The recent developments have made it glaringly clear: The Justice Department is no longer functioning as an independent entity serving the interests of the United States; rather, it appears to be operating solely in the interests of Donald Trump.
In a memo released by the new Attorney General, Pam Bondi, amidst a series of empty statements regarding “justice” and veiled threats directed at career prosecutors, there lies a crucial phrase that signifies a profound shift in the DOJ’s priorities. Bondi explicitly states that the DOJ cannot deny “the President of the benefit of his lawyers,” which raises serious concerns about the integrity of the legal system.
What does this mean for the future of legal accountability?
Though this action is audacious, it is unfortunately not surprising. Currently, the individuals overseeing the DOJ are effectively acting as Trump’s personal legal representatives. Emil Bove and Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s defense attorneys, are now appointed as top deputies in the DOJ. Additionally, John Sauer, who played a critical role in Trump’s appellate cases, has now taken on the role of Solicitor General, tasked with submitting weekly Supreme Court briefs in cases that appear to prioritize Trump’s feelings over legal precedents. Pam Bondi herself has a history of representing Trump during his first impeachment, a position she secured after conveniently ceasing an investigation into Trump University following a notable donation. The implications of this are troubling.
It might be more fitting to rebrand the DOJ with a sign proclaiming “Trump Legal Services” and launch advertisements vowing to “Make Your Indictments Disappear!” Such a campaign could resonate given the current political climate, particularly under an administration eager to exploit contentious imagery.
Even after appointing loyalists throughout the DOJ, the overt identification of these individuals as “his lawyers” sends a chilling message regarding constitutional law. The Department of Justice has traditionally maintained a delicate balance of power. While the Attorney General operates at the President’s discretion, the DOJ is expected to uphold the law in a manner that reflects the collective interests of the government. This distinction usually allows for a degree of independence, which has been evidenced by Merrick Garland’s DOJ pursuing charges against Hunter Biden that would likely result in probation for an average citizen. Even the most aggressive administrations have historically acknowledged the necessity of maintaining an independent justice system, separate from the whims of the executive branch.
This recent memo fundamentally dismantles that perception of independence. Towards the end of the memo, Bondi makes a particularly striking admission that underscores this shift:
It is the duty of an attorney privileged to serve in the Department of Justice to vigorously defend the interests of the United States. The interests and overarching policies of the United States are determined by the Nation’s Chief Executive, who is constitutionally vested with all “[E]xecutive Power.” Furthermore, attorneys are expected to advance, protect, and defend their client’s interests with unwavering zeal. Department of Justice attorneys have committed to a role that necessitates a robust advocacy for the United States.
Without the second sentence, this paragraph could easily be a summary from a high school civics class about the DOJ’s role. However, any informed civics student understands that “the overall policy of the United States” cannot be solely dictated by the President. The term “executive power” refers to the enforcement of laws established by Congress, rather than the creation of new, arbitrary rules. While the term “Orwellian” is often misused, this situation embodies a more nuanced form of Orwellianism, reminiscent of a group of pigs awkwardly rewriting the rules to suit their agenda.
The obligations of Department of Justice attorneys encompass not only the aggressive enforcement of criminal and civil laws enacted by Congress but also the vigorous defense of presidential policies and actions against legal challenges on behalf of the United States. However, the discretion granted to Department attorneys does not extend to substituting personal political beliefs or judgments for those that were upheld in elections.
However, it’s essential to recognize that the law encompasses multiple elections. The upcoming 2024 election should not exempt DOJ attorneys from enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Laws remain in effect until they are amended or repealed by the legislature. Bondi’s interpretation of prosecutorial discretion appears to introduce a troubling notion that while all laws are equal, some are more equal than others.
It seems that the personal judgments now deemed inappropriate exclude crucial legislation such as “the Civil Rights Act” and laws prohibiting foreign bribery.
Furthermore, a significant policy that DOJ staff are expected to embrace is a relentless pursuit against those who believe that former presidents should not have the authority to sell nuclear secrets to adversarial nations. After years of framing Trump’s mishandling of classified documents and his repeated noncompliance as the “weaponization” of the Justice Department, Bondi has now shifted the Department into an active role of weaponization itself. Another memo released by Bondi sets the groundwork for punishing prosecutors involved in cases against Trump, thereby chilling any future investigations into Trump or his associates should they engage in further criminal behavior.
This marks a dangerous expansion of qualified immunity, where the threshold for prosecution seems to hinge not on acts of violence or egregious misconduct, but rather on protecting Trump’s feelings.
This is particularly perplexing given that just weeks ago, Bondi struggled to provide a coherent response regarding special counsel investigations, yet now she articulates detailed and definitive views on the matter. It raises serious questions about her integrity and honesty before the U.S. Senate.
Is Pam Bondi truly willing to weaponize the legal system? Her history of utilizing legal tactics against hurricane victims over trivial matters suggests that she is more than capable of transforming DOJ policies into political weapons.
What we are witnessing is a transformation of the nation’s leading law enforcement agency into a legal defense team for an individual, managed by those who have previously represented him in court. This trend raises significant ethical concerns regarding the integrity of the department. Unlike Nixon, who instigated a constitutional crisis through a series of firings to achieve compliance, Trump has strategically avoided this pitfall by ensuring that his appointees lack the resolve to oppose his directives.
Thus, when Bondi refers to “his lawyers,” take her at her word. This Justice Department no longer operates for the interests of America; it serves him.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
For more of the latest in litigation, regulation, deals, and financial services trends, sign up for Finance Docket, a partnership between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
