
Anti-Trump DA Alvin Bragg sure acts like he has something to hide — we're suing to find out
We've asked for those records, and he's not turning them loose. So we're taking him to court.
Last September, America First Policy Institute launched a formal investigation into the people and motivations behind Bragg's decision to prosecute Trump.
Advertisement
Our effort had a simple goal: figuring out whether Bragg's case was a routine legal probe — or lawfare, a politically engineered hit job orchestrated to influence the 2024 election.
The charges brought against Trump were extraordinary.
Never before has a question of federal campaign-finance law — which the FEC declined to pursue, no less — been morphed into a state-level misdemeanor, already time-barred under New York law, then Frankensteined into a felony by alleging it was committed to conceal some other crime never defined by the prosecution, nor unanimously agreed upon by jury.
Advertisement
Confusing? That's the point. Bragg's office thrives on obfuscation.
Public records should be accessible. Criminal prosecutions should be transparent.
This case was neither — and still isn't.
We were drawn to investigate because we saw just too many coincidences to ignore.
Michael Colangelo, a top DOJ official with a focus on white-collar crime, left his Biden administration post to join Bragg's office just months before Trump was indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Advertisement
Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over Bragg's prosecution, had a history of political donations to Biden and to political groups opposed to Trump, the defendant before him. He was officially 'cautioned' on that by the state ethics board.
Merchan's daughter Loren worked on Kamala Harris' 2020 campaign and during Trump's trial served as president of Authentic Campaigns, a progressive political consulting firm hired by the Biden-Harris ticket.
It all paints a curious picture: A DA who campaigned on a promise to take down Trump, aided by a Biden DOJ veteran, bringing legally contorted charges before a judge with clear partisan connections.
Advertisement
If this wasn't coordinated, it's one lucky political pile-up.
The American people deserve answers.
In pursuit of those answers, and in defense of the public's right to know, AFPI submitted a request to Bragg's office under New York's Freedom of Information Law in September 2024.
We sought any records that could shed light on whether political influence or coordination played a role in Bragg's decision-making.
Our request was specific, lawfully submitted and directly tied to one of the most consequential legal proceedings in modern American history.
Ten months later, no records have been produced. None. Though they apparently exist.
Instead of providing transparency, the DA's office has engaged in delay, double-talk and silence.
We've asked for a list of responsive documents. They won't give one.
Advertisement
We've asked which of our specific requests the withheld documents pertain to. They won't say.
We know, based on our investigation and his office's limited correspondence with us, that the DA possesses hundreds of records of communications with or about political agents who should have had no influence in a 'routine' prosecution, like Lauren Merchan's Authentic Campaigns.
Bragg refuses to explain why the public isn't entitled to see them.
There is no legal justification for this blackout. No privilege excuses total stonewalling.
Advertisement
There is only evasion.
It's been nearly a year. The records exist, and the DA cannot explain why they remain secret.
That alone should raise alarms.
AFPI has now turned to the courts to compel compliance.
The law does not permit selective transparency by the Manhattan DA. It does not allow politically sensitive cases to be shielded from scrutiny.
Advertisement
As the New York Legislature declared when it passed the state's open-records law in 1977, 'The people's right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents leading to determinations is basic to our society.'
We agree.
Advertisement
That's why on July 17, AFPI filed its petition in New York County Superior Court requesting that Bragg's records, whatever they may reveal, be released to the public.
The law demands openness, and we intend to see it enforced.
Jessica Steinmann is executive general counsel and Jack Casali is an attorney at the Center for Litigation at the America First Policy Institute

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US readies executive order to penalise banks for political discrimination
The US Government is in the process of drafting an executive order that would impose penalties on banks for terminating customers based on political affiliations, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal cited by Reuters. The order would instruct regulators to investigate potential breaches of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws, or consumer financial protection laws by financial institutions. If signed, the order could be enacted as early as this week and would empower regulators to impose monetary penalties, consent decrees, or other disciplinary actions against banks found in violation. Additionally, the order seeks to eliminate policies that may have led to banks severing ties with certain customers and mandates the Small Business Administration to review the practices of banks that guarantee its loans. The White House has refrained from commenting on the report when approached by Reuters. In January, President Donald Trump accused the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America of denying banking services to conservative clients, a claim the banks have denied. This criticism from Wall Street banks has emerged amid allegations from congressional Republicans and Republican-led states, who assert that these institutions are engaging in "woke capitalism" by cutting ties with gun manufacturers, fossil fuel companies, and other businesses perceived to align with the political right. The Trump administration is actively pursuing a comprehensive reform agenda aimed at altering regulations governing financial institutions, including capital requirements, with the intention of fostering economic growth and encouraging innovation. "US readies executive order to penalise banks for political discrimination" was originally created and published by Retail Banker International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.


