Feds Deny White House Influence in 'Broadview Six' Protest Case

Prosecutors blast defense claims of political motivation as 'fevered paranoia'

Mar. 30, 2026 at 9:42pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A cinematic painting depicting a solitary protester standing in front of a government building, the scene bathed in warm, diagonal sunlight and deep shadows, conceptually representing the tensions surrounding the 'Broadview Six' case.The politically charged 'Broadview Six' case exposes the delicate balance between free speech and federal prosecution.Chicago Today

Federal prosecutors have pushed back against defense claims of White House influence in the 'Broadview Six' case, denying any political motivation behind the conspiracy charges against immigration protesters. In a court filing, prosecutors argued the decisions to charge the group were based solely on evidence and criminal conduct, not political affiliations.

Why it matters

The 'Broadview Six' case has become a politically charged issue, with the defense accusing prosecutors of vindictive prosecution. The government's response aims to shut down those claims and defend the integrity of the case, which has so far failed to secure any convictions against protesters accused of assaulting federal agents.

The details

Prosecutors said the six defendants - including two Democratic elected officials and two candidates - were easily identifiable on video and not singled out due to party affiliation. They argued the defense's 'reckless' requests for nonexistent White House communications are 'the product of fevered paranoia.' The motion stated the decisions on who and what to charge were made solely based on the evidence and criminal conduct, not political considerations.

  • The 21-page motion was filed by federal prosecutors on March 30, 2026.
  • A status hearing in the case is scheduled for April 7, 2026.
  • A jury trial is set to begin on May 26, 2026.

The players

William Hogan

Assistant U.S. Attorney who co-authored the prosecution's motion.

Matthew Skiba

Assistant U.S. Attorney who co-authored the prosecution's motion.

Andres Almandarez

Assistant U.S. Attorney who co-authored the prosecution's motion.

Brian Straw

Oak Park Trustee and one of the six defendants in the case.

Katherine 'Kat' Abughazaleh

Democratic Congressional candidate and one of the six defendants.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The decisions about who and what to charge were made by the USAO prosecutors and their supervisors based solely on positive identifications of the defendants and evaluations of their individual criminal conduct. Considerations such as defendants' political affiliations, activities, views, or positions were not considered in any way as part of the investigation or charging decisions.”

— Prosecutors

“The 'reckless' requests by the defense for nonexistent White House communications about the case are 'the product of fevered paranoia and delusional speculation.'”

— Prosecutors

What’s next

U.S. District Judge April Perry is scheduled to hold a status hearing in the case on April 7, 2026. A jury trial is set to begin on May 26, 2026.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tensions between federal prosecutors and defense attorneys over allegations of political motivations in high-profile protest cases. The government's response aims to shut down claims of White House influence and defend the integrity of the case, as it continues to face challenges in securing convictions.