Blaze News investigates: Inside the Dem-hatched scheme to destroy attorneys who supported Trump



Democratic operatives launched an initiative in 2022 effectively aimed at dissuading lawyers from taking and aiding clients whose success could potentially diminish leftist political power.

Citing the need to "protect democracy," the 65 Project has so far sought to make examples of those attorneys who helped Trump allies and supporters challenge the 2020 election results, despite recognizing that some attorneys may not actually have violated the legal profession's ethical rules.

The 65 Project — which made clear in September that it intends to keep hounding conservative lawyers — has not only publicly smeared accomplished attorneys but filed over 85 bar complaints in hopes of ruining their careers, with some success. Influence Watch highlighted that the outfit has not similarly bothered to target any of those Democratic-aligned lawyers who have challenged elections or election laws in recent years.

Despite the partisan outfit's supposedly noble aims, its initiative ultimately appears oriented toward depriving political opponents of effective legal representation, as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment.

There may, however, be a reckoning on the horizon.

America First Legal, run by Stephen Miller, President-elect Donald Trump's new White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, punched back late last month with bar complaints of its own — against both the managing director of the 65 Project and former Jan. 6 committee member Liz Cheney, signaling the possibility of mutual combat and/or mutually assured destruction.

Blaze News has explored the fallout of the 65 Project's lawfare as well as its unintended consequences, not the least of which is balkanization in the legal world and the likelihood of retribution targeting lawyers of another stripe.

What is the 65 Project?

In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, attorneys across the country were involved in efforts to challenge the results, citing apparent irregularities. Trump allies and supporters filed over 60 lawsuits, which NBC News indicated were championed by solo practitioners and state attorneys general alike.

The 65 Project, named after one total of such lawsuits, was apparently cooked up by Democratic operative Melissa Moss, a former Democratic National Committee finance director who served in the Clinton administration. The initiative was incubated within LawWorks, a "fiscally sponsored project" of the D.C.-based Franklin Education Forum whose principal officer, as of 2022, was Media Matters founder David Brock, an early adviser for the 65 Project.

Extra to working with billionaire George Soros and other leftists to attack Republicans and founding a super PAC that spent roughly $85 million on Democrats in the 2020 election, Brock previously did his best in hopes of getting Hillary Clinton elected in 2016. After this failed, Brock's buddy later challenged the results and claimed that Trump was an illegitimate president — without consequence.

'It's a tactic.'

Other early advisers for the 65 Project included former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle; the American Bar Association's first woman president, Roberta Cooper Ramo; Christine Durham, a Democratic appointee who served on the Utah Supreme Court; and former Republican Paul Rosenzweig, a Department of Homeland Security official in the George W. Bush administration.

The outfit is presently run by Michael Teter, with Moss in an advisory role. Teter previously worked as campaign manager for former Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl (Wisc.), as Wisconsin field director for former climate czar John Kerry's failed presidential campaign, and as deputy finance director for the California Democratic Party.

According to its website, the 65 Project is a

bi-partisan effort to protect democracy and preserve the rule of law by deterring future attacks on our electoral system. We are holding accountable Big Lie Lawyers who bring fraudulent and malicious lawsuits to overturn legitimate election results, and working with bar associations to revitalize the disciplinary process so that lawyers, including public officials, who subvert democracy will be punished.

Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post writer who got caught lying about Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and recently likened Trump's landslide 2024 victory to Adolf Hitler taking power, was among the radicals who celebrated the initiative in early 2022, writing, "The 65Project's announcement should come as a relief to democracy defenders who think many lawyers failed miserably in their professional obligations."

"If the bar complaints deter lawyers from helping Trump or other politicians in a future insurrection, the 65Project's effort will have achieved some much-needed democratic hygiene," added Rubin.

Blaze News reached out to the 65 Project for comment but did not receive a response by deadline.

The targets (so far)

The 65 Project has filed ethics complaints against scores of attorneys, including Harvard University law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz; Trump attorney Boris Epshteyn; John Eastman, the founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; Mississippi's first female attorney general, Lynn Fitch; Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall; West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey; Arkansas Lt. Governor Leslie Rutledge; and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.).

Dr. David J. Luban, professor of law and philosophy at Georgetown Law, told Blaze News that the 65 Project complaints "seem to be based on four rules: It's unethical to file frivolous lawsuits; to make false statements of facts to courts; to make false statements of fact to third parties; and the all-purpose prohibition on conduct involving 'dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.'"

Dershowitz, who helped advance the case Lake v. Hobbs, which called for the 2022 Arizona governor's election to be overturned, told USA Today last year, "It's a tactic."

"People will not take on Trump-related cases," said Dershowitz. "That's the intention, and that's the result."

'They did file a flagrantly and maliciously false bar complaint against me.'

Harry W. MacDougald and Daniel J. Hartman were among those attorneys targeted by the Democrat-aligned group.

In February 2023, the 65 Project pressed the State Bar of Georgia to investigate MacDougald's work in Pearson v. Kemp and Wood V. Raffensperger and to make an example of him.

MacDougald told Blaze News that while ultimately thwarted, the attack on his livelihood nevertheless proved impactful.

"Yes, they did file a flagrantly and maliciously false bar complaint against me, which resulted in false and defamatory publicity against me," said MacDougald, a managing partner at Caldwell, Carlson, Elliott & DeLoach. "The complaint progressed to the investigative phase and was dismissed by the State Disciplinary Board in August of this year. It is still on their website to this day."

"Especially shameful are the members of the 65 Project’s Advisory Board, who are all extremely prominent lawyers," said MacDougald, alluding to Durham, Ramo, and Rosenzweig, as well as to past advisory board members Stuart Gerson, a former Clinton Justice Department official, and Renee Knake Jefferson, a Democrat serving on the Michigan State University Board of Trustees.

"Even if they did not have personal knowledge of the falsity of the allegations made against me and others, they lent their imprimatur to the false and defamatory allegations made by the 65 Project against me and others and to the wrongful and abusive purposes of the entire project," added MacDougald.

Last year, the 65 Project also requested that the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission investigate Hartman for allegedly violating the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. The project accused Hartman of presenting frivolous claims, making false statements of law and fact, and burdening state and county officials.

Hartman represented the Macomb County Republican Party, voters Jason Ickes and Ken Beyer, and others when they sued Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) and Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) in 2022, requesting that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan decertify the state's 2020 presidential election result, recall Biden's presidential electors, and rerun the election.

The lawsuit alleged that the electronic voting system used by Michigan in the election was not certified or accredited in accordance with state law and that the lab used to certified the systems was not lawfully authorized to perform testing.

Hartman also acted as counsel for the plaintiffs in Karamo et al. v. Janice Winfrey, Detroit City Clerk, who sought to halt the use of absentee ballots that are obtained without identification.

When pressed about his targeting by the 65 Project, the Michigan lawyer told Blaze News that he "was sanctioned unjustly" and was "out-resourced 1,000 to 1."

Although "shunned by some," Hartman said he has also been "silently applauded by many."

Taking pieces off the board

Bruce Green, a professor at Fordham Law School, is among the legal experts who raised concerns about the 65 Project and the public nature of its witch hunts.

"That's basically designed to embarrass these lawyers, and that may have the effect of discouraging lawyers from engaging in politically involved work, even if they're playing by the rules, because a group like this can misconstrue what they're doing and embarrass them," Green told CNN in 2022.

'You're threatening their livelihood.'

MacDougald told Blaze News that Green's assessment was "100% correct and was in fact the explicitly stated purpose of the 65 Project."

David Brock indicated at the outset that the goal was to "not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firm."

"I think the littler fish are probably more vulnerable to what we're doing," Brock told Axios. "You're threatening their livelihood."

Hartman also confirmed that the 65 Project has enjoyed some success in this regard.

"Many have told me that it was not worth the risk to participate in election law cases," Hartman told Blaze News. "They cite the reasons of family, career, or wealth at stake but most often plead lack of time or lack of training."

Luban does not share Green's concern. The Georgetown professor struck a contrast between those election-fraud cases where the "complaints simply cut and pasted a bunch of conspiracy theories or affidavits from people who were mad about the 2020 election but had no firsthand evidence of fraud" or "were based on outlandish legal theories" on the one hand, and "serious challenges to state election law, which were not frivolous and involved no dishonesty" on the other hand.

