Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt is wrong about so many things. He’s wrong about ICE and CBP. He’s wrong about Trump. He’s wrong about the 1st amendment. And he’s massively wrong about criminal ‘obstruction of justice,’ which he seeks to expand into ludicrously benign activities such as blowing the type of whistles favored by suburban soccer coaches.
Schmitt has authored a new bill that—yes—would make—blowing a whistle—at ICE or CBP agents a crime worthy of 5 years imprisonment. This extends ‘obstruction’ past any reasonable meaning which is interesting considering the present pattern of obstruction being implemented by republicans like Schmitt, all engineered to protect Donald Trump and his oligarchs from legal accountability.
The blatant hypocrisy behind this bill is palpable. While the Trump DOJ has violated the terms of the Epstein Transparency law regarding mandated timelines and full production of documents; Schmitt has grown a prosecutorial ‘hard-on’ for those who blow—whistles. While the Trump DOJ is censoring evidence of widespread pedophile rape; Schmitt wages a war—on whistle blowing.
While children are being abused in migrant detention centers; Schmitt frets about the dubious dangers of ‘noise makers’ and ‘being insensitive’ to ICE agents. While Schmitt and the majority of republicans ignore the almost daily constitutional violations committed by ICE and Border Patrol agents; he seeks to criminalize–blowing a whistle.
Schmitt has no legal concern regarding actual ‘obstruction’ as long as that ‘obstruction’ benefits Trump. Erroneous and frivolous charges of obstruction serve as Schmitt’s litigious weapon of choice against constitutionally protected dissent, as he desperately seeks to protect the convicted felon now seated in the Oval Office.
Schmitt’s ‘Protect America Act’…an exercise in asinine sycophancy…
So, how does his bill define ‘obstruction of justice’? The bill is known by its cringeworthy, short title, the “Protect America Act.” The Protect American Act has several provisions, such as criminalizing the creation and maintenance of ‘sanctuary cities’, providing enhanced penalties for illegal reentry, targeting NGO’s for revocation of their tax sheltered status, and doubling the penalty for assaulting ICE agents, (though the bill is quite vague regarding what constitutes an assault).
The asinine SHIELD Act component…
As asinine as the provisions in this bill are; there is another section which takes ‘asininery’ to new levels, posing an illegitimate attack on the 1st Amendment. This last detail is dubbed the SHIELD Act, and can be found on page 2 of the pdf. The SHIELD acronym is short for the following farcical name: “Shielding Heros in Enforcement From Loud Disruptions.” (It should be noted that the misspelling of ‘heroes’ was found on the original document from Schmitt’s own website). This section specifically cites the use of WHISTLES as objects causing such “loud disruptions.” And yes, that includes the type of whistles you might purchase at the local Dollar Store or party supply merchant. The section citing the ‘dangers of whistles’ is found on page 36, TITLE III. Below is the cited section directly quoted from the pdf document.
“TITLE III—PROTECT LAW 13 ENFORCEMENT 14 Subtitle A—Shielding Heros In Enforcement From Loud Disruptions OR the SHIELD Act”
‘‘(4) Whoever commits or attempts to commit any act to obstruct, impede, inhibit, stymie, hinder, hamper, or interfere with any person described in section 1114 of this title while that person is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties or any Federally protected function of that person—’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(c) For purposes of this section, ‘interfere with’ includes creating a loud noise that impedes, inhibits, stymies, hinders, or hampers the operations or audible communications of, by using a device, such as a whistle, megaphone, or sound amplification device.’’ (p. 34-35)
Schmitt’s “Protect America Act” contains many more problematic provisions–but the section criminalizing the use of WHISTLES was particularly asinine. Schmitt has conveniently ignored the pattern of systemic obstruction by Trump’s DOJ under Attorney General Pam Bondi. Blowing loud whistles and banging pots and pans at ‘sensitive’ ICE and Border Patrol agents weighs heavily on Schmitt’s brow, while an alleged coverup of wholesale pedophilia is not on his agenda. So, how does the 1st Amendment stack up vs ‘obstruction of justice’?
