A senior Trump administration official and former acting U.S. attorney for D.C. is under disciplinary review for his role in President Donald Trump’s anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative — sparking outrage from the Justice Department, which assailed alleged ethics violations against Ed Martin as a ‘partisan’ effort, and one that unfairly targets Trump and his allies. 

The disciplinary charge, filed Friday to the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility and published Tuesday, centers on a letter sent by Martin to Georgetown Law last February while Martin was serving as interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. 

Martin allegedly demanded in the letter that Georgetown Law provide information about its DEI practices and teachings, according to the ethics complaint. It states that without ‘further explanation,’ and without receiving a response from Georgetown Law, Martin then announced he would be imposing sanctions on the school — instructing his staff not to hire any students, fellows, or interns affiliated with the university.

The Justice Department blasted news of the ethics complaint, telling Fox News Digital on Tuesday that the complaint represented yet another ‘clear indication’ of unfair and ‘partisan’ treatment from the D.C. Bar, a body they argued has continued ‘to target and punish those serving President Trump while refusing to investigate or act against actual ethical violations that were committed by Biden and Obama administration attorneys,’ representing what DOJ spokesperson described as ‘a clear indication of this partisan organization’s agenda.’

The complaint was signed by the disciplinary counsel for the D.C. Bar, Hamilton Fox, whose role allows him to function similarly to a prosecutor for attorney misconduct cases.  Fox previously donated thousands to Obama’s first presidential campaign in 2008, according to FEC records reviewed by Fox News Digital. 

The complaint accuses Martin of violating the First and Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by using his role as a government official to demand that the university change its teachings; failing to give the university a time frame to respond; and threatening adverse action against Georgetown Law for teaching a particular viewpoint.

It also accuses Martin of conducting unauthorized, ex parte communications with the chief judge and senior judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after he was asked to respond to a complaint about his remarks to Georgetown Law. ‘In that letter, he stated that he would not be responding to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiry, complained about Disciplinary Counsel’s ‘uneven behavior,’ and requested a ‘face-to-face meeting with all of you to discuss this matter and find a way forward,” the complaint said, noting that Martin had copied White House counsel onto the email. 

The Justice Department’s second-highest-ranking official, Todd Blanche, sharply criticized the complaint on social media Tuesday, noting: ‘The DC Bar is such a blatantly Democrat-run political organization.’

‘Thank God I’m not a member, and trust me, I never will be,’ Blanche said in a post on X.Martin, a former defense attorney who helped represent individuals charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, has made headlines during his short time at DOJ. His path to confirmation to serve as U.S. Attorney for D.C. stalled last year amid concerns from some Senate Republicans, prompting Trump to install Martin last May as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney. 

Trump also tapped Martin at the time to head up the Justice Department’s so-called ‘Weaponization Working Group,’ or the newly formed internal body within DOJ tasked with probing federal prosecutions viewed by the administration as unfairly partisan. 

Martin was removed last month from his role heading up the working group, though no reason for his removal was immediately provided. 

The complaint will now be kicked to D.C. Court of Appeals for next steps and review — a notoriously lengthy process that will likely take months, if not longer.

News of the ethics complaint comes just days after the Justice Department filed a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that would allow the department to suspend state bar investigations while the DOJ conducts its own review. 

Kharg Island, which handles the bulk of Iran’s crude exports and was once floated by President Donald Trump as a potential target could spark broader regional instability and attacks on energy infrastructure if struck by the U.S., a leading energy security expert has warned.

Reports indicate the Trump administration is weighing options that could include a direct attack on Kharg Island.

Discussing the possibility of boots on the ground amid Operation Epic Fury on ‘The Claman Countdown,’ retired Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt also told Liz Claman striking Kharg could be in the ‘offing.’

‘I don’t think a significant number of boots on the ground, other than the chance of an assault on Kharg Island, is in the offing,’ he said March 9.

Trump’s interest in the island dates back to a 1988 interview in which he reportedly suggested targeting Kharg in response to Iranian aggression, according to reports.

‘I’d be harsh on Iran. They’ve been beating us psychologically, making us look like a bunch of fools,’ Trump said. ‘One bullet shot at one of our men or ships, and I’d do a number on Kharg Island. I’d go in and take it.’

Sara Vakhshouri, a global energy analyst, said striking Kharg aligns squarely with Washington’s ‘energy dominance’ doctrine and spoke as U.S. and Israeli military action in Iran rattles energy markets and disrupts oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

‘Kharg currently acts as a strategic restraint point in the conflict,’ Vakhshouri, founder and president of SVB Energy International, told Fox News Digital.

‘Interrupting Iran’s main export terminal would likely trigger a major oil price spike, market instability and regional retaliation against energy infrastructure.’

Kharg’s significance is not only tactical but strategic, she added, arguing that it fits squarely within Trump’s long-touted doctrine.

The policy, central to Trump’s first term, prioritized maximizing U.S. oil and gas production, expanding exports and leveraging U.S. energy strength as a geopolitical tool.

‘But when we talk about Kharg, the most important factor is that it fits within the U.S. energy dominance concept,’ Vakhshouri said, suggesting that holding the island in reserve as a pressure point — rather than immediately striking it — may be a more strategic option.

Kharg sits in the northern Persian Gulf, roughly 15 miles off Iran’s mainland. Tankers leaving the terminal pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow choke point that handles about one-fifth of global oil trade.

Around 90% to 95% of Iran’s crude and petroleum exports pass through Kharg, making it the regime’s primary oil revenue hub.

‘Roughly 15 to 20 million barrels may be in storage, with around 1.5 to 3 million barrels per day exported through the terminal during the sanctions, with export capacity up to 5 million barrels per day,’ Vakhshouri said.

