Talk of a Successor to Merrick Garland Is Already Stirring Among Democrats
Here's what Kamala Harris requires from an attorney general.
TroibNews 
The contest between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump is still uncertain, but one conclusion stands out regardless of the November outcome: Merrick Garland is likely to complete his term as attorney general this year.
If Trump prevails, Garland's departure seems inevitable. However, as Democrats weigh the possibility of a Harris presidency, discussions about potential successors to Garland at the Justice Department have begun, focusing on the direction a post-Garland DOJ should take.
In recent conversations with several prominent Democrats, including former officials from the Justice Department, Capitol Hill, and the White House, the theme of seeking change at the DOJ emerged as a key point. Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide candid assessments of Garland's performance and the qualifications of possible replacements.
“My assumption is that members of the cabinet and sub-cabinet will move on and that, if Kamala is elected, she will want to put in her own team,” stated former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who has known Garland since college and invited him to serve as a senior official in the Clinton administration. While praising Garland for enhancing the “integrity and morale of the department” and effectively combating crime and protecting national security, many in the party are taking a more critical view of his leadership.
Some Democrats express dissatisfaction with Garland's decisions, citing perceived errors like appointing special counsel Robert Hur to investigate President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents and indulging special counsel David Weiss in his controversial cases against Biden’s son Hunter. The most contentious issue is the delay in actively investigating and prosecuting Trump for his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Once celebrated as a hero by Democrats after Senate Republicans blocked his Supreme Court appointment, Garland is now viewed with skepticism, particularly given the importance of his responses to Trump’s actions.
The Justice Department has not commented on whether Garland plans to remain if Harris wins. Should he stay, he would follow in the rare footsteps of Dick Thornburgh, who served as attorney general under Reagan and was retained by George H.W. Bush.
So, who might take Garland's place? Conversations revealed various names being considered, including some previously mentioned and others emerging from the shadows.
Names like Tony West, Harris' brother-in-law and a former senior official in the Obama Justice Department, have surfaced early. Less recognized options include North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, who previously served as the state's attorney general, and Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, another former state AG and convention speaker.
Beyond identifying potential successors, the primary question is what qualities Harris should prioritize in an attorney general during a politically sensitive time in the department's history. Having served as attorney general herself, Harris likely understands the role's demands and may have ideas about its execution.
A consensus emerged around the need for a more politically savvy figure, someone unafraid of taking firm stances on contentious issues—even if such actions risk alienating segments of the public—and who can robustly defend those choices politically.
This does not imply sacrificing the Justice Department's independence from presidential influence. However, a sustained commitment to continuing Trump’s prosecution remains critical, even if his political capital declines after a loss.
“She should be looking for an attorney general who will aggressively — but within the law and the evidence — finish the uncompleted work of securing convictions against all those responsible for Jan. 6, including at the very top,” advised a former Obama administration official who has previously assisted in vetting Democratic attorney general candidates.
This sentiment aligns with concerns about Garland's performance. Although he has made strides in refocusing the department on traditional center-left issues, particularly regarding illegal immigration, policing, and civil rights, it is the handling of Trump’s actions surrounding the 2020 election that casts a shadow over his tenure. A more prompt investigation into Trump could have altered the current landscape, which now has the nation contemplating the possibility of Trump reascending power partly due to Garland’s perceived hesitance.
Should Harris win, the DOJ's Trump prosecutions will continue, which may require unprecedented choices. If the Supreme Court endorses the dismissal of Smith's case against Trump in Florida based on claims of unconstitutional appointments, should the department refile those charges? Should charges be pursued if Trump is eventually convicted on pending federal indictments?
If Trump wins, these concerns may fade as he would aim to halt federal criminal cases. However, if he loses, the incoming attorney general will need to see the cases through, possibly inviting substantial public and political scrutiny—far more than Garland encountered.
While it’s premature to assemble a definitive shortlist for Harris' potential attorney general, numerous names already circulate among legal insiders.
