Attorney General Pam Bondi recently terminated Elizabeth Baxter, a Department of Justice paralegal, following a series of incidents in which she showed repeated disrespect toward National Guard members deployed in Washington, D.C. Baxter worked in the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. Bondi cited “inappropriate conduct” as the basis for her dismissal, underscoring a broader insistence on enforcing professional behavior among federal employees.

The incidents in question took place over a short span in August. On August 18, Baxter arrived at the DOJ’s “4CON” building in the NoMa district and reportedly told a security guard that she had just made a rude gesture to a National Guard member at Metro Center, saying “F— the National Guard.” Later that day, surveillance footage allegedly captured her raising her middle finger at the Guardsmen at the building entrance while shouting, “F— you!”

The behavior reportedly continued. On August 25, Baxter is said to have again approached a security guard at work and expressed her hatred for the National Guard, telling them to “F— off.” Multiple witnesses and video records apparently corroborated these events. An internal investigation that included these elements led Bondi to fire Baxter immediately.

Baxter’s termination came soon after Sean Charles Dunn, another DOJ paralegal, was fired earlier in August for a separate but related incident. Dunn allegedly threw a Subway sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer, shouting insults at law enforcement.  Bondi framed both dismissals as part of a “zero-tolerance” policy: in her words, “If you oppose our mission and disrespect law enforcement — you will NO LONGER work at DOJ.”

From a procedural standpoint, Baxter’s removal was formalized in a written memo. The termination letter stated she was removed from her GS-0950-11 position “effective immediately.” DOJ spokespersons defended the move publicly. Gates McGavick, for instance, restated on X (formerly Twitter) that employees who do not support law enforcement are not a good fit for Bondi’s DOJ.

These firings highlight a tension at the DOJ under Bondi’s leadership between individual expression (including ideological or political dissent) and the professional conduct expected of public servants—especially when that conduct involves members of the security services. Critics argue that such actions may suppress dissent in favor of ideological conformity, while supporters see the dismissals as necessary measures to maintain respect and discipline in the ranks.