|
Stanley Woodward served as Assistant to the President and Senior Counselor to Donald Trump in his second term before he was appointed to be the Associate Attorney General at the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2025. Woodward has many connections with Trump’s inner circle and has represented several of Trump’s allies including, Kash Patel, Dan Scavino, Peter Navarro, and U.S. Rep. Scott Perry. Significantly, Woodward also represented Walt Naulta, Trump’s aide who was charged in the Mar-a-Lago stolen-documents case. Woodward also represented January 6 defendants, including one convicting of assaulting police officers at the Capitol. In July 2026, a federal judge rebuked Woodward and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for not vigorously defending the government's interests in Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, which ultimately led to the so-called “anti-weaponization fund” through which Trump supporters – including January 6 rioters – could receive part of the $1.8-billion fund. As the White House, Woodward was charged with vetting nominees and questioned about his role in the appointment of Tom Homan to serve at Trump's “border czar” despite an active bribery investigation into him. |
July 2026: U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams Ruled That Woodward Failed To “Zealously Defend” The Government’s Interests As Defendants In The Trump’s Lawsuit Against The IRS. According to NOTUS, "A federal judge in Florida on Monday issued a scathing rebuke of President Donald Trump’s settlement with the IRS over his leaked tax returns, ruling that Trump, his private attorneys and the Justice Department had manipulated the judicial process to benefit Trump and his allies. The ruling from Judge Kathleen M. Williams appears to void a settlement the Justice Department announced in May that included an immunity agreement for Trump and his family, along with an attempt to create a nearly $1.8 billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund for people who claim to have been unfairly targeted by federal authorities. […] In her ruling Monday, Williams said she was convinced that the president, his private lawyers, and the Justice Department weren’t actually adverse parties in the case, and that the Justice Department failed to 'zealously defend' the government’s interests as a defendant in the litigation. She noted that Blanche had served as Trump’s personal lawyer in his criminal cases, and that Stanley Woodward Jr., the current associate attorney general whose signature appears on the settlement, represented several individuals charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack. Another lawyer for Trump, Daniel Epstein, served as a White House lawyer in Trump’s first term. 'Instead of either recusing because of their previous representations or vigorously defending this lawsuit as required to do so by DOJ policies and procedures,' Williams wrote, 'these lawyers agreed to a ‘settlement’ involving a staggering amount of money potentially benefitting former clients.'" [NOTUS, 7/13/26]
Woodward Represented Trump Allies In Legal Matters. According to CBS News, “Woodward previously served as a defense attorney representing many prominent Trump allies in the past, including White House adviser Peter Navarro, FBI Director Kash Patel and Walt Nauta, who was charged by Special Counsel Jack Smith in the classified documents case.” [CBS News, 4/4/26]
Woodward Played Crucial Role In Trump’s Classified Documents Defense By Representing Walt Naula. According to New York Times, “But it was in the classified documents investigation that Mr. Woodward proved his value to the president. In representing Mr. Trump’s aide, Walt Nauta, Mr. Woodward often played a significant role in devising and executing defense strategy. Mr. Nauta first began working as a valet for Mr. Trump at the White House and stayed with him as a private employee when the president left office.” [New York Times, 4/2/25]
Prosecutors Tried To Disqualify Woodward Due To Alleged Ethical Conflicts. According to New York Times, “As Mr. Nauta’s lawyer, Mr. Woodward proved a vexing adversary to prosecutors, who at one point suggested he had ethical conflicts by representing other witnesses in the case that might force him to stop representing Mr. Nauta.” [New York Times, 4/2/25]
