Law / Politics

Add as a preferred source on Google

Reports Say DOJ Examines Allegations Tied to Lewandowski’s DHS Role

The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post said the inspector general sent prosecutors findings about Lewandowski’s tenure. His attorney told AP that the Justice Department had not contacted him.

Updated 2 min read
The Department of Justice headquarters stands along Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. (AI-generated image / EconoTimes)
The Department of Justice headquarters stands along Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. (AI-generated image / EconoTimes)

The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post reported that prosecutors received inspector general findings about Corey Lewandowski’s tenure as a senior adviser at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), amid allegations involving federal contracts.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has not publicly confirmed the reported review. The Journal reported that prosecutors were examining whether Lewandowski benefited financially from his DHS role. CNN described an investigation into alleged contract misconduct, including claims that people seeking DHS contracts were asked to pay kickbacks. CNN traced those allegations to earlier Journal reporting. The claims have not been established as fact.

During former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s tenure, Lewandowski worked as an adviser and special government employee. The Washington Post reported that Noem’s system required DHS headquarters to approve contracts above $100,000. It said Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin later raised the amount triggering review to $25 million.

Lewandowski’s attorney, Adam Trigg, told The Associated Press that DOJ had not contacted his client and said Lewandowski denied wrongdoing while serving voluntarily. The Washington Post reported that DOJ declined to comment. The Associated Press said DOJ and DHS had not immediately responded to its requests for comment.

Reuters reported Oct. 22, citing one source, that prosecutors had issued no subpoenas or comparable legal demands by that date. The reports reviewed did not document charges or an indictment.

Related articles

View all