The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas Democrat: Trump ‘demanding' allies ‘rig' midterms for him
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said during a recent interview that President Trump is 'demanding' allies to 'rig' the 2026 midterms for him and argued that by redrawing the Congressional district in Austin, lawmakers are violating the Voting Rights Act. 'This is a five-alarm fire for our democracy. Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in American history, and he has no plan for winning the upcoming midterm elections,' Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Monday night on CNN. 'So, he essentially is demanding that his cronies rig those elections for him in this corrupt scheme.' 'That's why I'm so proud of the Texas Democrats who are showing the entire nation what it looks like to fight by going out across the country. We need everyone viewing at home, across America to say, even if we may have our differences on some issues,' the lawmaker told 'The Source' host Kaitlan Collins. 'At the end of the day, we should have the voters pick their politicians, not have politicians pick their voters.' He added, 'Donald Trump should not get to pick who your member of Congress is.' The redistricting tussle intensified on Monday as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) ordered the Democrats who fled the Lone Star State to be arrested. Over 50 state-level Democrats have left Texas, breaking quorum and hoping to wait out until the special legislative session ends. The move is a bid to stall the Republicans' effort to pass a mid-decade redistricting plan. Trump has blessed the effort, saying he would like the GOP to gain five seats in Texas in the 2026 midterms. Democrats who have left the state have fired back at Abbott for arrest threats and the redistricting efforts, while Democratic Party governors have warned they could retaliate similarly in their states. 'If Republicans are willing to rewrite these rules to give themselves an advantage, then they're leaving us no choice; we must do the same,' New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said on Monday. Casar, who represents Texas's 35th congressional district — which encompasses parts of East Austin — said the push to draw the lines of his district is a violation of the Voting Rights Act 'It disenfranchises the Latino voters that have a protected district here in Central Texas, and if Donald Trump is allowed to shred the Voting Rights Act here in Austin,' Casar said. 'He wants to spread that across America, just like you mentioned Kaitlan in Missouri or in Louisiana, or who knows where else.'


Newsweek
5 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Where Homeowners Benefit Most from Capital Gains Tax Plan
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Blue states, including California and Washington, are among those that stand to benefit the most from President Donald Trump's idea to eliminate the federal capital gains tax on home sales, according to a new study. A proposal to abolish the tax was first pushed forward by Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene last month and then echoed by Trump, who told reporters on July 22 that he was "thinking about…no tax on capital gains on houses." While it is not yet clear if the president's suggestion may lead to a real change in the way home sales are taxed by the government, real estate brokerage Redfin has calculated that homeowners in California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Washington, and New Jersey, in this order, would benefit the most from the abolition of the capital gains tax. What Is the Federal Capital Gains Tax on Home Sales—and Why Does Trump Want To Abolish It? Homeowners who sell a property where they have been living for longer than a year may have to pay capital gains taxes if they sell their property for more than they originally purchased it for. Capital gains taxes are a portion of the profit made by homeowners through the years that their property has appreciated in value. At the moment, capital gains taxes are limited by a cap. Homeowners who have lived in a home as their primary residence for at least 24 months in the five years before the sale receive an exemption on the first $250,000 of gains for individuals and $500,000 for married couples filing jointly. This cap, however, has not been updated since it was introduced in 1997 nor adjusted for inflation—leading many experts to support urgent changes to the exclusion. "It is not indexed for inflation. In real terms, the exclusion has gone down over these last 20-something years," William McBride, Chief Economist & Stephen J. Entin Fellow in Economics at the Tax Foundation, told Newsweek. "The high inflation we had in recent years, during the pandemic and consequently, is one of the things that has caused a lot of home price appreciation." While this is a problem that typically affects wealthier