Month: June 2024

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Thank you, Liz. It’s great to be here.

On behalf of the Attorney General, I want to welcome you all to this meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).

I want to thank Amy for helping to kick us off, and for her outstanding leadership of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) over the last three-plus years. Amy, you’ve been a wonderful ally and advisor in your own right. You’ve also been a good friend, and a true champion for our youth and for our communities. You are leaving OJP in excellent hands with Brent, but there’s no question that your absence will be deeply felt.

We are so very fortunate at the Department of Justice to have leaders like Liz Ryan and her amazing team in OJJDP to carry on the work of building safer communities and expanding opportunities for our youth. This work has never been more important, and the contributions of this council never so necessary.

We’re reminded of the urgency of this work in every news cycle, in every report about the challenges that our young people are facing, in the daily accounts of the difficult struggles our kids encounter. The overdose crisis, social isolation, anxiety about school shootings – these and so many other factors weigh heavily on the minds of our youth, in ways that we adults, raised in a different time, cannot fully imagine or appreciate.

Gun violence is high on the list of challenges. Just two days ago, the Surgeon General issued an advisory declaring firearm violence a public health crisis. The report points out that gun deaths overall have risen steadily over the last decade, and it underscores the deeply disturbing fact that firearm violence is the leading cause of death among children and teens, and has been for the last four years. And tragically, that violence disproportionately affects people of color. Black and Latino youth were up to seven times more likely in the past year to experience a firearm homicide than white youth. As the Surgeon General noted in another context, the challenges facing today’s youth are unprecedented, and their effects on youth mental health are devastating.

A vast body of research bears this out. Notably, these devastating effects aren’t even limited to mental health outcomes. Trauma and stress take an incredible toll on both mind and body, and the consequences can be profound, in some cases lasting a lifetime.

You all know better than anyone that without intervention, traumatic childhood experiences are a predictor of future victimization and justice involvement. They can also lead to a host of physical and psychological problems, including environmental stress so toxic that it can fundamentally alter the packaging of a child’s DNA.

Exposure to gun and community violence, apart from the immediate dangers it poses, can haunt and harm lives for years.

But we also know that if we are able to identify trauma early – and apply the right intervention – we can be very effective in preventing these harmful outcomes. We know that young people are uniquely shaped by trauma and victimization, but we also know that youth are resilient and highly responsive to treatment, especially if we’re able to reach them early. Our job is to help our colleagues in the field identify the most effective, evidence-informed solutions and bring those solutions to scale in our communities.

I’m immensely proud of the work that Liz and her team are doing to make this happen. OJJDP’s Continuums of Care initiative offers a blueprint for intervention and support that will help justice-involved youth overcome the adversity that so many have faced in their young lives. Their work to deliver developmentally appropriate services to youth in their homes and communities whenever possible, and to lower the barriers to opportunity, is strengthening safety and paving the way to success for our young people.

Amy has also outlined how we’re working to build trauma-informed strategies into programs across the public safety spectrum, to break cycles of harm among those who come into contact with the justice system. We know that the first vital step toward a healthy life involves healing. Only then can we hope to find sustainable answers to our community safety challenges.

I want to underscore how grateful the Justice Department’s leadership is that this distinguished body of experts is working together on behalf of our youth. You are the champions they need at the time when they need it the most.

We look forward to hearing the outcome of your deliberations and are eager to see the recommendations you will be making later this year.

Thank you for your time, and best wishes for a productive conversation today.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

An Alaska man pleaded guilty yesterday to making interstate threats to kidnap and injure a sitting U.S. Senator.

According to court documents, Arther Graham, 46, of Kenai, sent a web form submission to a U.S. Senator on Sept. 28, 2023, threatening to injure the Senator. Congressional staff members reported the threat to the U.S. Capitol Police and an investigation was launched.

“Threats of violence against public servants are abhorrent and unacceptable, and as this plea makes clear, the Justice Department will not tolerate them,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “Our democracy depends on the ability of members of Congress to do their jobs without fearing for their safety. The Justice Department will continue to do everything in our power to protect those who serve the public and to hold accountable those who endanger them.”

Graham identified himself in the threat. Law enforcement later confirmed the sender was Graham and lived in Kenai. He was taken into custody by special agents from the U.S. Capitol Police and FBI at his home on Oct. 30, 2023.

He is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 1, and faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Attorney General Garland, U.S. Attorney S. Lane Tucker for the District of Alaska and Chief J. Thomas Manger of the U.S. Capitol Police made the announcement.

