigration policies and a Democratic candidate for Congress.

After Abughazaleh posted “disturbing” video of a confrontation in September where an immigration agent allegedly slammed her to the ground, the White House Press Office issued a statement featuring the video, saying, “Obstructing law enforcement (which is what you just posted a video of yourself doing) isn’t a First Amendment right. It’s a crime,” the motion stated.

The filing stated the incident also caught the attention of far-right internet personality Laura Loomer, a close Trump ally and influential voice in the White House, who “similarly praised the agent for body slamming Ms. Abughazaleh directly.”

Weeks later, Abughazaleh talked in a television interview about alleged abuses going on outside the Broadview ICE facility on a day where then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino, the head of the Midway Blitz operation, were present. Abughazaleh said in the interview both Noem and Bovino should be “tried at the Hague” for “crimes against humanity.”

Tricia McLaughlin, who at the time was Noem’s “key mouthpiece,” responded to the interview hours later on Fox News, where she “personally attacked” Abughazaleh as “dishonest, desperate and demonizing law enforcement to try to get 5 minutes on MSNBC and some fundraising cash,” the defense motion stated.

The motion called for an “examination of the charging decisions in this case to ensure they were not made for improper purposes directed by the White House or associates of the Trump Administration.”

“Put simply, the defendants, the Court, and the public deserve an answer as to whether this prosecution was brought for unconstitutional retaliatory and/or selective reasons,” the motion stated.

The filing came shortly after U.S. District Judge April Perry granted a request from the U.S. attorney’s office to dismiss charges against two of the six defendants — Catherine Sharp, a onetime candidate for Cook County Board, and Joselyn Walsh, a part-time garden store worker and singer — “in the interests of justice.”

Defense attorneys had held behind-the-scenes discussions with prosecutors and made a case to have the indictment dismissed against all six defendants, sources told the Tribune. Instead, prosecutors chose to dismiss only Sharp and Walsh, the two defendants who were not shown on any available video footage from the incident even touching the agents car, the sources said.

“As the United States Attorney’s Office does in every case, the government has continued to evaluate new facts, evidence and information to ensure that the interests of justice are served,” Assistant U.S. Attorneys William Hogan and Matthew Skiba wrote in their Thursday motion to dismiss the counts.

The counts against Sharp and Walsh were dismissed “with prejudice,” meaning they cannot be refiled.

After Friday’s dismissal of charges, four other defendants remain: Abughazaleh, a candidate in the March 17 Democratic primary for the 9th Congressional District seat; Andre Martin, originally of Providence, Rhode Island, who is Abughazaleh’s deputy campaign manager; 45th Ward Democratic Committeeman Michael Rabbitt; and Oak Park Trustee Brian Straw.

A jury trial is scheduled to begin May 26.

According to the 11-page indictment, the group surrounded an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement vehicle outside the Broadview facility during a Sept. 26 protest and “banged aggressively” on the vehicle’s side and back windows, hood and doors before they “crowded together in the front and side of the Government Vehicle and pushed against the vehicle to hinder and impede its movement.”

Prosecutors allege the protesters scratched the vehicle’s body, broke a side mirror and a rear windshield wiper, and etched the word “PIG” into the paint.

The indictment includes the conspiracy count, which carries a maximum sentence of six years in federal prison, as well as several other counts of forcibly impeding a federal officer, each punishable by up to one year in federal prison.

Shortly after the defense motion to compel was filed Friday, prosecutors notified the court they were reducing the scope of the charged conspiracy among the remaining defendants, redacting a clause that had alleged they tried to “injure” the agent.

Instead, prosecutors will attempt to prove only that the defendants used “force and intimidation” against the agent to “hinder, and impede him in the discharge of his official duties.”

Attorney Christopher Parente, who represents Straw, said Friday afternoon that prosecutors do “not appear to understand their own case.”

“The government continues to pursue a reckless, build-the-plane-as-you-attempt-to-fly-it approach to a case that has profound implications on the First Amendment,” Parente said in a statement.

____

©2026 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.