Luban suggested that in the case of the former, the "bar ought to discipline those lawyers, who were clearly abusing the court system for political reasons."

"I don't share Bruce Green's worry that disciplining them will chill advocacy," said Luban. "Abusing the legal system to attack a valid election on frivolous or dishonest grounds is conduct that needs to be deterred."

The trouble, at least for Green, is that in some cases, it may be difficult even for a reasonable lawyer to distinguish between a frivolous claim and a legitimate claim.

"The line between a weak claim or a losing claim on the one hand and a frivolous one on the other is sometimes not so clear," Green told USA Today. "You have to have some facts to support your claim, and you have to have some legal arguments that aren't ridiculous."

It appears that politically minded actors are keen to hold certain attorneys to a different standard as a mode of lawfare.

When asked whether the legal professional has ever seen anything like this coordinated effort to ruin attorneys professionally and financially, Harman answered in the affirmative, noting, "There have been various instances in American history where lawyers or the legal profession as a whole have been attacked, criticized, or targeted. Some of these are rooted in political or social movements, while others are more individual instances."

Hartman provided the following examples:

  • "McCarthy era (1950s): During the Red Scare, lawyers who defended individuals accused of being communists or who advocated for civil rights were often labeled as 'un-American.' Some lawyers faced investigations, disbarment, or imprisonment. This era was marked by an overall suspicion of those who defended the constitutional rights of accused persons."
  • "Civil rights era: Lawyers advocating for civil rights, particularly those representing black Americans or civil rights organizations like the NAACP, often faced significant hostility and even violence. Figures like [former Supreme Court Justice] Thurgood Marshall and other attorneys who represented civil rights activists were sometimes attacked or threatened, especially in the South."
  • "Attacks on defense attorneys representing unpopular clients: Throughout history, defense attorneys representing controversial or unpopular clients (such as those accused of terrorism, murder, or other heinous crimes) have faced public backlash, threats, and sometimes physical violence. In recent years, lawyers representing individuals accused of terrorism or hate crimes have sometimes faced public outrage, as well as harassment online or in person."
  • "Ongoing anti-lawyer sentiments and 'tort reform': There has been consistent criticism of the legal profession, particularly personal injury lawyers, who are often depicted as promoting 'frivolous lawsuits.' This has led to various tort reform movements aimed at limiting certain types of lawsuits. While not physical attacks, these movements often carry negative portrayals of lawyers in political and media narratives."
  • "Internet and social media harassment: In recent years, some high-profile lawyers, especially those involved in political cases or defending controversial figures, have been harassed or doxxed online. This type of harassment can extend to threats against the lawyers and their families."

MacDougald similarly alluded to retaliation efforts against lawyers "in our history such as in the Antebellum or Red Scare or labor unrest periods," but suggested that earlier attacks were likely "more organic and ad hoc."

"I doubt that any of the prior campaigns were organized and funded to the same extent as the 65 Project, but I don't actually know the history so I cannot say for sure," said MacDougald.

'Some people are not worthy of representation.'

"While not systemic or government-led, these examples show that attacks, harassment, and criticism directed at lawyers do occur in America, often tied to the cases they take or the issues they represent," said Hartman.

In terms of the 65 Project, he noted that he has seen "the campaign take out several good lawyers."

"The 65 Project has effectively kept many lawyers on the sideline who have decided the cost is too high and the likelihood of success is too low," added Hartman.

Genie is out of the bottle

When asked whether it is possible to put the genie back in the bottle or whether there will be more 65 Project-style complaints in the future, Luban told Blaze News, "We already have: America First Legal has filed an ethics complaint against the head of the 65 Project. They have also filed an ethics complaint against Liz Cheney, for having talked with Cassidy Hutchinson without clearing it with her lawyer, [Stefan] Passantino."

AFL filed a bar complaint against Liz Cheney with the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel on Oct. 21, alleging that she violated the D.C. Bar Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2. by communicating with former deputy White House counsel Stefan Passantino's client, Cassidy Hutchinson, without his knowledge or approval.

The conservative nonprofit then filed a bar complaint against Teter one week later on behalf of Passantino, suggesting that the Utah State Bar should open an investigation into whether the 65 Project:

  • violated Rule 8.4 of the Utah Rules of Professional conduct by "engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by seeking to punish lawyers associated with a single client";
  • violated Rule 301 of the rules governing the Utah State Bar by "abusing the attorney grievance process to create a 'culture of deterrence' and ascribing class-wide misconduct against anyone who seeks to represent President Donald J. Trump and by seeking sanctions for an improper purpose"; and
  • engaged in conduct "contrary to the standards of professionalism and civility envisioned by the Rules of Professional Conduct."

When announcing the complaint, AFL noted, "Mr. Passantino and the other attorneys attacked by Mr. Teter and other, similarly motivated groups sought to represent their clients in the face of widespread condemnation both inside and outside of the legal profession. They embody the highest ideal of the legal profession: that, in our system, everyone is entitled to legal representation."

"Mr. Teter's boilerplate complaints appear to exhibit a fundamental lack of professionalism toward his fellow lawyers and an extreme disdain for President Trump and his associates," continued the conservative nonprofit. "His underlying message is clear: Some people are not worthy of representation, and those who dare to represent them will be punished."

Gene Hamilton, AFL executive director, said in a statement:

For too long, "lawfare" like that undertaken by the 65 Project and other, similarly motivated groups has chilled attorneys across the country from representing clients or advancing certain lawful positions for those clients. Seeking the personal destruction and financial ruin of another lawyer — simply because of the client he represented or the cause he took up — runs counter to not only the letter and spirit of the law governing the activities of lawyers, but is completely contrary to the way we conduct ourselves in a free society. We seek a return to a world in which lawyers can be lawyers, zealously advocate for their clients, and strive for a better future without fear of harassment or intimidation simply because of the clients or causes they take up. The abuses of the system must stop.

Professor Luban did not remark on the complaint against Teter but noted that the complaint against Cheney "is completely frivolous and dishonest. The no-contact rule only applies to lawyers who are representing a client, which Cheney was not."

Blaze News reached out to AFL for comment but did not receive a comment by deadline.

Regardless of whether these complaints prove successful, it appears that elements of the right are now willing to respond in kind to the 65 Project and similar initiatives.

"Lawfare and professional attacks will continue," Hartman told Blaze News.

The prospect of mutual combat might make partisans think twice about seeking the strategic ruination of attorneys, however the remedy may lay elsewhere.

Blaze News senior editor and podcast host Daniel Horowitz of "Conservative Review" told Blaze News, "We need bar reform badly. We cannot continue to have what is essentially a private left-wing fiefdom wielding quasi-governmental authority over the legal profession and the judicial branch of government itself."

Horowitz further recommended that red states "become sanctuaries for those attorneys who have been targeted prima facie because of their worldview and not because of unethical behavior."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

COVER-UP: Biden's medical crisis in Vegas CONFIRMED after police call logs released



Speculation that President Joe Biden experienced a medical emergency in Nevada before he stepped down from his 2024 re-election campaign has since been confirmed, after newly released call logs from a Freedom of Information Act request indicate it was all true.

According to the call logs, police cleared the roads from near the MGM Grand to Lindo Michoacan, to bring Biden to the airport following reports that he was code “421” — which means sick or injured.

“Right now POTUS is 421,” a Las Vegas Metro Police officer radioed in. “We’re just trying to figure out what’s going on, and we’re going to go from there.”

Immediately following the incident, Democrats claimed the speculation was not true and that he had a mild case of COVID.

“There was a massive cover-up that was happening that Joe Biden had actually suffered a serious medical emergency in Las Vegas. He didn’t just test with mild COVID symptoms, and he was going back to Delaware to quarantine,” Liz Wheeler of “The Liz Wheeler Show” explains. “Something much more serious was actually happening.”

“Hospitals in Las Vegas had been notified that the president of the United States was on his way, and it was only at the last minute that the president was diverted to the airport and flew back to the east coast,” she says.

Wheeler is in disbelief.

“The story was true,” she exclaims, noting that Charlie Kirk first brought attention to it before it was irrefutably proven. “President Biden suffered a serious medical emergency in Las Vegas, and we were not told about it.”

“This was a cover-up staged by President Biden’s team, by the people controlling President Biden. This is not speculation. This is not unsubstantiated reporting. This is reality, and we have the proof to substantiate it,” she adds.


Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Logically laughable': Steve Baker puts final nails in coffin of Mar-a-Lago assassination narrative



A number of lawmakers and pundits on the right concluded last week that the FBI's Aug. 8, 2022, Mar-a-Lago raid had all the makings of an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump.

They appear to have done so, at least at the outset, on the basis of a RealClearInvestigations contributor's framing of a court filing in the federal classified documents case against Trump, which intimated that FBI agents had been uncustomarily authorized to use deadly force against the former president.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) tweeted, "The Biden DOJ and FBI were planning to assassinate Pres Trump and gave the green light. Does everyone get it yet???!!!!"

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) asserted, "Biden ordered the hit on Trump at Mar-a-Lago."

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon said on his show, "War Room," that this was an "assassination attempt on Donald John Trump or people associated with him. They wanted a gun fight."

The Trump campaign circulated a fundraising email claiming that "BIDEN'S DOJ WAS AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME!"

The trouble with these claims is that they rested largely on an apparent misconstruence of critical facts and gloss over decades of precedent.

Antipathetic toward various federal outfits and having himself been on the receiving end of politicized lawfare, Blaze News investigative reporter Steve Baker said, "You know, under normal circumstances I would probably just say, 'Leave it.' You know what, under normal circumstances I wouldn't even have addressed it."

However, Baker indicated that a failure to address the misleading framing of an automatically filled FBI form and the excerpts spun without context could alternatively lead to rash decisions or even violence — to what Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck refers to the "Bubba Effect."

'You outrage them unnecessarily so many times and then people take action.'

"Anytime you force artificial or manufactured rage on your audience, then there's always that element — it doesn't matter if we're talking about the left or the right — who will respond with violence," said Baker. "The worst among us that commit these types of acts are the people that are most outraged by their own group's rhetoric. ... You outrage them unnecessarily so many times and then people take action and they do crazy things — whether it's transgenders shooting up schools or it's some right-wing militia nut who's snapped."

Baker said the erroneous suggestion in this case that the FBI "was ordered by the president to assassinate Trump is not just irresponsible — it's dangerous."

Baker has recentlynoted in multiple interviews as well as on X that a review of the pertinent FBI documents in the case — the "Law Enforcement Operations Order" form FD-888 and FD302 in particular — paint "an entirely less 'mind-blowing' picture than the artificial rage storm that was unleashed last week."

Not only was Trump not present at the time of the raid, the documents indicate that "FBI leadership informed and coordinated with local United States Secret Service (USSS) leadership. Local USSS facilitated entry onto the premises, provided escort and access to various locations within, and posted USSS personnel in locations where the FBI team conducted searches."

— (@)

Instead of a "gun fight," the raid appeared to be an exercise in federal hand-holding.

Baker highlighted that on page 8 of Form FD-888, the plan all along was for the DOJ and FBI to "contact FPOTUS' retained counsel, [redacted] on 8/8/2022, to notify him of the search warrant and request collaboration and assistance."

"After a reasonable time period, FBI WF/MM will execute the search warrant with the Case Team, MM Filter Team, and MAL/USSS representatives, as deemed necessary," says the form. "This execution will require coordination with USSS and may include coordination with MAL Guest Services to ensure a fulsome understanding of spaces occupied as designated in the search warrant."

— (@)

Baker told Blaze News that the initial framing of the documents especially lacked clarity around the FD-888 form, particularly its use-of-force statement.

'Now, we can argue all day whether it should happen or not, but once the protocols are put in place, this form is filled out.'

"FD-888 is a blank form. Almost every single page of that form are lines to be filled out. There's promptings, for instance, there's a handling of the injured section. There's a handling of the prisoners section. And, by the way, the handling of prisoners was all marked 'not applicable,' 'not applicable,'" said Baker. "But if anybody is injured, there's a place on the form where they have to fill out the trauma center, the hospital, ... additional emergency medical information, and they actually 100% of the time are required to provide a map, which they did as per protocol."

— (@)
— (@)

"This is what they do every single time, 1,000s upon 1,000s of times, regardless of whether it's a white-collar crime, blue collar, gang-related, drug-related, documents, President Biden or President Trump," continued Baker. "Now, we can argue all day whether it should happen or not, but once the protocols are put in place, this form is filled out."

"There's one section of that form that is pre-printed. It's the only section on the entire form that's pre-printed," said Baker.

Contrary to its characterization last week as a deliberate and targeted use of force authorization against the former president of the United States, Baker emphasized that "it's not. In every single FD-888, the only section that is pre-printed is the policy statement use of deadly force and has been that way for decades."

'To say that they were going to send these guys into battle with each other on a surprise raid is complete bullshit.'

Beside the customary auto-fill of that section, Baker suggested there was one more piece of the assassination narrative that did not compute.

"It's less likely that there was going to be use of force [on Aug. 8, 2022] than in any other raid the FBI has ever done," said Baker. "The last thing that the FBI wants to go up against is the training of the Secret Service. Right? And versa."

"It's logically laughable. ... There's plenty of reason for us to hate on the Biden administration, on Merrick Garland, the Department of Justice and the FBI. But to say that they were going to send these guys into battle with each other on a surprise raid is complete bullshit. And that's what it is: bullshit," added Baker.

Baker highlighted that there have been instances where the FBI has overstepped its bounds and used unnecessary force, but stressed, "This was not one."

Blaze News previously reported that the FBI responded to the assassination claims by noting the offending policy is standard procedure.

"The FBI followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force," the bureau said in a statement obtained by the New York Post. "No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter."

Frank Figliuzzi, the FBI's former assistant director of counterintelligence, noted that "every FBI operations order contains a reminder of FBI deadly force policy. Even for a search warrant. Deadly force is always authorized if the required threat presents itself."

"We all want to win," said Baker. "But the most important weapon in our quiver, though, is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. People laugh at us when we make mistakes. That's why it's so imperative to go through so many layers of protection — through editors' and legal review and everything else."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Blaze News investigates: Ashes and accountability in the aftermath of Canada's unmarked Indian graves sham



Years after the Russia collusion hoax was debunked, America's northern neighbor embraced a baseless narrative all its own — one that evidently resonated with radicals' pre-existing anti-Christian prejudices and post-colonial critiques.

Those keen observers, investigative reporters, and historians who understood the tall tales about unmarked Indian children's graves near and in former residential schools to be fraudulent, overblown, or at the very least unsubstantiated were smeared with a term once reserved for Holocaust deniers: "denialists." Lawmakers even considered making such publicly stated doubts a crime.

Meanwhile, Catholic dioceses were extorted, churches were torched, and the nation was reimagined by the powers that be, not as one of the world's oldest and most successful democracies or as a country home to heroic fists and scientific firsts, but rather as a bordered testament to the genocidal nature of Christian civilization.

'We now know that it was all a hoax. No bodies were found even after $8 million was spent to find them.'

The admitted absence of any evidence now, years later, has prompted the narrative's grip to slacken and some to reflect on how it was able to hold on for so long absent a body.

Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People's Party of Canada, told Blaze News, "Three years after a moral panic broke out following the supposed discovery of 'mass graves' at the Kamloops residential school, we now know that it was all a hoax. No bodies were found even after $8 million was spent to find them."

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been blown on the other investigations — ostensibly also fruitless pursuits.

"But like other moral panics, this one was instrumentalized by far left activists and the Trudeau government to demonize Canadian history and Canadian society," continued Bernier. "Among the awful repercussions of this demonization is the fact that it likely motivated hateful criminals to torch over 80 churches across the country during these three years, with new ones being added almost every week."

Blaze News has looked into whether there has been any accountability for those who advanced this "blood libel" or for those who participated in the 2021 anti-Christian attacks. It has also reviewed what precisely led to the 2021 breakdown of civic order and truth in Canada.

In addition to reaching out to those federal police detachments across the country who oversaw investigations into the church burnings that occurred in summer 2021 and to exponents of the false narrative, Blaze News has spoken to the head of a Christian watchdog group that documented the attacks; a Catholic bishop whose diocese is still reeling from a church burning; and to a Canadian investigative reporter who covered the story as it unfolded amidst incredible backlash.