The U.S. Capitol Police and FBI Anchorage Field Office investigated the case, with assistance from the Kenai Police Department and the Alaska State Troopers.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Vandergaw for the District of Alaska is prosecuting the case.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Thank you for the introduction, Kai. Thank you to the Open Markets Institute and The Guardian US for organizing today’s event. I am happy to be here for this important conversation. I could not imagine a more important topic.

The free flow of information and the exchange of ideas is the lifeblood of our cultural lives and our democracy. Humans need connections to one another like they need air and water. And a democracy needs citizens to exchange information and ideas. That is what democracy is all about: competing ideas in a debate that plays out freely over time. With freedom of thought and expression, democracy thrives. In contrast, the first goal of the tyrant is to control thought and information.

That is why the Founders made freedom of speech the very first right protected in our Bill of Rights. They understood deeply and personally the threats that government could pose to the marketplace of ideas on which democracy depends.

Ben Franklin was not just a champion of a free press and free speech, but a journalist and publisher himself. He committed to that work because he believed in “the sacred liberty of the press” and “the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions.”[1] So the Constitution fervently protected the public from government control of the press and of speech.

In the modern era, there are new threats to the marketplace of ideas. The Founders could not have imagined private corporations with the power to shape, control, or stifle freedom of speech on a national scale. It was just inconceivable in an era when the town square was … a square in the middle of town.

The only electric bottleneck Ben Franklin ever encountered was tied between a kite and a key. He could not have imagined that one day that wire would carry every Federalist Paper, all of journalism, all debate, every kind of connection between citizens. 

If he had, Franklin would have immediately seen the threat we face today. If a single platform of 1’s and 0’s hosts the marketplace of ideas, whoever controls that platform controls our thoughts, and our democracy will not survive.

Today we are confronting that challenge. The rise of dominant platforms in the marketplace of ideas threatens journalism, the exchange of information, and the marketplace of ideas. Powerful corporations that stand between citizens and writers, musicians, artists, and journalists exert enormous control and influence.

This is a dynamic that is playing out in many different areas. I would like to talk today about journalism, publishing, and AI in particular. These are industries where dominant intermediaries act as gatekeepers to the information commons. And as gatekeepers, they have the ability to extract more than their fair share from both sides of the market.

But this is about so much more than the price or output of these products and services. What is at stake is speech itself. Private corporations decide what ideas are worthy, whose voices are amplified, and what messages are disseminated and to whom. What is at stake is the very way in which people gather information and make decisions, and the very existence of the people who live to share their ideas, thoughts, and creations.  

Franklin might have also seen the solution to this problem. In a world where information flows over cables between silicon chips, we need more than just the one strand he tied to his kite and key.

Competition between many platforms means a small number of dominant platforms do not have outsized power over speech. And when there are more competitors, journalists and content creators have more opportunities to bargain for the value of their content, while consumers have the ability to vote with their feet.

That is a world where private citizens can benefit from different viewpoints and make informed decisions about how they want to live their lives. Where competition among many online platforms flourishes, no one company can exercise control over the flow of information in our democracy.

In the absence of competition, there are few if any incentives to compete to offer solutions for common problems. But competition can constrain behavior and even facilitate market-based solutions—whether it be how to fairly compensate creators of content, or how to combat the spread of false information and harmful content online.

Today, I would like to talk about three areas where this dynamic is playing out.

1. Journalism

Journalism is under threat in large part due to consolidation in the advertising market.

The statistics are staggering. In 2023, an average of 2.5 newspapers closed each week.[2] Since 2005, the country has lost one-third of its newspapers.[3] And it has lost two-thirds of its newspaper journalists in that same period.[4]

This is in no small part due to the ripple effects from changes in how advertising works. Traditionally, news organizations have relied on subscriptions and advertising to fund their reporting and to pay their journalists. But with the rise of the Internet, readers increasingly turned to online aggregators for news.

Today, the majority of Americans prefer to get their news on a digital device, rather than from TV, radio, or print.[5] Americans now get their news from news websites, searches, and from social media.[6] Social media is especially prominent. According to a recent survey, about half of U.S. adult today get news from social media at least sometimes.[7]

This means that powerful platforms are acting as middlemen between newspapers and readers. Digital advertising dollars now go to these middlemen, rather than to the journalists and news organizations that do the reporting.

In turn, newspapers now depend on these platforms for the distribution of their content. They need the platforms to reach the readership, and they have little negotiating power. And without sufficient advertising revenue, independent journalism suffers.

