"🚨 BOMBSHELL ANNOUNCEMENT: JEANINE PIRRO JUST DROPPED A TRUTH BOMB THAT LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE IN TOTAL PANIC!"
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro created a new Washington division focused on federal fraud and recovering taxpayer money.
The Fraud and Asset Recovery Division was announced Wednesday by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
The office says the unit will investigate and litigate civil fraud matters, particularly cases under the False Claims Act.
Pirro framed the reorganization as part of the Trump administration’s broader campaign against fraud, waste, and abuse in federal programs.
“President Trump has prioritized the elimination of fraud, waste, and abuse involving federal agencies and programs,” Pirro said.
Pirro said the division would consolidate resources to hold fraudsters accountable and recover taxpayer dollars for the federal government.
“We are sending a clear message: those who cheat the federal government will face decisive, coordinated action,” Pirro said.
The new division expands and realigns resources from the office’s existing Affirmative Civil Enforcement unit within its Civil Division.
Officials said the Civil Division’s heavy defensive workload had limited resources available for proactive investigations and civil fraud litigation.
The reorganization separates affirmative enforcement work from much of that defensive docket and centralizes specialists in one dedicated unit.
Assistant U.S. attorneys, investigators, auditors, and support staff will work together inside the newly established fraud division.
Dan Schiffer will serve as division chief, while Sean M. Tepe will serve as deputy chief overseeing operations.
The Justice Department has not specified the division’s staffing total, additional budget, or first group of investigative targets.
Its central responsibility will involve False Claims Act cases targeting allegedly fraudulent claims for federal money or government benefits.
The False Claims Act dates to 1863, when Congress enacted it amid concerns about fraud by Civil War contractors.
Modern law allows triple damages and inflation-adjusted penalties against parties found liable for knowingly submitting false government claims.
The statute also permits private whistleblowers to file qui tam lawsuits and potentially receive part of successful government recoveries.
In fiscal 2025, False Claims Act settlements and judgments exceeded $6.8 billion, the highest annual amount in its history.
Whistleblowers filed 1,297 qui tam lawsuits that year, another record, while the government opened 401 new investigations.
Justice Department figures show False Claims Act recoveries have exceeded $85 billion since Congress strengthened the law in 1986.
Pirro’s office says it has previously recovered billions for taxpayers through False Claims Act enforcement and related civil-fraud work.
Those matters included allegations involving government-contract billing, software overcharges, medical-device marketing, and pharmaceutical regulatory violations.
The new division will also handle civil collections, agency and inspector-general subpoenas, and civil asset forfeiture actions.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office Financial Litigation Unit will become part of the Fraud and Asset Recovery Division.
That unit collects criminal fines, special assessments, restitution, civil judgments, settlements, and other debts owed to federal agencies.
Its portfolio also includes certain student-loan debts owed to the Department of Education, according to the Justice Department.
The move gives Pirro’s office a dedicated structure for pursuing suspected fraud losses while collecting established federal debts.
Pirro’s Washington unit is separate from the Justice Department’s National Fraud Enforcement Division, which was established earlier this year.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche launched that national division in April to coordinate fraud investigations and prosecutions across jurisdictions.
The national division supports President Trump’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, chaired by Vice President JD Vance.
DOJ says that national operation coordinates benefit-program agencies, law-enforcement partners, data systems, prosecutors, and investigative resources.
Pirro’s division instead sits specifically inside the Washington U.S. Attorney’s Office and emphasizes affirmative civil fraud enforcement.
The distinction matters because both operations target fraud but function at different levels inside the Justice Department.
The new division does not itself accuse any newly identified company, contractor, nonprofit, or individual of committing fraud.
False Claims Act liability generally requires proof that a defendant knowingly submitted or materially supported a false claim.
Pirro’s office says centralizing personnel should increase capacity for investigations that previously competed with defensive civil work.
The division’s impact will ultimately depend on the cases it develops, recoveries it secures, and enforcement priorities it chooses.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
