Attorney General Pam Bondi’s decision to terminate Department of Justice paralegal Elizabeth Baxter marked a forceful response to what she described as a pattern of disrespect toward National Guard personnel stationed in Washington, DC. Baxter, who worked in the DOJ’s environmental division, came under internal investigation after multiple reports and camera footage documented her making obscene gestures toward guardsmen during her commute and while entering DOJ buildings. Her dismissal followed the earlier firing of another paralegal, Sean Charles Dunn, whose own misconduct toward law enforcement had generated considerable public attention. Bondi emphasized that the DOJ’s leadership intended to maintain strict professional standards and reinforce respect for law enforcement across all federal offices. The incident became more than an internal personnel matter; it served as a public signal of the administration’s zero-tolerance stance toward employees who expressed open hostility toward security forces. Bondi framed the action as both an administrative necessity and part of a broader cultural reform effort within the DOJ.
The first documented incident involving Baxter occurred on the morning of August eighteenth when she arrived at the DOJ’s “4CON” building in Washington, DC, at a precisely recorded time of eight twenty-one a.m. According to internal reports, she admitted to a DOJ security officer that she had just made an obscene gesture toward a National Guard member at Metro Center, reportedly declaring, “F—k the National Guard.” Later that same day, at around twelve eighteen p.m., surveillance cameras captured her again raising her middle finger toward guardsmen while audibly shouting, “F—k you!” The repetitive nature of these actions suggested intentional behavior rather than a momentary emotional lapse. Multiple witnesses corroborated the account, confirming both the gestures and the explicit language, leaving investigators with clear evidence of willful misconduct. Because her actions occurred in and around federal property, they were treated as especially serious breaches of decorum for a government employee.
The situation escalated on August twenty-fifth when Baxter once again confronted security personnel, reportedly stating that she hated the National Guard and ordering them to “F—k off.” This third incident confirmed to supervisors that her conduct was not isolated but instead part of an ongoing pattern of animosity toward uniformed personnel stationed in the city. The repeated nature of the behavior suggested that Baxter’s hostility may have been rooted in political or ideological opposition to the Guard’s presence, which had increased in visibility due to national events. Bondi argued that such actions undermined agency integrity and workplace order. By issuing a formal termination letter, she concluded that Baxter’s behavior was incompatible with federal service and that disciplinary intervention was necessary to protect professional standards. Her removal was presented as a final step after multiple warnings had proven insufficient to curb the conduct.
Baxter’s dismissal occurred against the backdrop of an already highly publicized case involving another DOJ paralegal, Sean Charles Dunn, whose earlier behavior had drawn national media attention. Dunn, employed within the criminal division’s international affairs section, was accused of throwing a Subway salami sandwich at a Border Protection officer in Washington’s U Street nightlife district on August tenth. During the incident, Dunn allegedly shouted expletives, calling the officers “f—king fascists” and telling them they were not welcome in the city. The event was caught on video and circulated widely online, reinforcing public concerns about unrest and hostility toward law enforcement. Dunn initially faced felony charges, but a grand jury later declined to indict him on the most serious counts, reducing the case to misdemeanor assault. His actions, like Baxter’s, targeted uniformed officers and reflected what Bondi described as a troubling pattern of ideological resistance within segments of the DOJ workforce.
In public statements responding to both cases, Bondi positioned the terminations as essential steps in reinforcing the DOJ’s commitment to its mission under the current administration. She issued a pointed declaration that employees who opposed or disrespected law enforcement “will NO LONGER work at DOJ,” framing the dismissals as consistent with President Trump’s agenda of strengthening public safety and supporting law enforcement agencies. Her remarks revealed a dual emphasis: the enforcement of long-standing conduct rules and an insistence on alignment with the administration’s law-and-order priorities. Supporters of the move argued that professional behavior toward security personnel is an essential expectation for federal workers, while critics suggested that the emphasis on political loyalty raised questions about ideological conformity. Nonetheless, Bondi made clear that she viewed the cases as symbolic of a larger cultural challenge within the DOJ that required firm corrective action.
The formal termination procedures for Baxter included reviewing security footage, collecting sworn witness accounts, and compiling documentation of repeated misconduct. Bondi’s termination letter stated unequivocally that Baxter’s removal from her Paralegal Specialist position in the Environmental Defense Section was effective immediately. It argued that repeated public displays of contempt toward National Guard personnel constituted misconduct serious enough to justify immediate firing, regardless of whether the incidents occurred inside the workplace or during her commute. Together, the Baxter and Dunn cases illustrated how personal behavior, political expression, and workplace standards intersected within federal institutions during a politically charged moment. Both incidents became national stories, demonstrating how easily the actions of individual employees can evolve into broader debates about professionalism, political loyalty, and the limits of personal expression in government service. Ultimately, the firings underscored the expectation that federal employees must uphold not only the law but also a baseline respect for those tasked with enforcing it, reinforcing a model of accountability designed to protect the integrity and public trust in the Department of Justice.