1st Amendment vs alleged ‘obstruction of justice’…
Schmitt’s allegations and demands provided for in this bill would redefine various behaviors as ‘obstruction of justice’ and that would include being noisy. This federal overreach begs the question; when does the 1st amendment right to free speech end–and the allegation of ‘obstruction of justice’ begin? When did being ‘noisy’ become obstruction of justice? What is the legitimate legal rationale behind Schmitt’s assertions? The 1st Amendment is at stake here and Schmitt, being a former Missouri AG, knows it. Essentially, Schmitt has engineered a sneak attack against free speech and constitutionally protected dissent in general with his ironically named “Protect America Act.” So, what constitutes actual ‘obstruction of justice’?
Legal Information Institute–Cornell Law School…
The Legal Information Institute (LII) of the Cornell Law School defines ‘obstruction of justice’ as follows:
“Obstruction of justice broadly refers to actions by individuals that illegally prevent or influence the outcome of a government proceeding. While the quintessential example of obstruction of justice involves tampering in a judicial proceedings, there are numerous laws on obstruction of justice, covering all branches of government and targeting different kinds of obstruction. Instead of one law, law on obstruction of justice is located in multiple federal and state statutes, given the numerous methods in which obstruction can be carried out. While varying greatly, each obstruction of justice statute typically requires proof that the defendant 1) knew of a government proceeding and 2) acted with the intent to interfere with the proceeding.”
Now, the definition proceeds to list the major categories of obstruction, which involve serious actions–and definitely–not whistles. They involve the following:
- “Obstruction of Jurors and Court Officers 18 U.S.C. 1503 : makes it illegal for someone to “corruptly” or through threats or force influence a juror or officer of the court in carrying out their duties before a judicial proceeding. The punishment for this crime can reach over 20 years imprisonment in the most extreme cases.”
- “Obstructing Witnesses and Evidence 18 U.S.C. 1512: makes it illegal in an y way to harm, threaten, delay, or otherwise influence a witness to an official proceeding, punishable by up to 30 years imprisonment. The law also makes it a crime to destroy, change, or hide evidence that could be used in an official proceeding.”
- “Obstruction of Congressional and Agency Proceedings 18 U.S.C. 1505: makes it illegal for someone to “corruptly” or through threats or force influence any proceeding or inquiry in Congress or by a federal agency. The law also makes it illegal to obstruct documents and other evidence given in response to inquiries under the Antitrust Civil Process Act. The punishment of this crime can lead to up to 5 years imprisonment.”
Nowhere is there any mention of the obstructive ‘dangers’ of ‘whistles’ and other noise making devices. Nowhere. And it’s this clause that poses the danger to the 1st Amendment. Again, here is the offending clause:
‘(c) For purposes of this section, ‘interfere with’ includes creating a loud noise that impedes, inhibits, stymies, hinders, or hampers the operations or audible communications of, by using a device, such as a whistle, megaphone, or sound amplification device.’’
Schmitt has a reciprocity problem. He had no objection when federal officials toted the LRAD (long-range acoustic device) to use against citizens, yet has a problem when protesters use the same ‘whistles’ sported by pee wee softball coaches. The issue isn’t rule of law. The issue is an attack on constitutionally protected dissent. Realize that the LRAD device, (otherwise known as a ‘sonic cannon’), can cause permanent hearing loss as the “LRAD’s maximum continuous volume peaks…at 162 decibels (dB)”. The human ear’s threshold of pain begins at 80 decibels. The Minnesota State Police used the LRAD on January 27, 2026 against protesters outside a hotel where the Border Patrol commander was believed to be staying.
Again, the question is one of reciprocity. Why are police allowed to use a sonic cannon that can cause permanent hearing loss in response to protesters banging pots and pans, (or blowing whistles), while Schmitt’s proposed bill would criminalize protesters ‘getting too noisy’? How does this preoccupation with whistles and other noise compare to serious instances of true obstruction of justice that Schmitt has conveniently ignored?