Woodward Represented Multiple Jan. 6 Defendants, Including One Who Was Convicted Of Assaulting Police In A Capitol Tunnel. According to POLITICO, “Woodward also represented a slew of Jan. 6 defendants, including Ryan Samsel, who ignited the breach of restricted Capitol grounds; Kelly Meggs, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role in an alleged plot by Oath Keepers leaders to help Trump seize a second term; and Federico Klein, a former State Department official who was convicted of assaulting police in a Capitol tunnel. All of them were pardoned or had their cases dismissed after Trump took office in January.” [POLITICO, 4/2/25]
2025-2026: Woodward Involved In Trump’s Legal Attacks Against Major Law Firms. According to Bloomberg Law, “Woodward, who previously represented Jan. 6 defendants and Trump aides, was more recently embroiled in the administration’s high-profile reversal over defending executive orders targeting major law firms.” [Bloomberg Law, 4/5/26]
April 2026: Woodward’s Inadvertent Court Filing Led To DOJ Backtracking. According to Bloomberg Law, “He was one of two DOJ lawyers who told a court the administration was abandoning its appeal, before backtracking the following day. The administration said the initial decision to drop its defense of the law firm orders that a lower court had struck down was an inadvertent filing by Woodward.” [Bloomberg Law, 4/5/26]
September 2025: Tom Homan Claimed He Did “Nothing Criminal” Amid Allegations Of Accepting $50,000 In Cash. According to POLITICO, “MSNBC first reported last month that the FBI recorded Homan accepting $50,000 in cash from agents posing as business executives seeking government contracts in an undercover operation before he began his role in the Trump administration. Homan said in a September interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham in the wake of the reporting that he did ‘nothing criminal’ but did not initially say whether he accepted the payment or not.” [POLITICO, 10/16/25]
October 2025: The White House Dismissed FBI Investigation Into Tom Homan As Politically Motivated. According to POLITICO, “The White House has acknowledged that federal authorities conducted a probe but maintained that there was no ‘credible evidence’ of criminal wrongdoing by Homan, repeatedly dismissing the investigation as politically motivated.” [POLITICO, 10/16/25]
2025: The Case Against Tom Homan Was Shuttered Due To Insufficient Evidence And His Lack Of Official Role At The Time. According to New York Times, “After Mr. Trump took office this year, Justice Department officials shut down the case because of doubts about whether prosecutors could prove to a jury that Mr. Homan had agreed to do any specific acts in exchange for the money, and because he had not held an official government position at the time of the meeting with undercover agents, the people added.” [New York Times, 9/20/25]
September 2025: The FBI And Justice Department Said There Was No Credible Evidence Of Wrongdoing In The Homan Investigation. According to New York Times, “Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, and Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, said in a statement on Saturday that the investigation ‘was subjected to a full review by F.B.I. agents and Justice Department prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.’” [New York Times, 9/20/25]
October 2025: Democratic Lawmakers Criticized White House Statements On Allegations Against Homan. According to Salon, “In a letter sent to Department of Justice Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Democratic lawmakers lambasted the White House’s ‘conflicting and increasingly desperate statements’ in response to allegations of bribery leveled at Homan.” [Salon, 10/8/25]
October 2025: Democratic Lawmakers Sought Answers About The Homan Scandal In A Letter To Stanley Woodward. According to Salon, “‘We write now to follow up and demand that you answer fundamental questions,' the letter read. ‘Who knew about the Homan cash bribery scandal, when did they know it, and why was Mr. Homan appointed ‘Border Czar’ even in the face of such damning evidence of his taking bribes for government contracts?’” [Salon, 10/8/25]
October 2025: Stanley Woodward Was Tasked With Vetting Candidates During Trump’s Second Term Transition. According to Salon, “Woodward was responsible for researching and vetting candidates joining the Trump administration during the transition to Trump’s second term.” [Salon, 10/8/25]
October 2025: Democrats Alleged Trump’s Decision To Appoint Homan Enabled The Halt Of The Bribery Investigation Into Him. According to Salon, “‘'It accordingly appears that the decision to kill the investigation was pre-ordained from the moment Mr. Trump decided to proceed with Mr. Homan’s appointment despite overwhelming evidence that he was guilty of conspiracy to commit bribery and sell government contracts for his personal enrichment,’ Dems wrote in their letter to Woodward.” [Salon, 10/8/25]