A Virginia prosecutor's office bankrolled by George Soros is refusing to hand over documents about a program that connects migrants with immigration attorneys when they face criminal charges, and the explanation for the stonewalling has drawn sharp criticism from the journalist who filed the request.
The Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, led by Steve Descano, denied a public records request from the Daily Caller seeking documents related to its Immigrant Assistance Program. The program pairs noncitizen defendants with immigration lawyers who can advise them on how criminal pleas and convictions might affect their immigration status. The office cited an exemption for "working papers and correspondence" of the Commonwealth's Attorney to justify withholding the records, the Daily Caller reported.
Daily Caller investigative reporter James Varney submitted a Virginia Freedom of Information Act request for all documents, communications, memoranda, and contracts related to the Immigrant Assistance Program. The request also sought records showing how many noncitizen defendants had been referred to the program, along with any data on case outcomes.
The office responded by acknowledging the program exists but declined to produce any records. A spokesperson for Descano's office told the Daily Caller that the documents fell under Virginia Code Section 2.2-3705.7(2), which exempts certain "working papers and correspondence" maintained by a Commonwealth's Attorney from mandatory disclosure.
Varney called the move "sketchy" and questioned why a program that involves public resources and the administration of criminal cases would be shielded from public scrutiny. He noted that the exemption is typically used to protect case strategy and litigation work product, not to hide the operational details of a standing office program.
The Immigrant Assistance Program, as described by Descano's office, provides noncitizen defendants access to immigration counsel so they understand the potential immigration consequences of criminal proceedings. Under the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky, defense attorneys have a constitutional obligation to advise noncitizen clients about deportation risks tied to guilty pleas. The Fairfax program goes a step further by embedding immigration legal resources within the prosecutor's own office framework.
Critics say that structure creates a conflict of interest. A prosecutor's office exists to pursue convictions on behalf of the public. Building an internal pipeline that helps defendants minimize immigration fallout from those same convictions, the argument goes, puts the office on both sides of the table. Descano has already faced mounting scrutiny over dropped charges and questions about how Soros-backed campaign funds have shaped his office's priorities.
Descano's office has maintained that the program simply ensures compliance with constitutional obligations and does not interfere with prosecutorial decisions. The office did not provide the Daily Caller with any data on referral numbers, staffing, or costs associated with the program.
Virginia's FOIA law includes several exemptions for law enforcement and prosecutorial records. The provision Descano's office invoked, Section 2.2-3705.7(2), shields working papers and correspondence of the Commonwealth's Attorney. The exemption is discretionary, meaning the office can choose to release the records but is not required to.
That distinction matters. Descano's office did not claim the records were protected by attorney-client privilege or that releasing them would compromise an active investigation. It chose to invoke a broad discretionary shield that covers virtually any internal document the office produces.
Transparency advocates have long warned that Virginia's prosecutorial FOIA exemptions are among the most permissive in the country. Because the exemption is discretionary, a different Commonwealth's Attorney could release the same records voluntarily. The decision to withhold them is a policy choice, not a legal mandate.
Descano first won the Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney race in 2019 with significant financial support from the Justice and Public Safety PAC, a political action committee funded by George Soros. The PAC spent roughly $600,000 to boost Descano's primary campaign, a massive sum for a local prosecutor's race in Northern Virginia. Descano won reelection in 2023.
His tenure has drawn persistent criticism from law enforcement groups, crime victims' families, and Republican officials who say his office has prioritized progressive criminal justice policies over public safety. Opponents point to cases where serious charges were reduced or dropped, and where defendants released under his office's policies went on to commit additional crimes.
One case that drew national attention involved a Virginia mother who publicly urged Descano to act after her daughter was stabbed to death and an illegal immigrant was charged in the killing. That case intensified questions about whether the office's approach to noncitizen defendants created gaps in public safety.
Descano's supporters counter that his reforms reflect a modern, evidence-based approach to prosecution and that his office has maintained strong conviction rates on serious felonies. They argue that connecting defendants with immigration counsel is a constitutional best practice, not a policy concession.
Without the records, the public cannot verify basic facts about the Immigrant Assistance Program. How many defendants have been referred? What types of charges were involved? Did immigration counsel's advice influence plea offers or sentencing recommendations? Were any outside organizations involved in staffing or funding the program? Those questions remain unanswered.
The Daily Caller's Varney argued that the public has a right to know whether a taxpayer-funded prosecutor's office is operating a program that could affect case outcomes for noncitizen defendants. He noted that the office's blanket refusal, rather than a targeted redaction of sensitive materials, suggests the goal is to avoid scrutiny entirely.
The pattern fits a broader concern about Soros-funded prosecutors and institutional transparency. Soros-backed organizations have faced criticism on multiple fronts for their influence on the criminal justice system, from funding prosecutor campaigns to training activists on jury nullification tactics. Each controversy feeds public skepticism about whether these offices serve the communities that elect them or the ideological donors who finance them.
Under Virginia law, a requester whose FOIA request is denied can petition the local circuit court for an order compelling disclosure. The court would then review whether the exemption was properly invoked and whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the office's interest in confidentiality. Virginia courts have generally given prosecutors wide latitude under the working papers exemption, but challenges have succeeded when the records at issue were administrative rather than litigation-related.
The Daily Caller has not publicly stated whether it plans to file a court challenge. If it does, the case could test the boundaries of prosecutorial FOIA exemptions in Virginia and force Descano's office to justify its secrecy in front of a judge.
Descano is not the only Virginia prosecutor drawing heat for how his office handles politically sensitive cases. The broader pattern of progressive prosecutors facing accountability questions has become a flashpoint in state and national politics, particularly as immigration enforcement intensifies under the current federal administration.
Fairfax County residents will decide in the next election cycle whether Descano's approach reflects their values. Until then, the documents that could answer the most basic questions about his office's immigrant assistance efforts remain locked in a filing cabinet, shielded by an exemption his office chose to invoke but did not have to.
When a prosecutor's office builds a program, funds it with public money, and then refuses to let the public see how it works, the question stops being about immigration law. It becomes about whether the people who pay for the justice system are allowed to know what they are paying for.
