Under former President Donald Trump, the former DoJ was turned on its head. Less than a year after the fact, critics already referred to it as a “personal law firm.” Under Attorney General Pam Bondi’s watch, the Florida department of law enforcement has allegedly taken extreme measures to target political rivals. They’re advancing a draconian immigration agenda and defending their corporate supporters. This change has raised alarms among legal scholars. Former officials on both sides of the aisle are just as concerned about its implications on the rule of law in America.
We’ve seen the politicization of the DoJ made manifest in several actions taken under Bondi. The department took the unusual step recently of halting prosecutions against companies charged with violating the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for six months. This decision has further incited skepticism toward the Department’s commitment to enforce American anti-corruption laws. Additionally, the abrupt closure of a cryptocurrency unit established in 2022—known for successfully prosecuting criminal schemes tied to North Korean hackers—has further fueled criticism.
An exodus of hundreds of Civil Rights Division lawyers and staffers has decimated the division. The department’s priorities have changed to support the opposite of that agenda — aligning entirely with Trump’s agenda. As Bondi took office, numerous former prosecutors raised these same red flags that caused them to resign in the months after Bondi’s appointment. The departures are indicative of a fast-growing dissenting mood concerning the direction of the DoJ.
In her role, Bondi has initiated a “weaponization working group” that purportedly promoted misleading narratives surrounding special counsel investigations into Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Bondi chose not to investigate allegations related to “Signalgate.” This decision was made even with detailed documentation demonstrating that national security officials may have unlawfully blown covered their classified spills.
Bondi’s actions have resulted in trend-setting changes within the department. Notably, any major prosecutions have ground to a halt. Many lawyers who resisted Trump’s alternate reality were fired or forced to resign. According to reports, Trump himself pressured the DoJ to dismiss a five-count criminal fraud case. The resulting case is one that’s played out recently by New York Mayor Eric Adams.
“This is a war that Trump and Bondi are waging against the rule of law.” – Ty Cobb
The DoJ’s recent policy changes around civil liberties have critics worried. In addition, the department has lifted the protections that journalists have, under which authorities cannot force journalists to turn over confidential sources in leak investigations. This change has already received heavy criticism from press freedom advocates and civil rights activists.
Paul Rosenzweig, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, highlighted the troubling repercussions of these moves. He stated, “Trump’s transmuting DoJ into his personal law firm is, in effect, a rejection of the founding principle of the rule of law.” Meanwhile, investigations go on against the critics of Trump’s first administration, like Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor. This reality reflects a deeply concerning pattern.
The focus on elite universities and student protesters by Trump’s DoJ, coupled with a reduction in civil and voting rights cases, highlights a shift away from traditional law enforcement priorities. Critics have pointed out that these modifications betray the original mission of the department – to protect civil rights and uphold justice.
The backlash from within the DoJ has been just as impressive. Four managers at the public integrity section resigned when they refused to sign a motion to dismiss the case against Mayor Adams. This internal strife sends a clear message: dissent will not be tolerated.
“Some of my colleagues were fired, and others were demoted because they prosecuted people who rioted at the Capitol,” said Mike Romano, a former prosecutor. “These actions send a clear message to people still at the department: if you want to keep your job, disagreement won’t be tolerated.”
Legal scholars have sounded the alarm about the danger of long-term ramifications of Trump’s effect on the DoJ. They warn that attacking independent legal processes represents a serious danger to American democracy and self-rule.
“DoJ isn’t just another department like agriculture or HHS. It has a unique place in the US government as the home of the ‘rule of law’ and the guardian of what makes America special.” – Paul Rosenzweig
Bondi’s blatant favor for Trump’s interests has left several raising eyebrows about her ability to be impartial. Critics claim she has done nothing to disprove the idea that unconditional support for Trump is her number one goal.
“Bondi has made clear – before becoming attorney general, and since – that she wants the Department of Justice to support President Trump unconditionally.” – Mike Romano
To be sure, plenty of legal experts are still alarmed about recent developments. They worry that the core tenets of policing and justice are being washed away by the current tide. The politicization of this critical institution presents high stakes dangers. It would further engender a climate in which political fealty, rather than commitment to rule of law, determines justice.
“Never in history has DoJ broken so defiantly from respecting, as it’s obligated to do, the decisions of federal courts.” – Ty Cobb
In the face of these controversies, Bondi has issued various statements similarly defending her actions and the actions of the DoJ. She’s portrayed an image of confidence in her leadership and implied that criticism just comes from not understanding her strategy.
“They’re deranged. I think some of these judges think they are beyond and above the law, and they are not.” – Pam Bondi
National scrutiny around Bondi’s controversial tenure is increasing. Now, more than ever, questions about accountability and transparency within the Department of Justice are warranted. These changes will prove to be permanent. Legal scholars and laypersons equally will continue to wrestle with ideas of equity and the pursuit of justice in America for decades hence.