Skip to main content

Pirro brought box of evidence to show Trump what caused Reflecting Pool damage

▶ Watch Video: Trump rebukes Jeanine Pirro for dropping Reflecting Pool charges

The top federal prosecutor in the nation’s capital carted a box full of evidence to the White House on Monday, in a bid to prove to President Trump that the damage to the Reflecting Pool was caused by shoddy construction and not by vandals, sources familiar with the matter told CBS News on Tuesday.

U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro, a staunch ally of the president, made the case in a sometimes heated private meeting in the Oval Office Monday, hours after Mr. Trump had publicly rebuked her for dropping criminal charges against Olympic canoeist David Hearn

She was later photographed leaving the White House carting a large white box and other bags, which sources said contained all of the evidence collected from the Interior Department that exculpated Hearn and several others from criminal vandalism.

A spokesperson for Pirro’s office declined comment.

U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro departs the White House
U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro departs the White House, Aug. 3, 2026.

CBS News

Mr. Trump earlier in the day had accused Pirro of folding “like an umbrella,” after her office on Friday filed a motion dismissing the felony case against Hearn. 

In the motion, prosecutors blamed the Interior Department for holding back critical evidence that they claimed they did not see until after they had secured the indictment from the grand jury in D.C.’s Superior Court. They said new information they had received indicated that the damage was caused by a “botched installation” by a contractor, not vandalism, as the president and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum claimed. On Saturday, Burgum said in a post on X, “The evidence is clear, vandals have repeatedly caused damage to the Reflecting Pool.”

The U.S. attorney’s office has also since moved to dismiss criminal charges against three others accused of vandalizing the Reflecting Pool.

Pirro’s office has suffered a number of high-profile setbacks involving cases related to Mr. Trump’s enemies and topics of personal interest to him.

Earlier this year, a grand jury uniformly refused to indict six Democratic lawmakers for posting a video urging military members not to follow orders they believe are illegal. Historically, a grand jury refusing to return an indictment is highly unusual, let alone having a grand jury unanimously refuse to do so.

Then, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia quashed grand jury subpoenas issued by Pirro’s office to investigate former Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and the Fed itself in connection with a costly renovation and statements he made to Congress about that work.

In doing so, the judge said the subpoenas were merely a pretext to pressure Powell to lower interest rates. Pirro later dropped the investigation, but not before several of her deputies first made an unannounced visit to the Fed’s construction site and tried to gain access to the property before being turned away.

Trump administration’s antisemitism lawsuit against Harvard dismissed

A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit against Harvard University that accused the school of failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students, finding the instances of alleged discrimination cited by the government were "too isolated and episodic" to support federal civil rights violations. U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns in Massachusetts issued a four-page order granting Harvard's motion to dismiss the suit."Without diminishing any concern arising from these occurrences, the court finds them, singly and collectively, to be too isolated and episodic to support a plausible inference that any institutionalized noncompliance with Title VI persists at Harvard to this day," Stearns wrote. Stearns wrote that the government's complaint was "devoid of any factual allegations" that occurred after the Trump administration notified Harvard that it believed it had failed to comply with federal civil rights law, as is required before any legal action can be taken, and the other three instances in the complaint occurred between 2023 and 2024. In March, the Justice Department filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the university, alleging that it violated the law by failing to protect the students after the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack by Hamas, claiming Harvard's "intentional conduct and its deliberate indifference to discriminatory harassment of Jewish and Israeli students and creation of a hostile educational environment." The administration sought to recover billions of dollars in taxpayer money that Harvard has received from federal agencies. In its lawsuit, the Justice Department alleged that Harvard defied federal law by discriminating against the students "without remorse" and the students were subjected to "severe, pervasive and objectively offensive harassment" on campus, including during protests against Israel, because of their race or national origin. The government alleged that Harvard knew about the harassment against the Jewish and Israeli students but did not stop it.The lawsuit was one of many steps against the university that the Trump administration has taken since President Trump's return to office, in addition to attempting to cancel billions of dollars in federal funding. Harvard, the White House and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Melissa Quinn contributed reporting.
Read Next Story