It appears that only a handful of the "terrorists" responsible for the church burnings were brought to justice. The officials and academics who excused, downplayed, or cheered on the attacks appear to be unapologetic and to have altogether avoided any accountability.

Quick background

The residential schools were part of a federally mandated campaign to both educate Indian children who had no alternative local school options and to assimilate them into contemporary Canadian society.

These schools operated from the 1880s until the second half of the 20th century.

While neither the Catholic Church as a whole nor the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops were associated with the system, various Catholic dioceses helped administer a plurality of the schools. The Anglican and Presbyterian churches were also involved. An estimated 150,000 children attended the schools over the course of a century.

Canada's seven-year Truth and Reconciliation Commission alleged that over 3,200 children died while attending the schools. The main killer was reportedly tuberculosis, a disease that swept the rest of the nation as well.

In "The Canadian Manifesto," British lord and former newspaper publisher Conrad Black noted, "The federal government for some decades in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was encouraging and subsidizing residential schooling delivered mainly within the private sector, especially the Christian churches. This was designed to enable Indigenous people to compete advantageously in the community of Canada as a whole, not to exterminate their consciousness of their socio-cultural roots. The policy had mixed results and there were certainly a good many instances of cruelty and incompetence, but many people thrived, and these students constituted the great majority of educated natives."

Years after the last school was shuttered, a grievance industry began to grow around claims of abuse and so-called "cultural genocide" in the schools.

Black added that "to tag any previous Canadian government as genocidal [over the residential schools] in any sense was an outrage and a blood libel on the English- and French-Canadian peoples."

Philip Horgan, president and general counsel for the Catholic Civil Rights League, told Blaze News, "A national resolution of claims arising from the residential school experience was reached in 2008, which resulted in published and expressed apologies from the federal governments and the various churches involved."

"A settlement process was reached which remitted payments of close to $5 billion from the federal government over the following 12 years for former residential school students," continued Horgan. "Christian churches provided added assistance to those recoveries."

Horgan noted that as part of the settlement process, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission "pursued investigations and submitted reports, from roughly 2008 through 2015, which provided additional evidence of missing children and/or unmarked graves, but that evidence continues to be investigated."

The historic paydays, apologies, and various efforts at transparency were evidently not enough to turn the page on the residential schools chapter of Canadian history.

The makings of a 'blood libel'

The Tk’emlups te Secwepemc Nation — formerly called the Kamloops Indian Band — announced in May 2021 that it had confirmed the discovery of children's remains in an apple orchard near a former Catholic-run residential school in Kamloops, British Columbia.

The apple orchard was originally selected for a survey partly on the basis of "Knowledge keepers' oral histories" and a tooth belonging to a juvenile found nearby.

Rosanne Casimir, the chief of the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc Nation, told state media at the outset that University of the Fraser Valley anthropologist Sarah Beaulieu’s ground-penetrating radar surveys had uncovered the remains of 215 "missing children" whose deaths were "undocumented."

'It's an example of science playing an affirming role of what the Knowledge Keepers already recognized.'

Weeks after her initial announcement, Casimir — who did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment by deadline — would refer to the alleged discovery as a "mass grave ... reflecting a pattern of genocide against Indigenous Peoples that must be thoroughly examined and considered in terms of Canada's potential breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law."

The National Center for Truth and Reconciliation, a repository of testimonies that were not meaningfully cross-examined along with archival documents pertaining to alleged wrongdoing at the former schools, has long suggested there were a total of 51 students enrolled in the Kamloops school who died between its opening in 1890 and closure in 1978, with no indication of homicide.

Contrary to the Center for Truth and Reconciliation's tally, Beaulieu, an activistic anthropologist, figured she had come across a historic discovery of additional fatalities.

"My findings confirmed what Elders had shared," Beaulieu told the media. "It's an example of science playing an affirming role of what the Knowledge Keepers already recognized."

Beaulieu later suggested that the blips on her survey were "probably burials" that only excavation would be able to confirm.

Martha Dow, director of the Community Health and Social Innovation Hub at the University of the Fraser Valley, claimed, "Dr. Beaulieu's work sheds light on these historical truths that continue to have real impact today."

Sarah Beaulieu did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

State media relayed the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc Nation's suggestion that they were working with the B.C. Coroners Service, reaching out to students' home communities, "protecting the remains and working with museums to find records of these deaths."

Federal police reportedly began looking into the claims about human remains, but were castigated for doing so.

Former Sen. Murray Sinclair told a parliamentary committee that by doing their job, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were "intimidating" people involved with the search. Sinclair, former chairman of the Indian Residential Schools Truths and Reconciliation Commission, said Mounties should "not be pursuing those who are revealing information," including researchers, reported state media.

Bad press and activist pressure ostensibly helped to keep neutral investigators clear of the orchard.

The insinuation in the first and in subsequent state media reports was that these supposed graves — which could alternatively be tree roots, sewer plots, or stones — belonged to children whose deaths were unnatural and covered up. This played well with leftist academics who already assumed Canada was somehow guilty of "genocide" — a term Canadian activists and lawmakers have since thrown around with reckless abandon.

Tim Rahilly, president and vice chancellor of Mount Royal University in Calgary, took for granted that bodies were found and stated, "I believe we must all stop and reflect on the scale of this tragic event."

The University of British Columbia lowered flags on its two campuses in memory of the supposed 215 children. When the University of Toronto did likewise, its president, Meric Gertler, said, "I would like to acknowledge the dignity of each one of these 215 children. Ryerson University went even further, dropping its name entirely over concerns of Egerton Ryerson's link to he school system.

Extra to the liberal publications and academic institutions that uncritically played along with the apparent sham in Canada, international outfits also seized upon the narrative.

Reuters and the BBC, for instance, claimed as a fact that children's remains had been discovered.

Ian Austen of the New York Times was among those who helped stir things up with an article entitled, "'Horrible History': Mass Grave of Indigenous Children Reported in Canada." In a subsequent report, Austen wrote definitively that "the remains of 200 people, mostly children, were found in unmarked graves on the grounds of another former boarding school in British Columbia."

While the unmarked graves narrative predominated, others jumped to another unsubstantiated conclusion: These were "mass graves."

Chief Stacey Laforme of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, for instance, claimed in an open letter to the prime minister, "A mass grave containing 215 children was discovered on the site of a former residential school in Kamloops, British Columbia."

The initial strain of the false narrative made its way all the way to the Vatican, prompting Pope Francis to tweet, "I join the Canadian Bishops and the whole Catholic Church in Canada in expressing my closeness to the Canadian people, who have been traumatised by shocking discovery of the remains of two hundred and fifteen children, pupils at the Kamloops Indian Residential School."

Pope Francis' remarks came just days after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau blamed the Catholic Church and said, "We expect the Church to step up and take responsibility for its role in this."

Weeks after the Kamloops "discovery," the Cowessess First Nation of Saskatchewan announced on June 24 that there were 751 unmarked graves nearby the former Marieval Indian Residential School.

Kisha Supernant, an associate professor at the University of Alberta's department of anthropology, had her team probe a cemetery with another ground-penetrating radar device. Supernant, who has since protested that "there is no big lie or deliberate hoax," told state media, "When you're actually walking across these grounds, I like to say that it's a very heavy process."

Blaze News reached out to Supernant with questions about the narrative as well as her use of the term "denialist" in reference to skeptics. She did not respond by deadline.

Cowessess Chief Cadmus Delorme said the community would be treating the alleged unmarked grave site "like a crime scene."

Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to the alleged discovery, stating he was "terribly saddened." The Canadian leader suggested further that the supposed unmarked graves served as "a shameful reminder of the systemic racism, discrimination, and injustice that Indigenous peoples have faced."

Trudeau also claimed on social media to have seen "the unmarked graves in Cowessess First Nation."

— (@)

Jagmeet Singh, the leader of Canada's other leftist party, did not see but nevertheless believed, stating, "Each child had a name and a family they never came home to."

In a subsequent teary-eyed speech, NDP Leader Singh said, "As a country, this is our country's responsibility, and it's our responsibility to make it right." Singh added, "It's not good enough for us to mourn."

Days later, a member community of the Ktunaxa Nation in the southern interior of B.C. announced it too had discovered unmarked grave sites near a cemetery established in 1865, which sits adjacent to former residential school run by the Catholic Church and near where a hospital was built in 1874. This time, there were supposedly 182 graves whose markers had ostensibly rotted away with time and neglect.

