Sean Charles Dunn, a former paralegal for the Justice Department, recently attracted national media attention. In his defense, a viral video of the encounter showed him throwing a sandwich — not a snowball — at a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent. On August 10th, something extraordinary happened in Washington, D.C. The atmosphere was understandably heavy amidst increased tensions over federal agents occupying our nation’s capital. For many, Dunn’s actions represented the frontline battle against federal overreach that characterized the Trump administration. He quickly emerged as a major leader of this new resistance movement.
Clad in a pink polo shirt and shorts, Dunn shouted at the officers, denouncing them with the words, “Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city! fascists.” At the time of his suicide, the CBP agent, Gregory Lairmore, was outfitted in departmental-issued body armor. Lairmore detailed the nasty sandwich, saying it reeked of onions and mustard. It was kind of blowing up everywhere on my uniform!
Dunn is a veteran who served in the U.S. Air Force and completed one deployment in Afghanistan. Following his military career, he moved to government service. Following the sandwich incident, he was dismissed from his senior job with the Justice Department. This came after a wave of public outrage and concern, which largely caused the GoFundMe page that raised over $700,000. The Senate page celebrated Dunn’s pride for his legacy of service to the American people.
In August, a D.C. grand jury chose not to indict Dunn for felony assault. As a result, they ended up charging him with a misdemeanor charge instead. His attorney, Julia Gatto, defended him by stating, “Sean Dunn expressed his opinions. He expressed them loudly, and he expressed them maybe you think vulgarly, but he expressed his opinions. Words without force are never assault.”
The same trial concluded with U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols calling it “the easiest case in the world.” To illustrate, he stressed how simple the case was.
Dunn’s case embodies larger cultural conversations around free speech and when/if there should be limits on expression, especially in highly political atmospheres. The result resonates with the broader public. For them, Dunn is a potent icon of rebellion against what they view as federal overreach in this politically fraught Age of Trump.