U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks at a press briefing with U.S. President Donald Trump in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room in the White House in Washington, D.C., on Friday, June 27, 2025 (Photo by Annabelle Gordon/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images).
A seasoned Department of Justice employee has initiated a lawsuit following his dismissal, which occurred after a clandestinely recorded video of him criticizing the Trump administration surfaced online. The employee alleges that his termination infringed upon his free speech rights.
Joseph Schnitt, who dedicated over 23 years to the DOJ, was let go in September after a video emerged of him discussing the controversial “Epstein files.” In his 23-page lawsuit filed on Monday, Schnitt claims that the DOJ and Attorney General Pam Bondi “retaliated against” him for engaging in “quintessential protected speech” and “unlawfully removed him from federal service solely due to this expression.”
The incident traces back to July, when Schnitt began interacting with a woman using the name “Skylar” on the popular dating app Hinge. After several exchanges, they arranged to meet, culminating in an in-person date on August 4 at a restaurant in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia.
Unbeknownst to Schnitt, “Skylar” was secretly recording their conversation.
During their 60- to 90-minute meeting, the woman inquired about Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the government’s intentions regarding the release of documents linked to the investigation of these convicted child sex offenders. Schnitt expressed his belief that the Trump administration might shield certain individuals while exposing others.
In the video shared online in September by self-described “Guerrilla Journalist” James O’Keefe, Schnitt remarked, “They’ll redact every Republican or conservative person in those files, leave all the liberal Democratic people in those files.” He also speculated that Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer to a minimum-security prison was a DOJ tactic to ensure her silence.
According to the lawsuit, Schnitt’s dating profile did not disclose his occupation, let alone state that he was a DOJ official and acting deputy chief for the Federal Witness Security Program. Rather, under the employment tab, his profile said: “case analyst at government.”
However, in the 8-minute video posted by O’Keefe, Schnitt can be heard stating he is a long-tenured official at the DOJ. Schnitt and the woman met for one additional date, but he “steered the conversation” away from Epstein, and no moments from that date are included in the video.
About a month after the first date and hours before the video was posted online, Schnitt received a text message asking if he had any comment about specific quotes taken during a “hidden camera interview with an undercover reporter.” As he began to realize what was happening, he went to his supervisor, who encouraged him to email the acting director of the DOJ’s Office of Enforcement Operations.
He did so, stating that his comments “were strictly his own personal opinion and only based on what he had learned in the media,” not due to “any official information.” According to the lawsuit, it was “his understanding and expectation that the e-mail would be for internal use by his leadership only.”
That was not the case, as hardly an hour after the video was posted, the DOJ posted Schnitt’s explanation on its official X account. The following day, on Sept. 5, he was fired “based on your publicly inappropriate comments that were detrimental to the interests of the Department.”
According to Schnitt and his attorney Mark Zaid, this termination was unlawful for several reasons. Primarily, they hold that it violates his constitutionally protected freedom of speech.
“Mr. Schnitt’s protected speech did not take place in a Government facility, use Government equipment, or rely upon Government systems or databases. It did not consist of any information Mr. Schnitt learned during the course of his official duties,” the lawsuit reads. “His protected speech consisted exclusively of open source, publicly available information reported in the news media, as well as his own personal opinions on matters of public concern.”
Schnitt continued by referring to the DOJ’s public repurposing of his email explanation, saying, “[t]he Defendants publicly confirmed that Mr. Schnitt had no official knowledge about the case and that his comments were made in his personal capacity only.”
The former DOJ worker added that his protected speech was the entire basis for his termination and that the Trump administration “did nothing to determine whether Mr. Schnitt’s protected speech had actually caused any kind of disruption or hampered his ability to perform his employment responsibilities.”
Schnitt argued he was denied due process, saying “no opportunity was ever provided to Mr. Schnitt to respond” to his termination. He filed an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board — the agency tasked with overseeing federal employee personnel actions — on Nov. 16, but “no actions have yet occurred.”
Schnitt maintains that he was the victim of a “complete set-up” by the woman, who the lawsuit identified as Dominique Phillips, a woman previously tied to conservative nonprofit organization Turning Point USA.
He is asking to be immediately reinstated to his position, for the Trump administration to declare his termination “was in retaliation” for his protected speech, and for him to be awarded back pay.
The “Epstein files” have been a source of controversy for the administration, with the president, Bondi, and other officials taking heat for not releasing all of the documents related to the disgraced financier.
The DOJ had no comment when contacted by Law&Crime.
