By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Recent reports indicate a significant departure of lawyers from the Department of Justice’s Federal Programs Branch, with approximately two-thirds of the staff resigning since the 2024 election. This high turnover stems from frustration over the numerous legal challenges to President Trump’s policies, including those related to immigration, trade, and federal agency restructuring, with some lawyers citing ethical concerns. Sources suggest this level of attrition is unprecedented for a presidential administration mid-term, prompting the White House to exempt the DOJ from hiring freezes. Despite the departures, the administration maintains its policies are legal and will continue to defend them in court.
Read the original article here
It seems the Department of Justice (DOJ) is facing a significant exodus, with a reported two-thirds of the lawyers tasked with defending Donald Trump’s policies choosing to leave their posts. This is a pretty striking number, and the consensus seems to be that this isn’t a coincidence. The morale within the DOJ, according to those in the know, has plummeted, and the expectation is that more departures are on the horizon as these attorneys find alternative employment. The general sentiment is that defending the former President has become a particularly challenging, perhaps even ethically compromising, task.
The reasoning behind these resignations appears multifaceted. One key factor is the perceived difficulty of defending policies and actions that are widely seen as legally questionable. It’s argued that constructing a legitimate defense in such cases requires bending the rules of jurisprudence, ignoring principles of human decency, and perhaps even outright dishonesty. For many lawyers, especially those dedicated to upholding the law, this is simply a bridge too far. The idea of defending someone accused of serious crimes, potentially even criminal behavior, adds another layer of moral and professional conflict. The frustration and moral discomfort are apparently driving many to seek opportunities elsewhere, rather than being forced to compromise their values or risk professional repercussions.
Another major driver appears to be the fear of being used as a pawn. The sense is that, if you defend Trump, you’re at risk of being thrown under the bus to protect him from the consequences of his actions. Essentially, many lawyers are choosing self-preservation, rather than risking their careers and reputations to shield someone who may not hesitate to sacrifice them to protect himself. This is a serious concern for anyone working in a legal capacity, and the fact that it’s so prevalent in the DOJ speaks volumes.
The potential implications of this mass departure are significant. The replacements are expected to be Trump loyalists who might be willing to “bend the knee.” This raises serious concerns about the impartiality and effectiveness of the DOJ. Furthermore, the remaining lawyers could be stretched thin, as the DOJ may be facing an increased workload in the future. The remaining attorneys are left in an unwinnable position.
Ultimately, the departure of these DOJ lawyers reflects a deeper crisis within the legal system and the government itself. The issue isn’t just about defending a president, but defending policies and actions that many believe are illegal, unethical, or both. The decision to leave is not just a matter of personal conscience; it also highlights the difficulties of working within a system that seems to be undergoing a fundamental transformation, with consequences that could last for decades.