Obstruction of Justice from DOJ censorship of the Epstein Files…Ignoring Suspected Child Abuse and Pedophile Rape…
Why is Schmitt ignoring the possible wholesale obstruction ‘hiding in plain sight’, namely the failure of the DOJ, (as well as state and local law enforcement authorities), to investigate or take into custody those powerful persons openly accused of child abuse, including rape. Doesn’t the silence coming from DOJ on these allegations constitute ‘obstruction of justice’? One specific instance comes to mind; and that involves allegations of child abuse, rape, torture, and murder, coming from the property once owned by Epstein—the infamous Zorro Ranch. So what could constitute possible ‘obstruction of justice’ coming from the Trump administration, the FBI under Kash Patel, and the DOJ under Pam Bondi? Below is a brief list of possible instances of ‘obstruction’.
Todd Blanche making excuses…
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche treads dangerously close to ‘obstruction’ when he parses words regarding ‘partying with Epstein.’ He recently defended those who ‘merely attended’ parties with Epstein and his fellow assorted pedophiles. Blanche casually dismissed such concerns as he clearly stated that …”it isn’t a crime to party with Mr. Epstein.” Except that’s not exactly true. Depending on who is in attendance at those parties; the issue of legal responsibility held by ‘mandated reporters’ of child abuse and neglect, comes into play. Mandated reporters, such as physicians, teachers, police, constitute a category of professionals and other staff who are legally required to report merely ‘suspected’ child abuse and/or neglect to the authorities. What Blanche conveniently omitted is the fact that said failure to report suspected child abuse if you are a mandated reporter—is a crime. Those mandated reporters who attended parties, witnessed inappropriate conduct with minor children and left without reporting said suspected child abuse, are in violation of their legally mandated responsibility. They are guilty of ‘failure to report’ and—yes—’obstruction of justice.’
Ten states also impose penalties on those who engage in any pursuit or activity …”that prevents or prohibits a report of suspected abuse or neglect.” If this sounds like suspected ‘obstruction’—well it is.
Obstruction and cover-ups of suspected child abuse by ICE….
Reports of systemic child abuse and neglect in ICE detention centers has leaked out to the press. Obviously, handcuffing a baby still in diapers constitutes child abuse, but the abuse and neglect goes much farther. Medical neglect of migrant children has also been reported. Migrants have stated to volunteer attorneys that the food served to them is spoiled with mold and other contaminants. The water has a foul smell which would indicate that it’s most likely tainted and unfit for human consumption, subsequently children consuming this food and water are presenting symptoms of diarrhea, vomiting, listlessness, fever, and severe weight loss, which are consistent with waterborne diseases such as cholera, dysentery, hepatitis A.
Immigration attorney Eric Lee cite Dilley facility…
Immigration attorney, Eric Lee witnessed deplorable conditions at the Dilley facility and reported that …”the water is putrid. They have to mix baby formula with water that nobody wants to even smell. The food has bugs in it. The food has dirt in it.” Lee attempted to visit the Dilley facility.
Children are particularly vulnerable to these diseases, more so than adults. The most common waterborne diseases from contaminated water supplies are diarrhea, dysentery, hepatitis A, typhoid, polio, and cholera. The World Health Organization has stated that diarrhea is the “most widely known disease linked to contaminated food and water”. It is estimated that approximately 1 million people “die each year from diarrhea as a result of unsafe drinking water, sanitation and hand hygiene..
How is this maltreatment not a form of child abuse and neglect? Where is the DOJ on this systemic abuse? Democratic representatives Jasmine Crockett and Joaqim Castro visited Liam Ramos at the Dilley center, witnessed the situation and requested reform.
DHS Tricia McLaughlin issued response…
Rather than investigate and correct these issues, the DOJ issued a flat denial of these reports. To quote DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin refuted the reports from Reps. Jasmine Crockett and Joaqim Castro in a statement to CNN.