Tony West is a standout candidate, having recently taken leave from his role as Uber's general counsel to aid his sister-in-law’s campaign. His history as a line prosecutor and leadership within the Obama Justice Department positions him well. Nevertheless, federal anti-nepotism laws could complicate his candidacy, and the optics of appointing family members to significant positions could be a political liability, despite his qualifications.
Another group of possible candidates comprises former DOJ officials who held deputy or associate attorney general roles in Democratic administrations. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) identified Vanita Gupta as “the obvious choice,” highlighting her remarkable credentials and support.
Yet, some argue that the next attorney general must possess direct experience in criminal prosecutions. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, for example, fits this mold but might be sidelined due to perceived ties to Garland’s administration and its challenges regarding Trump’s investigation.
Sally Yates, a former Deputy Attorney General, has become a Democratic figure after standing against Trump’s directives and remains highly regarded within legal circles. Other potential candidates include well-known U.S. attorneys like Preet Bharara, noted for his intelligence and articulate manner, although he may be perceived as seeking too much attention.
Damian Williams, the current U.S. attorney in Manhattan and Garland’s former law clerk, is interested in the position but may lack the political experience deemed necessary for an attorney general role.
Ultimately, Harris may gravitate towards candidates with backgrounds akin to her own—individuals who are adept in both legal and political environments. Doug Jones, former U.S. senator and Alabama U.S. attorney, remains a strong choice, as do other former state attorneys general like Roy Cooper, Maura Healey, and Josh Shapiro, though the latter two might be reluctant to shift from their current roles.
The political landscape of the Senate will significantly influence these decisions. A slim Democratic majority could necessitate choosing a moderately aligned candidate.
Above all, Harris must appoint someone whose judgment she trusts, bore a level of intellectual capability, and proved to be a decisive leader.
While the significance of resumes and professional qualifications cannot be understated, the role of attorney general often requires navigating complex scenarios where legal guidance may be ambiguous, leaving much to personal judgment and character.
Given the implications of her choice, Harris will have an impressive slate of candidates to consider for attorney general, although not all potentials have been recognized. The decision stands to be one of her most consequential, public, and personal.
Yet first, she must overcome Trump.
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
If Trump prevails, Garland's departure seems inevitable. However, as Democrats weigh the possibility of a Harris presidency, discussions about potential successors to Garland at the Justice Department have begun, focusing on the direction a post-Garland DOJ should take.
In recent conversations with several prominent Democrats, including former officials from the Justice Department, Capitol Hill, and the White House, the theme of seeking change at the DOJ emerged as a key point. Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide candid assessments of Garland's performance and the qualifications of possible replacements.
“My assumption is that members of the cabinet and sub-cabinet will move on and that, if Kamala is elected, she will want to put in her own team,” stated former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who has known Garland since college and invited him to serve as a senior official in the Clinton administration. While praising Garland for enhancing the “integrity and morale of the department” and effectively combating crime and protecting national security, many in the party are taking a more critical view of his leadership.
Some Democrats express dissatisfaction with Garland's decisions, citing perceived errors like appointing special counsel Robert Hur to investigate President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents and indulging special counsel David Weiss in his controversial cases against Biden’s son Hunter. The most contentious issue is the delay in actively investigating and prosecuting Trump for his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Once celebrated as a hero by Democrats after Senate Republicans blocked his Supreme Court appointment, Garland is now viewed with skepticism, particularly given the importance of his responses to Trump’s actions.
The Justice Department has not commented on whether Garland plans to remain if Harris wins. Should he stay, he would follow in the rare footsteps of Dick Thornburgh, who served as attorney general under Reagan and was retained by George H.W. Bush.
So, who might take Garland's place? Conversations revealed various names being considered, including some previously mentioned and others emerging from the shadows.
Names like Tony West, Harris' brother-in-law and a former senior official in the Obama Justice Department, have surfaced early. Less recognized options include North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, who previously served as the state's attorney general, and Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, another former state AG and convention speaker.
