The staff turnover at the U.S. Justice Department’s federal programs branch, which oversees the grants, has been staggering. Since Donald Trump’s election in November 2016, almost two-thirds of its staff has departed. This exodus, comprising 69 out of roughly 110 lawyers, has raised eyebrows regarding the unit’s ability to defend controversial policies, including Trump’s efforts to restrict birthright citizenship and freeze funding to Harvard University. As remarked by NPR, the departures have been blamed on worries about unethical consequences and a crushing workload during the heavy ongoing litigation.
Since Trump took office, the difficult work of this unit has been under restricted pressure to enforce policies that most staffers feel are legally dubious. The recent resignations of at least 10 supervisors, who are often times given quite a bit of leeway, and who have served through several presidential administrations. The enormous and sudden cut in staff has made it impossible for Justice Department leadership to focus or ignore. They’re temporarily reassigning more than a dozen lawyers from other sections and importing about 15 political appointees to assist with civil cases.
Staff Turnover and Ethical Dilemmas
The great attrition from the federal programs branch has since left the unit unable to keep up with its growing workload jumble. We discovered lawyers were all under a punishing workload. They found themselves under siege defending policies that were widely perceived to lack a legal or moral justification, which drove them out.
“Many of these people came to work at federal programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system,” said one lawyer who left during Trump’s second term.
A former staffer was most vocal about her discontent with the unit’s current trajectory. They foamed at the mouth over how anyone could defend being involved in initiatives that were obviously subverting their constitutional values.
“How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?” – one lawyer who left the unit during Trump’s second term.
The urgency of the situation is amplified by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s warning that government lawyers must vigorously advocate for Trump’s agenda or face disciplinary action. This directive has resulted in widespread confusion among lawyers about crossing lines with ethical obligations.
Legal Battles and Political Pressure
The federal programs branch finds itself embroiled in high-stakes litigation, defending Trump’s controversial orders on birthright citizenship and funding cuts to Harvard University. These cases have faced intense criticism from advocacy groups trying to beat back the wave of litigation that seeks to make these policies illegal.
The unit vigorously protects its legal interests. It strongly opposes two significant initiatives from advocacy groups aiming to establish a large-scale test case of individuals challenging Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. The pressures of these continuous legal battles come at the same time as an already tight and shrinking workforce, adding to the already difficult environment.
“The demands are intensifying at the same time that the ranks of lawyers there to defend these cases are dramatically thinning,” noted Peter Keisler, who previously led the Justice Department’s civil division under President George W. Bush.
A Justice Department spokesperson asserted that the agency has successfully defended many lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court and will continue its efforts to support the president’s agenda.
“The department has defeated many of these lawsuits all the way up to the supreme court and will continue to defend the president’s agenda to keep Americans safe,” – a Justice Department spokesperson.
Critics have responded that this approach places policy goals above the rule of law. One of those supervisors, Erez Reuveni, submitted a whistleblower complaint. He claimed that administration officials pressured him into taking unsupported legal positions and strained interpretations of rulings in immigration cases.
New Faces and Future Challenges
In response to staff turnover, the Justice Department has brought in new attorneys, many of whom possess backgrounds defending conservative causes. These recent hires have been less reticent to traipse into legally murky areas as they try to defend and implement Trump’s policy desires.
Mike Davis has led a right-wing pro-Trump legal advocacy group. He called for true dogged advocacy, particularly in periods of intense political criticism.
“They have to be willing to advocate on behalf of their clients and not fear the political fallout,” – Mike Davis.
Political appointees are rushing into the feds’ federal programs branch. This new approach represents a sea change in hiring at the Justice Department. In recent months, the federal government has exempted the district from its national hiring freeze. While this decision will alleviate some of their staffing shortages, it leaves us wondering about the long-term integrity of this institution.
Harrison Fields, a spokesperson for the White House, pushed back hard on this line of attack by former administration insiders. He advocated that any critical voices just weren’t credible.
“Any sanctimonious career bureaucrat expressing faux outrage over the president’s policies while sitting idly by during the rank weaponization by the previous administration has no grounds to stand on,” – Harrison Fields.