What the new DOJ report says about the FBI’s Richmond Catholic memo
The Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group says a 2023 FBI intelligence assessment from the Richmond Field Office led to inquiries involving two Catholic priests and surveillance of one of them, even though the FBI found no connection to criminal activity or violent extremism.
The report was released August 27, 2026, and the Justice Department updated its announcement August 28. It adds new details to a controversy that had already prompted an internal FBI review and a limited Justice Department inspector-general review. It also says Richmond personnel continued refining the assessment after FBI headquarters directed that it be removed from bureau systems.
Those conclusions come from the current DOJ working group. They are not a court ruling, criminal indictment or final judicial determination. The report also does not erase the earlier oversight finding that investigators’ work showed serious failures but no evidence of malicious intent or improper purpose.
What the new DOJ report says
The working group says it reviewed more than 1,800 pages of FBI emails, intelligence assessments and investigative records. According to DOJ, Richmond agents made extensive inquiries into two priests and monitored one priest’s travel and communications. The department says the FBI ultimately found no link between the priests and criminal activity or violent extremism.
DOJ also says the Richmond office relied on biased or unverified material, including publications from the Southern Poverty Law Center and foreign intelligence materials, without adequately assessing their credibility. The working group says the assessment improperly connected certain conservative Catholic beliefs with domestic violent extremism and failed to address First Amendment concerns.
The report further says Richmond personnel continued working on the assessment after headquarters ordered it removed from FBI systems. DOJ says employees involved received positive performance reviews and that Richmond leadership defended the work despite acknowledging flaws.
The Justice Department says key FBI personnel responsible for the Richmond Domain Perspective were removed. Separately, The Associated Press reported on June 5 that four intelligence analysts and a supervisory analyst tied to the memo had been fired. AP said the FBI declined to comment and quoted a lawyer for the employees disputing the terminations. The two accounts should be read together without assuming that every person described in the report had the same employment status or role.
How the Richmond memo began
The original assessment grew out of a separate domestic-terrorism investigation involving a man who had made violent, racist and anti-government statements, acquired weapons-related materials and discussed attacks. That investigation—not Catholic belief itself—was the initial law-enforcement context.
According to the earlier inspector-general record, the subject had been on the FBI’s radar before his association with the Catholic church at issue. Investigators had evidence that included threats, violent rhetoric, weapons-related conduct and statements about possible attacks. The FBI also used a confidential human source at the church to interact with that subject; the source was instructed to report on him rather than the church or other parishioners generally.
After the man attended a traditional Catholic chapel, Richmond analysts began examining whether people with similar religious interests might be connected to violent extremists. In January 2023, the office circulated the “Richmond Domain Perspective,” which described an alleged relationship between “Radical Traditionalist Catholic” ideology and racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism.
The FBI withdrew the memo after it became public. The controversy centered on the document’s treatment of religious beliefs, including traditional worship practices and conservative social views, as possible indicators of extremism.
What earlier reviews found
An April 2023 FBI Inspection Division review found that the people involved in drafting, reviewing and approving the assessment failed to meet analytic tradecraft standards. It cited insufficient evidence, weak professional judgment, inadequate approval procedures and poor awareness of First Amendment requirements.
The review also found that the memo equated subjects’ religious views with racially or ethnically motivated violent-extremist activity without sufficient evidence or articulable support. That created the appearance that the FBI could conduct investigative activity based on religious affiliation. The FBI responded with corrective actions that included enhanced approval requirements for sensitive intelligence products and formal admonishments for employees involved.
A letter from the Justice Department inspector general dated April 18, 2024, summarized those findings. It said the earlier FBI review found no evidence of malicious intent or improper purpose. The OIG letter also said its own review was limited by the scope of the congressional assignment, the ongoing criminal prosecution that formed the memo’s background and a 120-day statutory reporting deadline.
The OIG said it considered lawmakers’ broader concerns about whether Richmond had targeted Catholics who attended traditional Latin Mass or held pro-life or other conservative views. But the letter’s stated conclusions were focused on the creation and content of the Richmond Domain Perspective and the predicated domestic-terrorism investigation that supported it. That limitation matters when comparing the earlier review with the broader claims in the 2026 working-group report.
What is genuinely new—and what remains unresolved
The new DOJ account’s most important addition is its description of the scope of activity involving the two priests, including the reported monitoring of one priest’s travel and communications. It also presents a stronger conclusion that the activity was improper and unjustified and says personnel continued work after the removal directive.
That differs in emphasis from the earlier reviews, which documented serious failures but stopped short of finding malicious intent. The records therefore raise separate questions about poor analysis, improper investigative activity, supervisory failures and possible employment misconduct. Those categories should not be treated as interchangeable, and the working-group report is not a judicial determination of criminal liability.
The precise legal and operational basis for each inquiry will remain important. The released records may show which activity was tied to the original predicated investigation, which activity came from the intelligence assessment and what approvals or restrictions applied. That distinction is central to evaluating whether constitutional safeguards were followed.
Accountability and safeguards
DOJ says Attorney General Todd Blanche authorized a limited waiver of privileged material so underlying records could be released. The department also says key personnel responsible for the assessment were removed. AP’s reporting indicates that at least five employees tied to the memo were fired, while their lawyer called the action unjustified.
Further oversight is likely to focus on how the assessment was approved, what headquarters knew about continued work after its removal, how sensitive intelligence products are reviewed and whether investigators received adequate First Amendment training. Congressional committees may also examine whether the Richmond episode reflected an isolated breakdown or a broader weakness in federal safeguards.
For readers, the constitutional distinction is straightforward: federal investigators may examine conduct tied to credible threats of violence, but religious belief, worship and protected expression cannot by themselves serve as the basis for an investigation. The unresolved accountability question is whether the FBI’s policies and supervision are strong enough to enforce that distinction in practice.
What to watch next
Watch for the full set of released records and exhibits, congressional requests for additional material, any further FBI or DOJ policy changes, and possible legal claims by affected individuals. The most consequential next step will be determining whether the new report produces documented safeguards that apply beyond the Richmond case.
Sources
- U.S. Department of Justice: Weaponization Working Group report announcement
- DOJ Office of the Inspector General: April 18, 2024 letter to Congress
- Associated Press: FBI fires several analysts tied to disputed Catholic ideology memo
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.