'We are at another point in time where we must face the trauma because of these acts of genocide.'

The Indian community acknowledged in a press release that "graves were traditionally marked with wooden crosses and this practice continues to this day in many Indigenous communities across Canada. Wooden crosses can deteriorate over time due to erosion or fire which can result in an unmarked grave."

"These factors, among others, make it extremely difficult to establish whether or not these unmarked graves contain the remains of children who attended the St. Eugene Residential School," added the community.

Weeks later, the Penelakut Tribe in B.C. tripped over 160 more alleged "undocumented and unmarked graves," stating on Facebook, "We are at another point in time where we must face the trauma because of these acts of genocide."

The family heads of the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc evidently did not want to be outdone, suggesting in an October open letter that the alleged graves of "little ones who attended the Kamloops Indian Residential School" also amounted to "evidence of a horrific act of genocide."

Empty fields and old cemeteries were reimagined in media reports and official statements as unmarked children's graves linked to genocide. That misunderstanding stoked fires that would soon sweep the nation.

Empty fields, rage-filled hearts

Canada quickly descended into an orgy of anti-Christian rage, revisionism, and self-flagellation.

The Canadian Parliament observed a moment of silence to "mark the discovery of the remains of 215 children at a former residential school in Kamloops."

Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the supposed graves served as a "painful reminder of that dark and shameful chapter of our county's history."

Trudeau also ordered the national flag be flown at half-mast on government property, where it remained for five consecutive months. He said on X that the symbolic gesture was to "honour the 215 children whose lives were taken at the former Kamloops residential school" — a bold assertion that there were not only hundreds of dead children, but that they were killed.

— (@)

PPC Leader Maxime Bernier told Blaze News, "The Trudeau government used [this moral panic] as an excuse to announce '$321M in new funding for programs to help Indigenous communities search burial sites at former residential schools and to support survivors and their communities.'"

"This is a complete waste of money and only serves again as a huge subsidy to foster anger and resentment based on fake stories about priests and nuns killing indigenous children," added Bernier.

Activists nationwide demanded the cancellation of Canada Day festivities. While various municipalities and provinces resisted such demands, city council in Victoria, B.C., obliged them.

Then-Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps stated, "As First Nations mourn and in light of the challenging moment we are in as a Canadian nation following the discovery of the remains of 215 children at a former residential school, council has decided to take the time to explore new possibilities, instead of the previously planned virtual Canada Day broadcast."

NDP Leader Singh also dishonored Canada in order to honor the narrative, which Sohrab Ahmari, the founder of Compact magazine, has characterized as "an anti-Catholic blood libel."

— (@)

While iconoclasts toppled statues of Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth II, and Egerton Ryerson, activists set up memorials outside churches and government buildings across the country, frequently using children's shoes as props.

A photograph of one memorial won Amber Bracken the World Press Photo of the Year award. Bracken snapped a photograph for the New York Times of red dresses hung on crosses along a roadside commemorating "children who died at the Kamloops Indian Residential School."

In keeping with the mass movement that wrought havoc south of the border the previous year, activists turned to "every child matters" as a rallying cry and donned orange garments — the chosen color of residential school critics since at least 2013.

In the wake of the so-called discovery of graves, all political parties, including the Conservative Party of Canada, agreed to fast-track legislation making "National Day for Truth and Reconciliation" a statutory holiday.

The following year, NDP parliamentarian Leah Gazan would successfully pass a motion in Parliament with unanimous consent demanding the Canadian government "recognize what happened in Canada's Indian residential schools as genocide."

While passing bills to affirm the narrative, Parliament also considered a proposal to criminalize its rejection.

Phillip Horgan told Blaze News that "the federal government's rapporteur charged with investigating these claims has proposed the introduction of a criminal charge for 'residential school denialism' for even allowing discussions on the factual underpinnings of the various claims."

While lawmakers were beating their chests and orange-clad activists were wasting shoes in 2021, radicals began burning down and vandalizing scores of churches.

Truth North, a Canadian digital publication, mapped out roughly 100 attacks on churches that took place after the May 2021 announcement. Many of the churches were hundreds of years old and had served Indian communities.

State media indicated that 24 of 33 attacks between May 2021 and December 2023 were confirmed as arson.

Despite singling out the Catholic Church for abuse and peddling the baseless narrative, Trudeau found time to condemn the attacks, suggesting they deprived people of places to "grieve and reflect."

He coupled his condemnation with empathy for the attackers and a smear against Canada, stating, "I understand the anger that's out there against the federal government, against institutions like the Catholic Church. It is real and it is fully understandable given the shameful history that we are all becoming more and more aware."

Gerald Butts, Trudeau's close ally who resigned amidst the SNC Lavalin scandal, echoed the prime minister days later, writing, "I can understand why someone would want to burn down a church, though I do not condone it."

While various prominent members of the Liberal Party signaled understanding for anti-Christian attacks, other Canadians called for more.

Harsha Walia, a Hamas apologist who at the time of the inaugural 2021 church burnings was the executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said, "Burn it all down."

— (@)

Various others joined in this inflammatory rhetoric, including McGill University associate professor Debra Thompson, who wrote, "It's truly a wonder we don't burn it all down."

Caitlin Urquhart, chair of the board of the St. John's Status of Women Council, tweeted, "Burn it all down."

Torching churches, largely consequence-free

In an effort to get some sense of whether the attacks were answered with justice, Blaze News looked into the following 18 church burnings and attempted church burnings that occurred between late June 21 — Canada's so-called "National Indigenous Peoples' Day" — and early August 2021:

  • Sacred Heart Mission Church in Penticton, B.C. — burned to the ground on June 21;
  • St. Gregory Mission Church in Oliver, B.C. — burned the ground on June 21;
  • St. Ann’s near Hedley, B.C. — burned to the ground on June 26;
  • Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church in Chopaka, B.C. — burned to the ground on June 26;
  • Siksika First Nation Catholic Church on Siksika First Nation, Alberta — survived a fire attack on June 28;
  • St. Jean Baptiste Catholic Church in Morville, Alberta — burned to the ground on June 30;
  • Saint Kateri Tekakwitha Church on Sipekne'katik First Nation — torched on June 30;
  • St. Patrick’s Co-Cathedral in Yellowknife, Yukon — survived fire on July 1;
  • St. Paul’s Anglican Church on Gitwangak First Nations land, B.C. — destroyed by fire on July 1;
  • St. Columba Anglican Church in Tofino, B.C. — torched on July 2;
  • Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church in Peace River, Alberta — firebombed on July 3;
  • St. Andrew's United Church in Prince George, B.C. — survived a fire on July 4;
  • Angus Bonner Memorial United Church in South Indian Lake, Manitoba — burned to the ground on July 5;
  • St. George Coptic Orthodox Church in Surrey, B.C. — burned to the ground on July 19
  • Holy Trinity (inactive) in Redberry Lake, Saskatchewan — burned to the ground on July 8;
  • Our Lady of Mercy Catholic Church in Bonnyville, Alberta – burned to the ground on July 9;
  • St. Mary’s Parish in Prince George, B.C. — survived a fire on July 26; and
  • Little Flower Mission Church in Fox Lake, Alberta — burned to the ground on Aug. 7.

On the basis of responses from the various relevant RCMP detachments, it appears that in most cases, the perpetrators were never caught.

Despite obtaining a grainy video of the suspect, the Yellowknife RCMP detachment confirmed to Blaze News that no arrest was ultimately made in the St. Patrick’s attack.

RCMP spokespersons also indicated that the investigations into the Fox Lake, Tofino, and Sipekne'katik First Nation attacks have been closed without arson arrests having been made. The RCMP detachment overseeing Fox Lake did, however, inform Blaze News that a suspect who has since died was charged with theft in connection to the church around the time of the fire. Despite being found in possession of items from the newly torched church, the suspect was not formally tied to the arson.

RCMP Cpl. James Grandy indicated that the June 26 St. Ann's fire remains under investigation.

'Their faith is unshaken and they look forward to worshiping in a new building in the near future.'

Bishop Gary Franken of the Diocese of St. Paul in Alberta told Blaze News that the investigation into the torching of St. Jean Baptiste Catholic Church remains open.

