In the wake of President Trump’s return to the White House, the Justice Department has faced significant upheaval, with widespread firings, resignations, and controversial decisions. While the administration claims these changes aim to eliminate political bias, critics argue that the Justice Department is being weaponized to serve the president’s agenda.
Since his inauguration, President Trump’s administration has initiated a sweeping purge within the Justice Department. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who now leads the department, previously assured lawmakers during her confirmation hearing that she had no intention of politicizing the office. However, former acting Attorney General Peter Keisler, who served under President George W. Bush, views the situation differently.
“I don’t think anyone who’s been watching the last four weeks could say they are taking politics out of the law enforcement process,” Keisler said. “Quite the contrary. They are engaging in the very politicization and weaponization that they claim to be trying to eliminate.”
One of the most striking moves came on January 31, when the Trump administration fired several key prosecutors involved in the investigations related to the January 6 Capitol riot. Among those dismissed were Sara Levine and Sean Brennan, who had been leading high-profile prosecutions connected to the attack.
“The Justice Department is under attack,” Levine warned. “They’re coming after the people that want to uphold the laws that exist. And that should be terrifying to everyone.”
One of Trump’s first acts upon returning to office was to pardon approximately 1,500 individuals charged in connection with the January 6 insurrection. The proclamation labeled the prosecutions “a grave national injustice” and called the pardons a step toward “national reconciliation.”
Keisler criticized the move, arguing that it sends a dangerous message: “It says that you can commit some very serious crimes, but if you do so as an identifiable supporter of the president’s agenda and political interests, you may be able to get off.”
The pardons were accompanied by a push to remove career officials from the Justice Department and the FBI. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove spearheaded the effort, demanding the names of FBI personnel involved in tracking Capitol rioters and ordering the firing of eight senior FBI executives.
“I do not believe that the current leadership of the Justice Department can trust these FBI employees to assist in implementing the President’s agenda faithfully,” Bove wrote in a memo.
The Trump administration’s influence on prosecutions became particularly evident in the bribery case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Although a Democrat, Adams publicly supported Trump’s immigration policies. This apparent alignment led Bove to order federal prosecutors to drop the charges against Adams, allowing him to focus on “illegal immigration and violent crime.”
Keisler condemned the decision, calling it “one of the most nakedly political documents out of the Justice Department I’ve ever seen.”
The directive sparked internal turmoil, prompting multiple resignations from senior prosecutors. Danielle Sassoon, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, refused to sign the motion to dismiss the case, stating that the decision was motivated solely by political concerns. Hagan Scotten, another senior prosecutor, resigned soon after, telling Bove he would need to find someone “enough of a fool, or enough of a coward” to carry out the order.
The growing perception that the Justice Department is being used to reward allies and punish opponents has raised alarm across the legal community. Critics argue that these actions undermine the rule of law and threaten the integrity of the U.S. justice system.
Keisler expressed deep concern over the direction the department is heading. “When you have a major political corruption prosecution dismissed because somebody has agreed to become a political ally of the president, that tripwire has already been tripped,” he warned.
For Levine and Brennan, the fired prosecutors, the stakes could not be higher. Speaking publicly despite potential professional risks, they believe that silence would be more dangerous.
“I don’t think I could live with myself if I didn’t at least try to help people understand why what we’ve seen happening in the Department of Justice over the past few weeks is so critical,” Brennan said. “It really puts our constitutional governmental structure at risk.”
As the Justice Department navigates these turbulent times, the broader implications for the rule of law and democratic governance remain unclear but the warnings from former officials suggest that the foundations of the American justice system are under unprecedented strain.
