The Department of Justice faced a storm of controversy this week after Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the firing of an employee who repeatedly insulted National Guard personnel stationed in Washington, DC.
The decision has drawn both strong praise and heated debate, highlighting the growing tensions within government institutions as issues of respect for law enforcement and military service continue to stir national emotions.
Elizabeth Baxter, a paralegal assigned to the DOJ’s environmental division, was officially dismissed on Friday after multiple incidents in which she was caught verbally and physically gesturing against National Guard members while commuting to work.
Security footage, eyewitness accounts, and her own admissions left little doubt as to the events that ultimately led to her immediate removal from federal service.
The initial incident occurred on August 18 at approximately 8:21 a.m. when Baxter arrived at the DOJ’s “4CON” building located in the NoMa district of Washington, DC.
Upon entering the facility, she allegedly bragged to a security guard that she had just extended her middle finger at a National Guardsman standing watch outside a metro station. According to Bondi’s public statement, the employee openly exclaimed, “F**k the National Guard” while clocking in for work.
Later that same day, around noon, security cameras within the DOJ complex captured Baxter once again extending her middle finger towards uniformed personnel and repeating the phrase, “F**k you,” as she passed.
The footage provided undeniable confirmation of the disrespectful actions, which were reported by multiple witnesses inside the building.
Today, I took action to terminate a DOJ employee for inappropriate conduct towards National Guard service members in DC. @TheJusticeDept remains committed to defending President Trump’s agenda and fighting to make America safe again.
If you oppose our mission and disrespect… https://t.co/E1NYMtALWu— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) August 30, 2025
What made the situation even more contentious was that Baxter appeared to show no remorse. On August 25, one week after the first incident, she again boasted to security officers that she told National Guard soldiers to “F**k off” during her commute.
The repeated behavior created an environment that DOJ leadership deemed incompatible with her continued employment.
After reviewing the evidence, Attorney General Bondi delivered a formal termination letter to Baxter. The letter cited Article II of the United States Constitution and federal statutes authorizing her removal, emphasizing the DOJ’s zero tolerance for conduct that undermines respect for law enforcement and national security personnel.
The letter read in part: “Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States and based on your inappropriate conduct towards National Guard service members, your employment with the Department of Justice is hereby terminated, and you are removed from federal service effective immediately.”
Bondi made it clear that the decision was not a matter of personal animosity but of professional standards. By insulting service members who were fulfilling their duties to protect the nation’s capital, Baxter violated expectations of respect and integrity required of federal employees.
Speaking with the New York Post following the dismissal, Bondi reiterated that her department remains firmly committed to defending law enforcement and advancing President Trump’s national security agenda.
“This DOJ remains committed to defending President Trump’s agenda and fighting to make America safe again. If you oppose our mission and disrespect law enforcement — you will NO LONGER work at DOJ,” she said.
Her statement underscored a broader policy stance: the Justice Department under her leadership would not tolerate internal dissent expressed through actions targeting law enforcement or military personnel.
The announcement signaled to employees that while private beliefs are not policed, public displays of disrespect within the line of duty would result in immediate consequences.
The National Guard, often deployed in Washington, DC for security support, represents a symbol of both safety and order. Guard members provide reinforcement for civil disturbances, crowd management, and protection of federal facilities.
In recent years, their presence has been particularly visible following events surrounding the January 6 Capitol breach and subsequent periods of heightened alert.
For many Americans, the Guard embodies service and sacrifice. To insult soldiers performing their duties is not merely seen as poor judgment but as an affront to national values.
For this reason, the Baxter incident resonated beyond the walls of the DOJ, stirring public debate about professionalism, free expression, and accountability.
The Baxter case was not isolated. Reports revealed that she worked in the same building as Sean Dunn, another DOJ paralegal who had previously been terminated after an altercation involving National Guard personnel.
Dunn allegedly assaulted a soldier with a Subway sandwich before fleeing the scene. Despite clear evidence, a DC grand jury declined to indict him for felony assault on a federal officer.
The contrast between Dunn’s case and the harsh prosecution of January 6 defendants has fueled accusations of inconsistency in the justice system. According to critics, dozens of protesters from January 6 received multi-year prison sentences for offenses some believe were less severe, while DOJ employees accused of direct assault faced lighter consequences.
Bondi’s swift action against Baxter appeared designed to counter such criticism, demonstrating that misconduct within the DOJ would not be tolerated regardless of political or institutional affiliations.
Public response has been sharply divided. Supporters of Bondi’s decision praised her for defending the dignity of the National Guard and holding government workers to a higher standard of accountability.
Veterans groups, in particular, have lauded the move, stating that such actions are necessary to preserve respect for the military.
On the other hand, some critics argue that Baxter’s actions, while offensive, fell under the umbrella of free speech. They contend that while unprofessional, flipping off a soldier outside of her work hours should not have been grounds for termination.
Free expression advocates question whether this sets a precedent where government employees may face dismissal for political or personal gestures, even when unrelated to their direct work responsibilities.
Bondi, however, countered these arguments by highlighting the fact that Baxter repeatedly bragged about her actions while on federal property and during work hours. The DOJ determined that this crossed the line between private expression and professional misconduct.
While Baxter’s dismissal is final, legal scholars have raised questions about potential appeals. As a federal employee, she technically has the right to contest her termination before the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The outcome of such an appeal would depend on whether the board determines that her conduct directly impacted the efficiency and integrity of federal service.
Given the explicit evidence — including security footage and multiple eyewitness testimonies — Baxter would face a steep challenge in reversing the termination. Still, the possibility of a drawn-out legal battle remains, particularly if advocacy groups step forward to defend her rights under the First Amendment.
The Baxter case reflects a larger trend within the federal government as agencies grapple with balancing employee rights and public trust. With political polarization running high, incidents involving disrespect towards law enforcement or the military are no longer viewed as isolated outbursts but as reflections of deeper ideological divides.
Bondi’s leadership has positioned the DOJ as uncompromising on this issue. For employees, the message is unmistakable: loyalty to the institution and respect for those who defend it are non-negotiable conditions of employment.
One of the most controversial aspects of this case is the comparison to the treatment of January 6 defendants. Reports have noted that grand juries in Washington, DC have shown willingness to pursue the harshest possible charges against those involved in the Capitol breach.
Conviction rates have hovered just below 100 percent, with many participants receiving long prison terms.
By contrast, Dunn’s assault case failed to even secure an indictment, leading many to question the consistency of the justice system. The refusal to prosecute a DOJ employee while imposing maximum penalties on political demonstrators has fueled perceptions of bias and double standards.
Bondi’s decisive firing of Baxter may have been aimed, in part, at countering this narrative. By holding her accountable for misconduct, the DOJ seeks to demonstrate that no one — not even its own staff — is above the rules.
At its core, the Baxter case is more than a personnel decision. It represents a cultural moment where issues of respect, loyalty, and dissent intersect within the federal government. Employees are reminded that the badge of public service comes with responsibilities that extend beyond technical job descriptions.
For Baxter, the decision marks the end of her tenure within the DOJ. For the department, it marks an assertion of values that will likely define its internal culture moving forward.
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s announcement of Elizabeth Baxter’s firing has sent shockwaves through Washington, DC and beyond. The decision highlights the delicate balance between free speech and professional responsibility within federal service.
It underscores the DOJ’s commitment to defending the dignity of law enforcement and military personnel, while simultaneously raising questions about fairness, precedent, and the role of politics in employment decisions.
Whether seen as a necessary defense of institutional integrity or a controversial curtailment of expression, the case ensures that debates about respect, accountability, and justice will remain at the forefront of national discourse.