‘If the export capability from Kharg were lost, this restraint could diminish, shifting the risk toward further strikes on regional energy facilities and, more importantly, prolonged disruption of oil flows and tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz,’ she warned.

‘Putting a price ceiling on such a scenario would depend largely on Iran’s retaliatory actions,’ Vakhshouri added.

‘The certain outcome, however, would be prolonged volatility and uncertainty in the market, driven by fears of further retaliation or an extended cycle of disruption.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

Russia has turned to its so-called ‘shadow fleet’ to carry out a roughly $29.3 million ‘semi-dark’ ship-to-ship oil transfer in the Gulf of Oman, deliberately sidestepping Western sanctions, according to reports.

Maritime intelligence firm Windward AI reported on March 8 that the Russian-flagged tanker M/V TRUST, a vessel already blacklisted by the U.S., European Union and United Kingdom, carried out a ‘high-probability’ covert crude transfer in Omani territorial waters.

Based on an estimated price of about $90 per barrel on March 10, the cargo involved in the transfer was valued at roughly $29.3 million.

‘The timing of the operation coincided with heightened military escalation in the Gulf following Operation Epic Fury, suggesting the vessel exploited regional instability to conduct the transfer under reduced scrutiny,’ Windward said.

The tanker had previously loaded approximately 325,000 barrels of Russian crude oil at the Russian port of Ust-Luga, Windward said.

Windward described the operation as a ‘semi-dark’ activity, meaning one of the vessels transmitted its automatic identification system (AIS) signal while the other did not.

According to the firm, the M/V TRUST had anchored and switched off its AIS transponder while holding what it called a ‘prolonged stationary meeting’ with another tanker, likely producing an anonymous vessel to transfer cargo process.

A fully ‘dark’ meeting, Windward said, typically involves two vessels not transmitting, but, in this case, only one ship appeared to be broadcasting, creating partial visibility that still complicates tracking efforts.

Such tactics are part of a broader strategy by Moscow to continue exporting crude despite sweeping Western sanctions imposed after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The semi-dark oil transfer comes amid heightened volatility in global energy markets tied to the escalating conflict in the Middle East and limited traffic in the Strait of Hormuz given the joint U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran.

Oil topped $100 a barrel March 9 as traders priced in the risk that the conflict was disrupting flows through the Strait, which carries about a fifth of global supply, CNBC reported.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on March 9 that Russia, the world’s second-largest oil exporter and holder of the largest natural gas reserves, stands ready to resume long-term energy cooperation with European customers if they choose to return, Reuters reported.

Meanwhile, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Tuesday that Russia ‘should not be involved’ in the escalating conflict between the U.S., Israel and Iran.

His comments followed reports suggesting Moscow may be providing intelligence support to Tehran, though the Kremlin has not publicly confirmed the claims.

On Russia’s ship-to-ship semi-dark cargo transfer amid the ongoing conflict, Windward highlighted ‘operational blind spots that enable illicit maritime activity to proceed largely uninterrupted.’

Senate Democrats are preparing a series of war powers votes aimed at curbing President Donald Trump’s authority to continue military operations against Iran — and forcing the administration to publicly defend its actions.

Several Senate Democrats filed war powers resolutions last week meant to handcuff Trump and his continued conflict in the Middle East. It’s a power play by the group, who say the administration has not shown enough evidence that the U.S. should have struck Iran in the first place, much less continue fighting in the region.

Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., collectively filed five war powers resolutions last week, and they’re joined by Sens. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., and Tim Kaine, D-Va. Kaine has filed resolution after resolution to curb Trump’s war authority since he took office for his second term.

Those resolutions, barring an official slate of hearings with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, could hit the Senate next week and grind down floor time.

‘This Congress should be focused on the biggest military action since the Afghanistan war, and we’re not even holding hearings on that,’ Booker told Fox News Digital. 

Murphy said that the resolutions could hit the Senate floor as soon as next week, and warned that if hearings are set in motion, Democrats would be able to ‘call up a vote every day on war powers and force at least a short debate and vote every day.’

‘There’s no excuse to hide what the administration is doing from the public,’ Murphy said. 

While the group wouldn’t reveal exactly what their gridlock-inducing floor strategy would look like, they contended that the chairs of the Senate Armed Services and Senate Foreign Relations committees had already requested that Rubio and Hegseth testify.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch, R-Idaho, wouldn’t say whether he had requested Rubio to appear before his panel but blamed Senate Democrats for helping the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

‘You’ll notice the Democrats are the only entity on this planet who are helping the IRGC,’ Risch told Fox News Digital, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The group argued that Rubio and Hegseth should make the case for the war in Iran to the public and that closed-door, classified briefings on the matter weren’t enough to convince them that the war was necessary.

‘I was absolutely not convinced. In fact, nothing was offered to show me that we were under imminent attack,’ Baldwin said. ‘That we were under imminent attack, or that it was reasonable to believe that we were at risk — and that’s what would trigger the president’s authority to use military force without coming to Congress first.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., acknowledged that Democrats’ strategy would eat away at floor time but cautioned that ‘we’ll see how the next few days in the conflict go.’

‘I’m sure there’ll be some decisions made around that, but maybe that’ll affect whether or not they try to trigger all those,’ Thune said.

Thune said that ‘there always are’ hearings and noted that the Senate Armed Services Committee would be holding hearings soon on the annual National Defense Authorization Act.

‘So they’re going to have all those folks coming through on a fairly routine basis anyway, and I’m sure this will be a subject of discussion,’ Thune said.