“… ICE would NEVER deny any illegal alien medical care. These types of smears are leading to our officers facing a more than 1,300 percent increase in assaults against them.”
McLaughlin also added that ICE “did NOT target, arrest a child or use a child as ‘bait,’” adding that agents “abided by the father’s wishes to keep the child with him.”
McLaughlin’s official and unofficial statements denying such blatant abuse, should have also triggered a legally mandated investigation conducted by properly credentialed social workers, psychologists and prosecutors. Such refusal to report conditions for investigation also constitutes ‘obstruction of justice’. So where is Eric Schmitt? If this level of denial regarding such blatant child abuse in plain sight weren’t enough to possibly bring ‘obstruction’ charges, why would blowing a whistle bring such charges?
Epstein Files … massive obstruction of justice and no charges…
While Senator Eric Schmitt frets over allegedly ‘dangerous’ whistles, contending that blowing whistles be considered a form of ‘obstruction’; he raises no such concerns over the incomplete compliance of the Trump-Bondi DOJ when dealing with the full release of the Epstein Files. The DOJ under AG Bondi has unnecessarily delayed the full, legally mandated release; instead producing heavily redacted pages that are essentially the equivalent of refusal to comply. Under these circumstances; these unjustified redactions should fall under the “Obstructing Witnesses and Evidence” clause, cited below.
“Obstructing Witnesses and Evidence 18 U.S.C. 1512: makes it illegal in an y way to harm, threaten, delay, or otherwise influence a witness to an official proceeding, punishable by up to 30 years imprisonment. The law also makes it a crime to destroy, change, or hide evidence that could be used in an official proceeding.”
Wouldn’t such heavy redactions constitute an illegal hiding of evidence in direct violation of The Epstein Files Transparency Act aka (H.R. 4405)?
Where is Senator Schmitt on this issue? In case Senator Schmitt requires a ‘refresher’ course on the law; the central tenets are simple. The text of the law reads as follows:
“Epstein Files Transparency Act”
“This bill requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to publish (in a searchable and downloadable format) all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ’s possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein.
This includes (1) materials that relate to Ghislaine Maxwell, (2) flight logs and travel records, and (3) individuals named or referenced (including government officials) in connection with the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. DOJ is permitted to withhold certain information such as the personal information of victims and materials that would jeopardize an active federal investigation. Additionally, not later than 15 days after the required publication, DOJ must report to Congress (1) all categories of information released and withheld, (2) a summary of any redactions made, and (3) a list of all government officials and politically exposed individuals named or referenced in the published materials.”
So, where is Senator Schmitt’s concern with ‘obstruction of justice’ when faced with the incomplete compliance offered by the Trump DOJ under AG Bondi? The Epstein Files Transparency Act is clear on its demands. Republicans like Bondi and Schmitt actively ‘obstruct justice’ by censoring evidence required by law.
Conclusion:
Senator Eric Schmitt is consumed by a quixotic quest to nullify protected 1st Amendment dissent, providing that same dissent is critical of MAGA, Trump, and ICE. In pursuit of that nullification, he wrote a bill which would, among other things, criminalize the use of whistles and other noise makers as ‘obstruction of justice.’ Apparently, those allegedly ‘brave’ ICE and CBP (Border Patrol) officers are feeling threatened by–whistles. This bill authored by Schmitt has other provisions such as criminalizing the existence of sanctuary cities, yet it’s the ‘whistle blowing’ offense that strikes a chord. Such a provision serves as an attack on the very spirit of the 1st Amendment, both in terms of free speech and the right to petition government for “redress against grievances.”
The hypocrisy is clear. While ignoring actual ‘obstruction of justice’ regarding wholesale accusations of pedophile rape in the Epstein Files, in addition to allegations of child abuse in migrant detention centers; Schmitt would focus on–blowing a whistle.
Or is the problem actual—whistleblowing?
COMMENTS