Bishop Franken added, "Any time that any of our churches are damaged, let alone the target of arson, it is extremely upsetting. The loss of the historic St. Jean Baptiste church is a tragedy — for the worshiping community and as an historic edifice. The pain of the loss of the church is still very acute for the people of the parish, as well as for the diocese and for me personally as their bishop."

Bishop Franken indicated that the parish has gathered for Sunday Masses in a nearby school gymnasium and that daily Mass takes place in the rectory.

Absent justice, the diocese has carried on in a spirit of hope.

"We hope that a new church can offer hope for the future. A tragic fire may have taken the building, but St. Jean Baptiste parish is more than a brick-and-mortar building. It is the people of God," continued Bishop Franken. "Their faith is unshaken and they look forward to worshiping in a new building in the near future. Their love of God, guided by the Holy Spirit, remains steadfast. As their shepherd, I could not be more proud."

The arsonist who left the parishioners of St. Jean Baptiste without a permanent church may have escaped justice, but there were two arsonists in other cases who weren't so lucky. In the Bonnyville case, a juvenile was charged in connection to the attack and in the case of the allegedly "random" burning of St. George Coptic Orthodox Church, Kathleen Betty Panek was ultimately convicted.

Federal police overlooking the other fires did not respond to requests for comment or alternatively did not provide confirmation of suspended investigations. It appears, however, that no arrests were made in the alleged arson cases in their jurisdictions.

Whereas even a couple of arsonists were brought to justice, it appears that none of those officials who helped advance the false narrative have faced accountability to date.

Spreading falsehoods, entirely consequence-free

In June 2022, Kimberly Murray was appointed as the Trudeau government's "Independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites." At the end of her two-year appointment, Murray is required to deliver a final report regarding the supposed unmarked graves. However, on May 7, her office postponed the report's big release and corresponding "National Gathering."

— (@)

The Catholic Registerasked Murray's office whether this postponement meant the report would be deferred. The publication was told there would be "more information to follow."

At the time of publication, there's not been so much as a peep out of Murray's office.

Two days after the postponement, Blacklock's Reporter reported that there has been no public accounting for the nearly $8 million allocated to the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc Nation for its graves investigation and that no bodies had yet been recovered in the orchard.

The Canadian Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations reportedly has resisted releasing an audit of the use of the taxpayer funds under the Access to Information Act. Carolane Gratton, a spokeswoman for the department, reportedly directed inquiries about the specifics of the taxpayer-funded activities to the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc Nation.

'I don't like to use the word hoax because it's too strong, but there are also too many falsehoods circulating about this issue with no evidence.'

Kamloops is not the only supposed unmarked grave site to turn up nothing.

In 2022, fourteen "anomalies" were detected using ground-penetrating radar in the basement of the church of the former Pine Creek Residential School in Manitoba. Excavators went to work after a pipe ceremony. Four weeks later, they determined there was no evidence of human remains, reported the National Post.

Jacques Rouillard, a professor emeritus in the Department of History at the Université de Montréal, told the New York Post after the Manitoba basement was revealed to be empty, "I don't like to use the word hoax because it’s too strong, but there are also too many falsehoods circulating about this issue with no evidence."

Drea Humphrey, B.C. bureau chief for Rebel News, covered the unmarked graves story as it unfolded and detailed her findings in the documentary, “Kamloops: The Buried Truth.”

— (@)

Blaze News asked Humphrey what has become of the mass graves narrative.

"It's a smokescreen. That's what Canada's mass grave narrative has become," said Humphrey. "Those who look through the smoke can form their own opinions about the fact that, to date, not a single body has been discovered in a secret unmarked grave site of residential school students. Just hundreds of 'anomalies' that could be anything from a tree root to an old sewage plot."

"Those who see only the smoke make it easy for radicals to push to criminalize unpopular residential school truths as 'hate speech,' for bigoted extremists to burn and deface churches, and for millions of tax dollars to be handed to the claim makers who have no burden to prove," continued Humphrey.

When asked if any of the politicians who advanced the unproven narrative have apologized, Humphrey answered that to her knowledge, there has yet to be one.

Blaze News pressed Humphrey on who were the worst offenders, and Humphrey responded, "I find no hierarchy of offenders among the politicians who have failed to make known the good news, which is that no genocidal unmarked graves of former residential school children have been found in Canada."

"It's incredibly concerning that all of our elected officials have failed us in this way even after hate crimes against Catholics rose as high as 260% in 2021 and Christian places of worship are still under attack," continued Humphrey. "It is worth noting that after I probed him on the matter, Mr. Poilievre at least acknowledged that Canadians deserve the truth regarding the claims."

Humphrey asked Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre in January about his party's silence about the absence of evidence in the mass graves case.

"We should provide the resources to allow for a full investigation into the potential remains at residential schools," said Poilievre, adding that "Canadians deserve to know the truth."

Poilievre referred to the church attackers as "terrorists" and stressed that there is "no justification for burning down a church. Period."

— (@)

Concerning Trudeau's inflammatory commentary in 2021, Humphrey suggested the "prime minister should have done Canadians a favor by resigning for many reasons, but one reason is for justifying acts of hate against Christians. He should also educate himself about the fact that nearly 50% of Indigenous Canadians are Christian, and in many cases, it is churches in First Nation communities that are being targeted."

Horgan told Blaze News, "There is no question that abuses occurred over the many years of the residential school experience in Canada. Settlements have been reached. Apologies have been extended. Reconciliation efforts continue. But it is also hoped that some balance may soon be provided to the narrative of the residential school history, based on a more objective treatment of the data."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Blaze News investigates: A child was removed by a red state following complaints over Christian views deemed sickening



Blue states abound with efforts to encroach on parental rights and to put distance between parents and children. It may, however, be a mistake to presume that residency in a red state with a Republican trifecta and a parental bill of rights in effect could offer any guarantee of relative protection.

The Indiana Department of Child Services had a male minor suffering from both anorexia and gender dysphoria removed from the custody of his loving, traditional Catholic parents in 2021, even though Mary and Jeremy Cox were getting him help.

The Coxes' refusal to compromise on their deeply held religious convictions and affirm the so-called transgender identity of their 16-year-old son appears to have been a driving factor behind both the DCS' initial investigation into the family and the state's subsequent efforts to keep the teen — referred to as A.C. in court documents — out of his familial home.

The parents fought the state every step of the way but had no luck in the trial court or the appellate court.

Seeking to help the Coxes find redress, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and attorney Joshua Hershberger of the Hershberger Law Office petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the parents' case last year, warning that similar cases were bound to recur "due to developing conflicts between parents and their children concerning gender identity."

The high court ultimately declined to decide whether the Coxes, a software engineer and a clinical studies manager with a master of science degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, should have lost custody of their son.

That declination could prove consequential, not just for other vulnerable children but for parental rights across the country.

Fallout and revisionism

Media reports following the high court's declination on March 18 frequently recirculated vulgar remarks attributed to the Coxes that were found to be unsubstantiated.

Mainstream reports also parroted the narrative advanced by the state in its counter-brief and in the public statements attributed to Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R), which together went along the lines of: A.C. was sick and not receiving the care he needed while in the custody of his parents. Beneficent agents of the state saw it as their duty to intervene, not because of the parents' reality-affirming and tradition-informed beliefs but because A.C. would be better served outside of their home and sphere of influence.

Even without mediation by the mainstream press, the state's position has resonated with some legal scholars.

Following a quick read of the briefs filed with the Supreme Court, law professor Aviva Orenstein, the Karen Lake Buttrey and Donald W. Buttrey Chair at Indiana University Bloomington's Maurer School of Law, told Blaze News, "Religious beliefs can't be a protection for abusive behavior, and frankly, what the state alleged — which was not accepted by the other side, so you know, we have to dig deeper — it sounded pretty credible to me: that the parents were being abusive towards this child."

Court documents and attorneys for the family have painted a different and altogether more convincing picture — one in which the Coxes' case was a significant battle lost in the ongoing war over parental rights.

"In my view, the state has simply ignored the facts of the case," Hershberger told Blaze News. "The line has been, 'It's about the eating disorder, not about the transgender identity,' and yet the trial court barred [the parents] from speaking about the entire topic of gender identity. In fact, one of the key reasons in the motion asking for removal was that the parents had not accepted LGBTQ resources on parenting [transgender] children."

