Trump's DOJ is perceived as ‘a wholesale politically inspired demolition’
Staff at the struggling law-enforcement agency are enveloped in fear as a challenging new reality emerges.
TroibNews 
Career attorneys and staff at the Department of Justice are expressing feelings of being under siege following the rapid changes that occurred in the first week of the Trump administration.
In this brief period, President Donald Trump’s acting attorney general dismissed over a dozen prosecutors involved in the criminal cases against Trump, repositioned senior personnel throughout major divisions, and implemented significant changes to workplace regulations.
Though these actions were consistent with Trump’s campaign promises to reshape the department according to his vision, the pace of the changes was unexpected for many staff members.
“It feels like a non-violent war. It’s just wild. Everybody’s a sitting duck and these people have no power or control over the situation,” said one DOJ career employee. “People are just in a state of shock and devastated. It’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen … Nothing that happened during the first Trump administration came anywhere close to this.”
PMG conducted interviews with more than a dozen current and former DOJ officials, most of whom requested anonymity due to fears of retaliation.
The administration's blanket pardons for participants in the January 6 riot, which nullified years of work, contributed to the demoralization of already anxious staff. The abrupt shifts in DOJ prosecution policies, including a comprehensive pause on actions by the Civil Rights Division, added to the unrest. Yet, employees indicated that the firings of over a dozen attorneys who were part of special counsel Jack Smith's team, the reassignment of veteran national-security prosecutors, and a directive from a Trump appointee for Jan. 6 prosecutors to submit their files for a special review were more disruptive than any revision of policies.
Concerns were exacerbated by the Trump administration’s early decisions to reassign senior career leaders from the National Security Division and the Criminal Division to less desirable positions. Among those given a 15-day ultimatum to accept reassignment were the department's top career official, Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer, and Corey Amundson, head of the Public Integrity Section, as reported by a source familiar with the changes.
These officials were offered positions on a newly established team focused on challenging sanctuary city policies, but some are expected to decline the offers and depart from the DOJ. Amundson has reportedly already opted to leave, according to the same source.
The firings on Monday, which did not appear to include offers for reassignment, heightened the anxiety further.
“It's got to be among the most demoralizing moments in the history of the Department of Justice,” said one former DOJ career official. “It is a flat-out purge of individuals whom this administration must view either of suspect loyalty or have worked on matters they just did not like. … We are in the early phases of what to me is just looking like a wholesale politically inspired demolition of the Department of Justice in key places.”
Acting Attorney General James McHenry, who is temporarily overseeing the department until Pam Bondi's Senate confirmation, authorized the termination of prosecutors associated with the special counsel’s team. A DOJ official stated that McHenry “did not believe these officials could be trusted to faithfully implement the President’s agenda because of their significant role in prosecuting the President.”
Numerous employees noted that new personnel policies, including the administration's requirement for staff to report to the office five days a week, have contributed to the turbulence at the DOJ. Many of the flexible work arrangements established during the pandemic are now nearly five years old, and their retraction has complicated the lives of employees, particularly those with young children.
The administration’s broad directives instructing agencies to “identify all employees on probationary periods” have also caused panic among DOJ personnel with less than two years of service, leaving them without most civil service protections.
“It’s the probation announcement that has people completely terrified,” said the career staffer. “There are a lot of question marks around some of these programmatic shifts, but there are not really question marks with respect to some of these fundamental employment issues.”
Prosecutors handling cases against more than 1,500 individuals charged in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot are also feeling the pressure. Many feel their work was rendered meaningless by the pardons issued by Trump to nearly all convicted individuals.
However, their large numbers may serve as a barrier against significant reprisals. Hundreds of attorneys from around the country, including those who seldom engage in criminal matters, joined in prosecuting January 6 cases, resulting in what DOJ describes as its most extensive prosecutorial and investigative campaign ever.
“Obviously, they can’t fire everybody,” the former DOJ career official noted.
At the FBI, a request from the acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to shift the focus of the country's approximately 200 Joint Terrorism Task Forces toward immigration enforcement is causing discontent among agents who worry about being scrutinized when future terror plots are overlooked.
“The FBI and DOJ do not have infinite resources to do infinite things,” stated Chuck Rosenberg, a former FBI chief of staff. “That is why, for the last quarter century, they have prioritized national security work. There are genuine and dangerous counterterrorism and national security threats out there and we divert resources from them — and sideline experienced career professionals — at our peril.”
Another former FBI official, with considerable experience overseeing the task forces, expressed concern that the DOJ's actions may lead to second-guessing in the event of a major terrorist incident, like the attack that killed 14 people on Bourbon Street in New Orleans on New Year’s Day.
“You take your eye off the ball for the more concerning type of a threat — whether domestic terrorism, international terrorism, homegrown violent extremism or foreign-inspired plots,” said the ex-official, who requested anonymity due to their current employer.
“There’s a lot of work to be done solely focused on the threat of terrorism. To pull people and split their time — there is criticism already of the FBI for miscues related to the Boston bombers and whether they missed things going on in New Orleans,” they continued. “You are taking valuable resources and dedicating resources from targeting the highest priority threats to the country to something that’s not nearly the threat.”