Beyond identifying potential successors, the primary question is what qualities Harris should prioritize in an attorney general during a politically sensitive time in the department's history. Having served as attorney general herself, Harris likely understands the role's demands and may have ideas about its execution.
A consensus emerged around the need for a more politically savvy figure, someone unafraid of taking firm stances on contentious issues—even if such actions risk alienating segments of the public—and who can robustly defend those choices politically.
This does not imply sacrificing the Justice Department's independence from presidential influence. However, a sustained commitment to continuing Trump’s prosecution remains critical, even if his political capital declines after a loss.
“She should be looking for an attorney general who will aggressively — but within the law and the evidence — finish the uncompleted work of securing convictions against all those responsible for Jan. 6, including at the very top,” advised a former Obama administration official who has previously assisted in vetting Democratic attorney general candidates.
This sentiment aligns with concerns about Garland's performance. Although he has made strides in refocusing the department on traditional center-left issues, particularly regarding illegal immigration, policing, and civil rights, it is the handling of Trump’s actions surrounding the 2020 election that casts a shadow over his tenure. A more prompt investigation into Trump could have altered the current landscape, which now has the nation contemplating the possibility of Trump reascending power partly due to Garland’s perceived hesitance.
Should Harris win, the DOJ's Trump prosecutions will continue, which may require unprecedented choices. If the Supreme Court endorses the dismissal of Smith's case against Trump in Florida based on claims of unconstitutional appointments, should the department refile those charges? Should charges be pursued if Trump is eventually convicted on pending federal indictments?
If Trump wins, these concerns may fade as he would aim to halt federal criminal cases. However, if he loses, the incoming attorney general will need to see the cases through, possibly inviting substantial public and political scrutiny—far more than Garland encountered.
While it’s premature to assemble a definitive shortlist for Harris' potential attorney general, numerous names already circulate among legal insiders.
Tony West is a standout candidate, having recently taken leave from his role as Uber's general counsel to aid his sister-in-law’s campaign. His history as a line prosecutor and leadership within the Obama Justice Department positions him well. Nevertheless, federal anti-nepotism laws could complicate his candidacy, and the optics of appointing family members to significant positions could be a political liability, despite his qualifications.
Another group of possible candidates comprises former DOJ officials who held deputy or associate attorney general roles in Democratic administrations. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) identified Vanita Gupta as “the obvious choice,” highlighting her remarkable credentials and support.
Yet, some argue that the next attorney general must possess direct experience in criminal prosecutions. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, for example, fits this mold but might be sidelined due to perceived ties to Garland’s administration and its challenges regarding Trump’s investigation.
Sally Yates, a former Deputy Attorney General, has become a Democratic figure after standing against Trump’s directives and remains highly regarded within legal circles. Other potential candidates include well-known U.S. attorneys like Preet Bharara, noted for his intelligence and articulate manner, although he may be perceived as seeking too much attention.
Damian Williams, the current U.S. attorney in Manhattan and Garland’s former law clerk, is interested in the position but may lack the political experience deemed necessary for an attorney general role.
Ultimately, Harris may gravitate towards candidates with backgrounds akin to her own—individuals who are adept in both legal and political environments. Doug Jones, former U.S. senator and Alabama U.S. attorney, remains a strong choice, as do other former state attorneys general like Roy Cooper, Maura Healey, and Josh Shapiro, though the latter two might be reluctant to shift from their current roles.
The political landscape of the Senate will significantly influence these decisions. A slim Democratic majority could necessitate choosing a moderately aligned candidate.
Above all, Harris must appoint someone whose judgment she trusts, bore a level of intellectual capability, and proved to be a decisive leader.
While the significance of resumes and professional qualifications cannot be understated, the role of attorney general often requires navigating complex scenarios where legal guidance may be ambiguous, leaving much to personal judgment and character.
Given the implications of her choice, Harris will have an impressive slate of candidates to consider for attorney general, although not all potentials have been recognized. The decision stands to be one of her most consequential, public, and personal.
Yet first, she must overcome Trump.
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