homeowners the most, the rapid appreciation that occurred during the pandemic homebuying frenzy means that "this is no longer just a concern for high-end properties," Shannon McGahn, executive vice president and chief advocacy officer at the National Association of Realtors (NAR), told Newsweek. According to a recent report by NAR, nearly 29 million homeowners, about one-third of the U.S. market, already face potential capital gains taxes if they sell, "and that number is expected to climb sharply over the next decade," McGahn said. If no change is made to the way capital gains are taxed, nearly 70 percent of homeowners could exceed the $250,000 cap, according to NAR. "A sizable portion of homeowners, especially in states with high home prices that have grown quickly, are sitting on more than the $250k/$500k of capital gains that are exempt from capital gains taxes," Chen Zhao, head of economics research at Redfin, previously told Newsweek. "These homeowners generally have owned their homes for a long period of time, but in some places, people are exceeding the current capital gains exemptions solely based on appreciation during the pandemic." Trump has hinted at the idea of abolishing the capital gains tax on home sales as a solution to the ongoing affordability crisis in the U.S. housing market. On July 22, he told reporters that "if the Fed would lower the rates, we wouldn't even have to do that." Greene has framed the tax as an "unfair burden" hurting the "American dream." Which States Will Benefit the Most—and the Least According to Redfin, more than a quarter of homes across the U.S. have gained at least $250,000 in value since the last time they were purchased, with 8 percent having gained more than $500,000. The owners of these homes are the ones that stand to benefit by a potential elimination of the capital gains tax. By the same reasoning, the states where homeowners stand to gain from the abolition of the tax are those where homes have appreciated the most in recent decades. These include some of the most expensive housing markets in the country: California and Hawaii. In the Golden State, the median home value is $766,896 and the typical capital gain of all homes is $332,659, according to Redfin. A total of 62.3 percent of homes in the state have gained at least $250,000 since they were last sold—the highest share of any state in the nation. One in three (33 percent) have gained more than $500,000. Hawaii followed with 61 percent of homes having gained more than $250,000 in value since they were last sold, while 34.6 percent gained over $500,000. The overall capital gain was even higher than that of California, however, at $338,346. The top five states that would benefit most from the abolition of the federal capital gains tax also include Massachusetts, Washington and New Jersey, with respectively 58.4 percent, 54.1 percent, and 52.2 percent of homes that have gained at least $250,000 in value since they were last sold. Do you think abolishing the federal capital gains tax on home sales is a good or bad idea? Let me know your opinion by emailing The states where homeowners would benefit the least from the change, on the other hand, are Mississippi, North Dakota, Iowa, Oklahoma and Wyoming, which have seen the smallest share of homes that have appreciated over $250,000 in the country, respectively at 1.2 percent, 2.2 percent, 2.4 percent, 3.1 percent and 3.4 percent. What Would Be the Impact of Eliminating the Capital Gains Tax? According to experts, eliminating the federal capital gains tax could have a positive impact on the U.S. housing market, unlocking homes that homeowners were previously holding on to to avoid a high fiscal burden. "Ending the capital gains tax could potentially spur some sales by removing a barrier to selling. Home sales have been in a slump for the past couple years, and this might nudge some sellers to consider," Bankrate's Jeff Ostrowski told Newsweek. "However, the tax burden is far from the main cause of the housing market slowdown." Some experts fear that such a move could have unwanted consequences. "Ongoing affordability issues could be exacerbated by abolishing this tax as it could fuel demand and lead to a more competitive housing market, especially where supply is constrained," Hannah Jones, senior economist at told Newsweek. "Removing this tax would favor wealthy owners which could worsen equity inequality and make the market even more challenging for low-to-mid-earning buyers." McBride also said the measure does not address another cause of home price appreciation in recent years: the lack of supply. "There's a shortage of supply and that's the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed directly. This proposal does not address that," he said. "We have a penalty on investment in housing, on the supply of housing, due to its tax treatment through our depreciation system. That should be addressed, that's the way to directly address this."