Other parental rights advocates and religious groups are confident this custody battle was from the outset ideologically driven — not least because it's become increasingly clear in recent months that so-called "gender-affirming care" is largely based, at best, on pseudoscience — calling the whole ordeal a "moral and legal outrage."

While so far unsuccessful, the Coxes' saga has also prompted legislative efforts to ensure that something comparable does not recur in the Hoosier State.

Although the past is disputed and the future is uncertain, Mary and Jeremy Cox know now that they must "continue to advocate for state policies and laws that protect parental rights, the free exercise of religion, and free speech" so that "parents of faith can raise their children without fear of state officials knocking on their doors and taking their children."

Raising the alarm

Bishop Timothy Doherty, who oversees the Dioceses of Lafayette-in-Indiana, refrained from commenting on the case, except to note that he finds it "problematic that much of Catholic teaching is characterized as 'religious,' when so many directives are based on reason."

Dr. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, did not similarly hold back, telling Blaze News, "It is a fundamental principle in Western jurisprudence that children do not belong to the state — they belong to parents. This principle cannot be overridden save for the most egregious of instances."

"What happened to Mary and Jeremy Cox is a moral and legal outrage," stressed Donohue.

Donohue suggested that if "Indiana can, in effect, legally kidnap kids," the outlook appears to be especially bleak in liberal states such as New York and California.

"Not only is this an ominous sign for Catholics, it is a bad omen for people of all faiths," continued Donohue.

Alvin Lui, the president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit, underscored that the risk is shared by all parents out of step with the ideological fads of the day.

"The religious families are the first to be targeted, especially Christian and Catholic families, but this is being extended to any families who do not follow whatever the current Marxist or woke agenda is," Lui told Blaze News. "Parents must come to the sobering fact that we can no longer depend on anyone else to protect our kids. We have to take a strong stand BEFORE tragedy arrives at our doorstep."

Lui has campaigned in recent months against proposed legislation in Maine and other states that would serve to separate children from parents if those kids are said to be seeking "gender-affirming care." He has elsewhere shared parental strategies for protecting kids.

The parental rights advocate added, "The transgender cult and the people funding them do not care about the Constitution. They want it completely abolished because they're a big part of the cultural revolution to dismantle America."

Losing a child

A.C. notified his parents in December 2019 that he identified as a girl. He requested to be referred to both by a new name and by pronouns corresponding to his new feminine persona.

Besides an apparent case of gender dysphoria, A.C. also suffered from anorexia — a condition that worsened while he was away at an ostensibly woke residential high school, the Indiana Academy of Science, Mathematics, and Humanities on the Ball State University campus.

As indicated in their September 2023 petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, Mary and Jeremy Cox pursued therapeutic help for their son by February 2020. After ten months of therapeutic care, the parents apparently sought out a new therapist for "substantial assistance with the identity issue or with family dynamics."

Having monitored A.C.'s weight while he was away at school and observed a worsening trend, the Coxes decided to un-enroll him after the 2020-2021 school year and sign him up for a different school.

After a wellness check with his primary care physician in April 2021, A.C. was apparently referred to a specialist on eating disorders, then underwent a psycho-social assessment. Mary Cox subsequently scheduled a full mental health evaluation for her son on June 3, 2021.

Becket and Hershberger noted in the petition that "in seeking treatment for concerns about A.C.'s weight loss and eating habits, the Parents followed the recommendations of A.C.'s primary care physician. Throughout this period, the Parents engaged in conversations with A.C. concerning their religious beliefs and gender identity and attempted to find middle ground by using the nickname 'A.'"

Hershberger told Blaze News, "They did everything to try to meet [A.C.] in the middle, trying to understand how to even use the term 'they.' They're also meeting all of his medical, educational and mental health needs. They recognize the problem is his eating habit. They were following their doctor's recommendation and they had in fact scheduled an appointment with a specialist prior to the state intervening in their home."

Evidently, someone outside the home figured A.C.'s parents for villains who, despite proactively taking these steps, still refused to affirm the boy's so-called gender identity.

According to the state's counter-brief, the DCS started its case against the Coxes in May 2021 after receiving two reports that the parents "were suspected of abusing or neglecting their child, A.C. One report alleged that Mother was using 'rude and demeaning language' toward A.C. 'regarding Child’s transgender identity.'"

"The second report, just ten days later, alleged that parents were 'verbally and emotionally abusing Child because they do not accept Child's transgender identity,' and that 'the abuse was getting worse,'" claimed the counter-brief.

These allegations — suggestive of a conflation of the parents' views on gender ideology with abuse from the start — were later dropped, but not until months after they served the purpose of excusing interference on the part of the state.

A DCS family case manager investigated the misleading reports, met with the Coxes, and spoke with an employee at the boy's school. The department then initiated a proceeding on the basis of the neglect and abuse allegations.

The trial court heard that the boy's parents were allegedly not getting him treatment and that he had thoughts of self-harm because his "gender identity was 'not being accepted'" and he had been removed from school, said the counter-brief.

Jeremy Cox told the court in turn that he and his wife had deeply held religious beliefs on gender and had previously sought therapeutic treatment for their son. The parents further noted that their son had other medical problems, largely tying back to his anorexia.

The DCS underscored at the initial detention hearing, "We just feel that at this point in time this child needs to be in a home that's not going to teach her that trans, like everything about transgender … tell her how she should think and how she should feel. However, she should be in a home where she is excepted [sic] for who she is."

Hershberger told Blaze News that the DCS "specifically argued that the child should be in a home … that would verbally affirm the child's transgender identity in contrast to the parents' religious beliefs."

The trial court issued an initial order in which it preliminarily concluded there was probable cause to believe that A.C. was a Child In Need of Service and ordered the teen removed from the Coxes' custody in June 2021. The court allowed the parents to visit their child for a few hours unsupervised once a week "so long as certain topics are not addressed," namely their views on gender ideology.

Hershberger and Becket summarized the result thusly: "The trial court removed A.C. from fit parents, held that their beliefs and best judgment equaled neglect, shut down meaningful conversation about their core disagreement even in therapy (until the Parents requested clarification), and limited visitation to a few hours one day a week."

In the months that followed, A.C.’s condition worsened significantly whilst in state custody, such that he reached a weight of just 100 pounds and was allegedly at risk of brain and bone injury. Despite his illness, A.C. did not believe that he needed any treatment.

At a later trial court hearing, all parties agreed to drop the "unsubstantiated" allegations of neglect and abuse against the parents. The court accepted the dismissal in November 2021 as well as the understanding that A.C. posed a danger to himself. The recognition that the Coxes were, after all, fit parents did not, however, reunify their family and enable them to resume caring for their son.

At a Dec. 8, 2021, dispositional hearing, the DCS allegedly testified that the disagreement between the Coxes and A.C. over transgenderism remained a barrier to his return home.

The parents appealed the case to the Indiana Court of Appeals, taking issue also with the trial court's prohibition on their ability to speak forthrightly with their son.

In October 2022, the appellate court ruled that the trial court's decisions were not in violation of the state and federal constitutions.

"The Parents have the right to exercise their religious beliefs," said the appellate court, "but they do not have the right to exercise them in a manner that causes physical or emotional harm to the child."

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that while the Coxes were fit parents, the familial disagreement over the boy's gender identity was exacerbating his eating disorder.

The Indiana Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Pinning high hopes on the high court

Running short on options, the Coxes fought to put their case before the U.S. Supreme Court, presenting the following questions:

  • Whether a prior restraint barring a religious parent's speech about the topic of sex and gender with their child while allowing and even requiring speech on the same topic from a different viewpoint violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment; and
  • Whether a trial court's order removing a child from fit parents without a particularized finding of neglect or abuse violates their right to the care, custody, and control of their child under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The petition for a writ of certiorari filed on behalf of the Coxes emphasized that their faith "does not prevent them from using nicknames or attempting to work and live with others that hold different beliefs; however, their faith requires them to refrain from speaking in a manner that their faith instructs is immoral, dishonest, or harmful."

Moreover, the petition indicated that "in addition to the Parents' religious views, based on scientific evidence and their own experience as parents, M.C. and J.C. believe that using crossgender pronouns or names inconsistent with a child's biological sex is not in a child’s best interest."