Additional unrest within the DOJ has been fueled by peculiar public statements from the new acting U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., Ed Martin. In a controversial social media post last week, he supported Trump’s pardon of two D.C. police officers convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with the death of a suspect in 2020. A jury also found one of the officers guilty of second-degree murder.
“Hear me loud and clear: we will stand with the Blue against the thugs and scum who terrorize DC,” Martin wrote on X. “Today, I spoke with the MPD chief of police 3 times about protecting the Blue. Under Biden, they chose politics over police. I choose police. Free these guys and let’s go get the bad guys.”
While many law enforcement officials opposed the prosecution and the Metropolitan Police Department issued a statement supporting the pardons, some former prosecutors believe that Martin’s comments signal an intent to support aggressive policing tactics.
“A lot of people with little or no experience in law enforcement or criminal prosecution often think the solution is to empower violent or lawless police officers,” remarked Brendan Ballou, who resigned from DOJ last week after working on January 6 cases. “My sense is that that is completely counterproductive and, frankly, betrays a certain lack of experience on the part of people saying that.”
Martin's statements echoed Trump's previous calls for more forceful actions from law enforcement. Early in his first term, Trump urged officers not to be overly accommodating. “Please don’t be too nice,” he implored. During a rally in his last campaign, Trump suggested that “one real rough, nasty” and "violent day" of police focusing on criminals would “immediately” eliminate crime.
Some former officials cautioned that Martin's provocative rhetoric could backfire on prosecutors, leading judges to view government claims with increased skepticism and providing defense attorneys with more leeway to argue instances of police misconduct.
“You know that very good defense attorneys are going to turn this against the office,” remarked one former federal prosecutor.
In another notable incident, Martin publicly clashed with a federal judge last week, accusing him of overstepping boundaries in ordering that several January 6 defendants, whose sentences Trump had commuted, remain absent from the Capitol. The judge, Amit Mehta, ultimately conceded but expressed some annoyance with Martin’s conduct.
“Some people apparently equate sounding tough with effective leadership, but effective leaders think and talk in serious and sophisticated and thoughtful ways,” Rosenberg said. “This ain’t that.”
In spite of the prevailing chaos, only a small number of career attorneys appear to have departed thus far.
“Every government employee in moments like this needs to decide where they can best do the right thing,” commented Ballou, who wrote a New York Times op-ed last week criticizing Trump’s pardons. “For some, that’s by staying inside government or by leaving and leaving noisily. And I thought I could be most effective by leaving noisily.”
Anna Muller for TROIB News
In this brief period, President Donald Trump’s acting attorney general dismissed over a dozen prosecutors involved in the criminal cases against Trump, repositioned senior personnel throughout major divisions, and implemented significant changes to workplace regulations.
Though these actions were consistent with Trump’s campaign promises to reshape the department according to his vision, the pace of the changes was unexpected for many staff members.
“It feels like a non-violent war. It’s just wild. Everybody’s a sitting duck and these people have no power or control over the situation,” said one DOJ career employee. “People are just in a state of shock and devastated. It’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen … Nothing that happened during the first Trump administration came anywhere close to this.”
PMG conducted interviews with more than a dozen current and former DOJ officials, most of whom requested anonymity due to fears of retaliation.
The administration's blanket pardons for participants in the January 6 riot, which nullified years of work, contributed to the demoralization of already anxious staff. The abrupt shifts in DOJ prosecution policies, including a comprehensive pause on actions by the Civil Rights Division, added to the unrest. Yet, employees indicated that the firings of over a dozen attorneys who were part of special counsel Jack Smith's team, the reassignment of veteran national-security prosecutors, and a directive from a Trump appointee for Jan. 6 prosecutors to submit their files for a special review were more disruptive than any revision of policies.
Concerns were exacerbated by the Trump administration’s early decisions to reassign senior career leaders from the National Security Division and the Criminal Division to less desirable positions. Among those given a 15-day ultimatum to accept reassignment were the department's top career official, Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer, and Corey Amundson, head of the Public Integrity Section, as reported by a source familiar with the changes.
These officials were offered positions on a newly established team focused on challenging sanctuary city policies, but some are expected to decline the offers and depart from the DOJ. Amundson has reportedly already opted to leave, according to the same source.
The firings on Monday, which did not appear to include offers for reassignment, heightened the anxiety further.
“It's got to be among the most demoralizing moments in the history of the Department of Justice,” said one former DOJ career official. “It is a flat-out purge of individuals whom this administration must view either of suspect loyalty or have worked on matters they just did not like. … We are in the early phases of what to me is just looking like a wholesale politically inspired demolition of the Department of Justice in key places.”
Acting Attorney General James McHenry, who is temporarily overseeing the department until Pam Bondi's Senate confirmation, authorized the termination of prosecutors associated with the special counsel’s team. A DOJ official stated that McHenry “did not believe these officials could be trusted to faithfully implement the President’s agenda because of their significant role in prosecuting the President.”
