NOW PLAYING
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s decision to drop cases against people suspected of damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has opened a new line of scrutiny around the potential legal ramifications.
As lawyers question what federal prosecutors knew and when, some suggested civil rights or defamation suits may follow.
The about-face has also made Pirro, a longtime ally of President Trump, the latest target of the president’s frustration over what he sees as letting people “get away with” vandalizing an iconic landmark in the nation’s capital.
The president met with Pirro and Interior Department Secretary Doug Burgum on Monday shortly after venting about the situation in the Oval Office.
The Justice Department moved in recent days to dismiss charges against four people who were accused of tampering with the pool after its multimillion-dollar renovation last month, including Olympic canoeist David Hearn.
A federal grand jury indicted him in early July on a felony destruction of property charge; the other three defendants were charged with misdemeanor crimes. All had pleaded not guilty.
Prosecutors offered no explanations in court filings about why they no longer wished to pursue charges against Justin Carreno, Cameron Thiers and Sophie Dennison-Gibby.
But a July 31 motion in Hearn’s case indicated that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia had received new information that determined vandalism was likely not to blame.
“It was not until after the return of the indictment, that the DOI [Department of the Interior] provided additional documents to the USAO-DC indicating that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in June 2026 was the result of flawed installation by the contractor, Atlantic Industrial Coatings (“AIC”), and the rush to complete the project prior to events associated with the America 250 celebration in the weeks surrounding Independence Day 2026,” Pirro wrote in the filing co-signed by longtime prosecutor Michael Spence, who heads the office’s D.C. Superior Court division.
Pirro’s office pinned fault on Burgum’s department for not being forthcoming with information at the outset of the case — a claim defense attorneys aren’t buying.
“Her claim that she and her office were previously duped by Interior is nonsense,” Hearn’s attorneys Norm Eisen, Mary Dohrmann and Steve Levin said in a Monday statement.
Carreno’s lawyer, who said his client lost his job after his arrest, was pleased with Pirro’s decision to drop the case but argued it should have never been brought in the first place.
“There was no actual crime committed by anybody who was charged, and they sort of went looking for people to blame for what had happened because people were unhappy with the condition of the Reflecting Pool,” said David Benowitz, a partner at Price Benowitz LLP. “And I think what happened is that the experienced prosecutors in that office knew that the information that went into that motion to dismiss was going to have to be disclosed.”
Benowitz was equally skeptical about prosecutors’ timeline, pointing to discovery details in Hearn’s defense filings that showed a government witness testified to the grand jury that damage was already there and repairs would have been needed regardless of his actions.
“They knew all that before they went out to the press and talked about, you know, vandalism and before Jeanine Pirro got up there and started, you know, making all these improper statements about Mr. Hearn,” he said.
“So now to come back and say … the Department of Interior hoodwinked us is, just to me, not credible,” Benowitz added.
Pirro’s office and the White House did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment.
Grand jury proceedings are kept private, with only prosecutors, jurors, witnesses and a court stenographer allowed in the room.
Bennett Gershman, a law professor at Pace University and the author of “Prosecutorial Misconduct,” said prosecutors generally have a responsibility to only present cases to a grand jury that they are confident could secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
The unknown of what happens behind closed doors can make the process ripe for misconduct, he explained, but proving that can be difficult.
“There’s very little accountability,” Gershman said. “That’s a fact.”
Both Hearn’s and Carreno’s defense teams say they are evaluating their legal options, which could include potential civil rights claims. Prosecutors may also face professional discipline if intentional misconduct is found.
Many are wondering where Pirro’s clash with Trump will leave her. He had some harsh words about her Monday in the Oval Office, saying she “choked” and “folded like an umbrella” when it came to dropping the charges against Hearn.
“The judge was extremely unfriendly to Jeanine, and frankly, I think she choked because the judge was really vicious,” Trump said.
But even after meeting with Pirro and Burgum, the president has given no indication that anything is changing.
“Trump is frustrated,” one GOP strategist told The Hill on Tuesday. “Because I understand he chewed her out behind closed doors yesterday.”
But the strategist said they don’t see Pirro being fired just yet.
“At this stage, I don’t see the president dismissing her because she’s got a reputation for being tough on crime and she’s also notched up some victories in D.C., particularly teen curfews,” they said.
Gershman echoed those sentiments.
“[I] think that he’s going to keep her because they’re just longtime allies, and she’s been good to him, and he’s been good to her,” Gershman said. “But it’s a curious case.”
Trump acknowledged Monday that the contractor’s work may have been less than perfect, even as he doubled down on claims that foul play was primarily responsible for the damage.
“I’m not saying I was 100 percent thrilled with the contractor, but the contractor was rushing. We wanted to get it open for July 4, and we got it done,” he said. “But in addition, there was vandalism.”
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) backed Pirro’s decision to drop the case against Hearn.
“The stakes are a lot higher for U.S. Attorney Pirro. You can’t lie to a federal judge. If she can’t prove her case, she was right to pull back,” he said.
Gershman, too, said “it’s a tricky balancing act” for Pirro.
“She knows that she’s going to incur Trump’s animosity for this, but she realizes she doesn’t want her office to be blamed,” he said.
Some acknowledged that there was more at stake for Pirro if she continued pursuing cases she felt she couldn’t prove.
“Pirro is in an interesting spot because if she continues to lie, she can get disbarred,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a former senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told The Hill on Monday.
“Burgum doesn’t have that problem. He can just keep lying, keep bootlicking, and you know, there’s no similar consequence for him.”
Rachel Frazin contributed.
Add as preferred source on Google Tags Donald Trump Doug Burgum Jeanine PirroCopyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments: Link copiedMore Court Battles News
See All
Senate Epstein survivor calls Cornyn’s vote to advance Blanche nomination ‘really depressing’ by Max Rego 3 hours ago Senate / 3 hours ago 