Becket and Hershberger stressed in the petition that, "Given the facts of this case and the arbitrary and almost absolute power it grants to juvenile courts over custody and parental speech, no parent in Indiana — and especially no parent with a child that struggles with mental health issues — should sleep easy tonight."

The Heritage Defense Foundation, a Christian advocacy group, evidently agreed, noting in its amicus brief in support of the Coxes that "left unaddressed, the violation at issue will destabilize the bedrock of society and foster anxiety among parents across the country regarding the security of their parental rights."

"Where the parents have not been determined to be or to have been abusive or neglectful, the state has no jurisdiction to override the decision-making of the parents regarding what is in the best interests of their child. 'The child is not the mere creature of the State,'" continued the HDF.

"If custody by parents is always subject to the will of the state, even when the parents have committed no wrong, parents become mere servants of the state," added the HDF. "The state and its bureaucrats become the arbitrary micro-managers of every family, controlling them with the implied threat: 'Do what the current political administration says or lose your children.'"

Concerning the parents' last-ditch legal effort, Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, and Hershberger said in a joint statement, "We are confident that the Supreme Court will ultimately protect this basic right and ensure that parents can raise their children consistent with their religious beliefs."

The Coxes stated, "We love our son and wanted to care for him, but the state of Indiana robbed us of that opportunity by taking him from our home and banning us from speaking to him about gender."

"We are hopeful that the justices will take our case and protect other parents from having to endure the nightmare we did," they added.

The state alternatively argued that the case, which involved no damages claim, was moot now that A.C. had aged out of foster care and no relief could be given; that the temporary speech restriction was lawful; that the appellate court's holdings did not conflict with the decisions of any other court; and that there was "no prospect that the narrow factual issues here will reoccur."

Another setback

The Supreme Court ultimately declined to take up the case last month.

The Coxes said in response, "No other loving parents should have to endure what we did. The pain of having our son taken from our home and kept from our care because of our beliefs will stay with us forever."

The bereaved couple added, "We can't change the past, but we will continue to fight for a future where parents of faith can raise their children without fear of state officials knocking on their doors and taking their children."

Hershberger said in a statement to Blaze News that while "SCOTUS denied the Petition of Mary and Jeremy Cox, we did accomplish the goal of placing this fact pattern in front of SCOTUS as a real and growing threat to parental rights, freedom of religion, and free speech."

"These constitutional principles represent a cause — not just a case — and we will continue to advocate for that cause in law and culture,” added the attorney, who is also a teaching pastor in southeast Indiana.

Joe Davis, a former litigator at Jones Walker LLP who now serves as legal counsel at Becket, emphasized to Blaze News that the case amounted to "every parent's worst nightmare" and a "shocking and chilling attack on parental rights." He indicated that absent a ruling from the Supreme Court, those keen to break up families will be furthered emboldened.

Mary Cox confirmed to Blaze News that she and Jeremy Cox have separately sued the DCS and the case workers for "making false statements about family in their initial report and court documents."

State sympathies

Following the exhaustion of the Coxes' legal options, the Indiana Attorney General's Office directed Blaze News to Rokita's February statement to mainstream publications, where he said, "We always protect parental rights and religious liberty."

"Neither we nor the Indiana courts believe that the State can remove a child because of a parent's religious beliefs, views about gender identity, or anything of the sort. Our office is fulfilling our statutory duty to defend this state agency and to keep an oath I swore when I took office," said Rokita, a Catholic Republican whose office underscored he has made a habit of fighting "transanity."

"As the record shows, this state agency acted not on the use of pronouns but because of the child's extreme eating disorder," said Rokita, who is legally obligated to defend state agencies in court.

While Rokita retroactively disentangled the two concerns, the Department of Child Services clearly acted early on because of pronoun use and the corresponding gender affirmations. The state even noted in its counter-brief that the family case manager had expressed concern to the trial court that A.C. had "thoughts of self-harm because the child's gender identity was 'not being accepted.'" Removal was clearly perceived as a way of landing A.C. in an environment where his gender dysphoria would be ideologically buttressed.

"The Indiana governor sets DCS policy and hires those employees," continued Rokita. "I am very sympathetic to the parents, and everyone who follows my work as attorney general knows that I am the biggest defender and proponent of parental rights."

Mary Cox told Blaze New that "the state ignored the clear and undisputed facts of the case and decided to defend a government agency that forced its ideology on parents rather than defend parental rights."

Blaze News reached out to the DCS for comment but did receive a response by deadline.

The DCS has, however, previously stated that when evaluating a child's best interest, it endeavors to make a "holistic evaluation of the child's physical and mental health and environment."

"DCS does not — and will not — pursue a case solely on a parent's choice not to affirm their child's gender identity," added the department.

Removal-affirming care

Professor Orenstein of the Maurer School of Law suggested that the state's case was well argued and dismissed religious conservatives' alternative framing.

"We're getting to the point where if you wave the flag of religion, you can do what you want," said Orenstein, who has served as a court-appointed special advocate for abused and neglected children. "At some point, this cannot be the trump card to everything — that 'these are my religious beliefs.'"

When asked whether a refusal to affirm a child's so-called gender identity would qualify under state law as neglect, Orenstein responded, "I don't think per se."

"It's okay for parents not to jump immediately on board," continued the professor. However, if a child is in danger, and it is "very clear the kid's behavior is connected to what the parents are doing," the professor suggested the state has an obligation to intervene.

In the case of such an ideological disagreement with a teenager — particularly a disagreement that has obvious health consequences — Orenstein suggested "you should let the person decide." Failing to defer to a child on such matters might otherwise register as "an elemental lack of respect for the child's personhood, but that goes along with conservative religious values in a very patriarchal system. You know, that is, 'I am the parent and I am in charge.'"

In conversation with Orenstein, Blaze News raised the matter of California Gov. Gavin Newsom's September refusal to ratify Assembly Bill 957, a bill that would have had courts factor in a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity when determining the best interests of a child in a child custody or visitation proceeding. At the time, Newsom expressed concern that such a law could set a precedent that might be weaponized, in turn, against minorities by "other-minded officials."

When asked whether the Coxes' case might be used as a template by bad actors or "other-minded officials" against other parents with deeply held convictions, including progressive parents, Orenstein suggested that when it comes to political conservatives, "there's no low too low. Would this be a talking point? Perhaps. Would it be a good argument? No."

G. David Caudill, founder and executive director of the LGBT activist organization Equality Indiana, suggested that critics' concerns about the results of the matter "are exaggerated."

Having been asked to comment about concerns that child services might be weaponized against families with viewpoints regarded as undesirable to the state, Caudill said, "The use of the word 'weaponized' in regards to governmental actions is used by extremists when they dislike the results of that governmental action. The word 'weaponized' is a buzzword used to rile up and rally their activist base and voters."

The final word

Mary Cox torpedoed the insinuation that concerns about the DCS' weaponization amount to empty rhetoric. She said in a written reply to Blaze News, "DCS testified at the initial hearing: 'We just feel that at this point in time this child needs to be in a home that's not going to teach her that trans, like everything about transgender — tell her how she should think and how she should feel.'"

"This is not just a risk. This is a reality," said Mrs. Cox.

"We are gravely concerned that our case will be used against other Indiana parents," continued the Christian mother. "Further, as we explained in our petition to SCOTUS, several states have passed laws allowing state agencies to remove or hide children from their parents if the parents do not agree to 'gender-affirming care.' And Abigail Martinez, a mother from California that endured a similar case, filed an amicus brief with SCOTUS on our behalf."

Blaze News previously detailed Martinez's claims that the government of Los Angels County encouraged her daughter to identify as male, to sign up for sex-change treatments, and to be placed in foster care. The young girl, who was battling depression, ultimately committed suicide.

Mrs. Cox stressed that this is not a problem that only traditional Christians should worry about.

Like Lui and Donohue, she noted that "teachings around family life and human sexuality lie at the heart of most religions. For this reason, parents of any religion or no religion at all that hold to a traditional view of gender should be concerned."

"No other loving parents should have to endure what we did," said Mrs. Cox.

Mrs. Cox indicated that readers ought to know that "if this can happen in Indiana, it can happen anywhere. We lost custody of our child because we disagreed with the state about gender, and it could happen to your family as well. We need to work together to ensure that parental rights are protected in law and culture."

Cox Family Testimonial Videoyoutu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!