Numerous employees noted that new personnel policies, including the administration's requirement for staff to report to the office five days a week, have contributed to the turbulence at the DOJ. Many of the flexible work arrangements established during the pandemic are now nearly five years old, and their retraction has complicated the lives of employees, particularly those with young children.
The administration’s broad directives instructing agencies to “identify all employees on probationary periods” have also caused panic among DOJ personnel with less than two years of service, leaving them without most civil service protections.
“It’s the probation announcement that has people completely terrified,” said the career staffer. “There are a lot of question marks around some of these programmatic shifts, but there are not really question marks with respect to some of these fundamental employment issues.”
Prosecutors handling cases against more than 1,500 individuals charged in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot are also feeling the pressure. Many feel their work was rendered meaningless by the pardons issued by Trump to nearly all convicted individuals.
However, their large numbers may serve as a barrier against significant reprisals. Hundreds of attorneys from around the country, including those who seldom engage in criminal matters, joined in prosecuting January 6 cases, resulting in what DOJ describes as its most extensive prosecutorial and investigative campaign ever.
“Obviously, they can’t fire everybody,” the former DOJ career official noted.
At the FBI, a request from the acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to shift the focus of the country's approximately 200 Joint Terrorism Task Forces toward immigration enforcement is causing discontent among agents who worry about being scrutinized when future terror plots are overlooked.
“The FBI and DOJ do not have infinite resources to do infinite things,” stated Chuck Rosenberg, a former FBI chief of staff. “That is why, for the last quarter century, they have prioritized national security work. There are genuine and dangerous counterterrorism and national security threats out there and we divert resources from them — and sideline experienced career professionals — at our peril.”
Another former FBI official, with considerable experience overseeing the task forces, expressed concern that the DOJ's actions may lead to second-guessing in the event of a major terrorist incident, like the attack that killed 14 people on Bourbon Street in New Orleans on New Year’s Day.
“You take your eye off the ball for the more concerning type of a threat — whether domestic terrorism, international terrorism, homegrown violent extremism or foreign-inspired plots,” said the ex-official, who requested anonymity due to their current employer.
“There’s a lot of work to be done solely focused on the threat of terrorism. To pull people and split their time — there is criticism already of the FBI for miscues related to the Boston bombers and whether they missed things going on in New Orleans,” they continued. “You are taking valuable resources and dedicating resources from targeting the highest priority threats to the country to something that’s not nearly the threat.”
Additional unrest within the DOJ has been fueled by peculiar public statements from the new acting U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., Ed Martin. In a controversial social media post last week, he supported Trump’s pardon of two D.C. police officers convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with the death of a suspect in 2020. A jury also found one of the officers guilty of second-degree murder.
“Hear me loud and clear: we will stand with the Blue against the thugs and scum who terrorize DC,” Martin wrote on X. “Today, I spoke with the MPD chief of police 3 times about protecting the Blue. Under Biden, they chose politics over police. I choose police. Free these guys and let’s go get the bad guys.”
While many law enforcement officials opposed the prosecution and the Metropolitan Police Department issued a statement supporting the pardons, some former prosecutors believe that Martin’s comments signal an intent to support aggressive policing tactics.
“A lot of people with little or no experience in law enforcement or criminal prosecution often think the solution is to empower violent or lawless police officers,” remarked Brendan Ballou, who resigned from DOJ last week after working on January 6 cases. “My sense is that that is completely counterproductive and, frankly, betrays a certain lack of experience on the part of people saying that.”
Martin's statements echoed Trump's previous calls for more forceful actions from law enforcement. Early in his first term, Trump urged officers not to be overly accommodating. “Please don’t be too nice,” he implored. During a rally in his last campaign, Trump suggested that “one real rough, nasty” and "violent day" of police focusing on criminals would “immediately” eliminate crime.
Some former officials cautioned that Martin's provocative rhetoric could backfire on prosecutors, leading judges to view government claims with increased skepticism and providing defense attorneys with more leeway to argue instances of police misconduct.
“You know that very good defense attorneys are going to turn this against the office,” remarked one former federal prosecutor.
In another notable incident, Martin publicly clashed with a federal judge last week, accusing him of overstepping boundaries in ordering that several January 6 defendants, whose sentences Trump had commuted, remain absent from the Capitol. The judge, Amit Mehta, ultimately conceded but expressed some annoyance with Martin’s conduct.
“Some people apparently equate sounding tough with effective leadership, but effective leaders think and talk in serious and sophisticated and thoughtful ways,” Rosenberg said. “This ain’t that.”
In spite of the prevailing chaos, only a small number of career attorneys appear to have departed thus far.
“Every government employee in moments like this needs to decide where they can best do the right thing,” commented Ballou, who wrote a New York Times op-ed last week criticizing Trump’s pardons. “For some, that’s by staying inside government or by leaving and leaving noisily. And I thought I could be most effective by leaving noisily.”
Anna Muller for TROIB News