Competition is a key piece of the puzzle toward a solution to these problems. Competition paves the way for innovation and the development of new business models and new economic relationships.

Inter-platform competition could shift the balance of power and create different bargaining dynamics for newspapers. Competition among digital advertisers can lead the way toward a fairer compensation structure for those who do the on-the-ground reporting and write the articles.

Again, what is at stake here is not just the price of the newspaper. It is about journalism itself. It is about whether our society can support the journalists that do the hard work of separating truth from falsehood to shed light on the most important issues of our day. Without the journalists who do this work, our democracy cannot thrive.

2. Publishing

The trend toward consolidation has threatened another industry necessary for ideas to flourish — publishing.

The Antitrust Division brought a successful challenge to halt the merger between Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster. These are two of the largest book publishers in the industry. The proposed merger would have consolidated the “big 5” publishers into the “big 4” — further tightening the oligopoly that authors faced.

But our challenge to that merger was not just based on a theory that the price of books would increase due to reduced competition. It was that the merger meant that authors would receive lower advances. That would not only harm authors, but ultimately, it could lead to fewer books and a diminished diversity of viewpoints as fewer authors would invest the time and effort to write the next best-seller.

Authors and books are more than just economic units. They are vital to the marketplace of ideas and the public discourse.

Our victory in that case protected the vital competition for books. It was a victory for authors, for readers, and for the free exchange of ideas.

3. Artificial Intelligence

Last but not least, let me turn to AI.

AI will reshape all of the information and content industries. It will change the way we consume our news. It will affect the way in which content is created. And it will change the way that we interact with information.

Without meaningful competition, the same threats that plague journalism will spread to all other content creation markets.

Generative AI leverages human creations. Journalists, authors, artists, musicians — all types of human creativity become inputs into large-scale AI models that can swallow up and regurgitate their work.

AI carries the potential to create dominant companies that can exploit monopsony power at levels we have never seen before — a dominant buyer for all of the world’s ideas.

But what incentives will there be to create if the ideas of our writers, actors, and entertainers, can simply be taken without just compensation and through the exercise of monopsony power? What incentives will there be for journalists to seek out the truth when their work is uncompensated?

What does it mean for our society if we cannot protect those who live to share the ideas and creativity with the world?

The future of free expression depends on how we answer these questions as a society. Our democratic values depend on our ability to save ideas. We must do all we can to promote competition and innovation in the industries necessary for ideas and democracy to flourish.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

The Justice Department today announced the 2024 National Health Care Fraud Enforcement Action, which resulted in criminal charges against 193 defendants, including 76 doctors, nurse practitioners, and other licensed medical professionals in 32 federal districts across the United States, for their alleged participation in various health care fraud schemes involving approximately $2.75 billion in intended losses and $1.6 billion in actual losses.

Related:

National Health Care Fraud Enforcement Action Results in 193 Defendants Charged and Over $2.75 Billion in False Claims

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Delivers Remarks on a National Health Care Fraud Enforcement Action Resulting in 193 Defendants Charged and Over $2.75 Billion in False Claims

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

A former Department of Defense civilian employee was sentenced today to one year and eight months in prison for assaulting a U.S. military member in July 2020.    

According to court documents, Gerald Leon Ray III, 27, of Lathrop, California, intentionally struck the victim in the face near Osan Air Base, a U.S. military installation in the Republic of Korea. The assault caused the victim to fall to the ground, strike his head on the pavement, and suffer serious bodily injury. The evidence showed that, without immediate medical attention, which he received, the victim could have died. The victim’s injuries included a broken jaw, brain hemorrhage, and ongoing physical and mental health symptoms. At the time, Ray was employed in the Republic of Korea by the Defense Commissary Agency, a Department of Defense agency, on Osan Air Base.

The charge was brought under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), which establishes U.S. jurisdiction over certain offenses committed abroad by, among others, civilian employees of the Armed Forces.

Ray previously pleaded guilty on March 21 in the Eastern District of California to assault resulting in serious bodily injury.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri, head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert for the Eastern District of California; Special Agent Andrew D. Franz of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Osan Air Base Korea; and Special Agent in Charge Sid Patel of the FBI Sacramento Field Office made the announcement.

The U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and FBI investigated this case, with valuable assistance from the U.S. Army’s Criminal Investigation Division and U.S. Marshals Service in connection with the arrest, initial detention, and transport of Ray.

Trial Attorney Marie Zisa of the Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Heiko P. Coppola for the Eastern District of California prosecuted the case.