DOJ rocked by wave of Trump firings
Maurene Comey, a New York-based federal prosecutor and the daughter of the former FBI director, was fired Wednesday without explanation.
And news broke this week that the Justice Department also fired immigration court Judge Jennifer Peyton, who served as head of the Chicago immigration court system, shortly after the jurist gave a tour to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Those firings come on the heels of the dismissal of at least 20 staffers who worked under special counsel Jack Smith, a group that includes not only attorneys but also support staff and even U.S. Marshals.
Attorney General Pam Bondi last week also fired the top career ethics official at the department, Joseph Tirrell, the latest in a string of ethics officials pushed out under President Trump.
'Every time I think we're at some point when the firings are over, there's another wave. So I would predict we'll see more,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
'It's more dedicated career professionals being given walking papers when they really deserve to be elevated and empowered. And to fire the ethics attorney, I think, speaks volumes about where she's taking the department,' Blumenthal said.
Justice Connection, a network of the department's alumni dedicated to protecting 'colleagues who are under attack,' estimate that more than 200 employees have been terminated at DOJ, a figure that includes firings at the FBI and other agencies, as well as prosecutors that worked on the cases of Jan. 6 rioters at the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C.
'The senseless terminations at the Justice Department are growing exponentially. The very institution created to enforce the law is trampling over the civil service laws enacted by Congress. It's shameful, and it's devastating the workforce,' Stacey Young, executive director and founder of the group, said in a statement to The Hill
'DOJ leadership is making clear the ability to keep your job is not tied to your performance, your expertise, or your commitment to uphold and defend the Constitution. Those who remain at the department are now worried about how to uphold their professional ethical standards when it seems that their willingness to do whatever they are ordered matters more than any other aspect of their work.'
The Justice Department declined to comment on personnel matters.
Many of the attorneys that were fired have received brief letters saying they were terminated under the authority of the second article of the constitution, the one that establishes the presidency.
A letter from Comey to her colleagues referenced the guiding ethos of the Justice Department: to pursue cases 'without fear or favor.'
'Our focus was really on acting 'without favor.' That is, making sure people with access, money, and power were not treated differently than anyone else; and making sure this office remained separate from politics and focused only on the facts and the law,' Comey said in the memo, adding, 'but we have entered a new phase where 'without fear' may be the challenge.'
In the case of Peyton, Durbin said he sees a direct line between the tour she gave him – something he called a routine oversight visit – and her termination.
'Judge Peyton took time to show me the court and explain its functions. Soon after, she received an email from Department of Justice political appointees. The email claimed that immigration judges should not directly communicate with members of Congress and congressional staff and required all communications from congressional offices to be forwarded to headquarters for review and response,' Durbin said in a Tuesday email.
'Judge Peyton was fired soon after. Her abrupt termination is an abuse of power by the Administration to punish a non-political judge simply for doing her job.'
On Smith's team, the recent firings make for at least 37 staffers who have been dismissed, according to Reuters.
And on the ethics front, beyond Terrill, Jeffrey Ragsdale, the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility, which reviews the conduct of attorneys in the department, was fired in March. Brad Weinsheimer, another top ethics official, resigned after he was reassigned to a new working group focused on cracking down on sanctuary cities.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he sees two primary patterns.
'This is Pam Bondi attempting to go after all the president's perceived political enemies, to go after dedicated prosecutors who brought cases successfully to conviction. It's also part of the broader effort to completely rewrite history about Jan. 6,' he told The Hill, adding that he expects more firing of those 'deemed insufficiently pro-MAGA.'
He then listed a string of officials inside and outside of DOJ that have been fired under Trump, including the heads of the Office of the Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics.
'They seem to be doing everything they can to eviscerate any kind of watchdog or ethical oversight – clearly part of a pattern of trying to eliminate all accountability,' said Schiff, who sent a letter to Bondi this week asking for more details on Terrill's firings and plans to comply with ethics guidelines at the department.
Beyond the firings, many Justice Department lawyers have left the department of their own accord, with several sharing with The Hill they feared being asked to do something illegal or would be forced to defend unlawful actions.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the result is a culture of fear at the Justice Department.
'The Department of Justice is now a joke. When you look at the history of a once storied and legendary department, Pam Bondi has defined her job as doing whatever Donald Trump wants. She's completely sycophantic and subservient. And there may be some lawyers still left in the building who are trying to do their jobs in an honest way consistent with professional ethics, but everything has been supported, subordinated to the political will of Donald Trump,' he told The Hill.
'It's a tough thing for the real lawyers who are still there, and they express a lot of fear and anxiety about where the DOJ is going.'
He added that some Republican colleagues, largely former prosecutors, have privately expressed concern over the firings.
'I have had Republican colleagues who were former federal prosecutors telling me privately that they are absolutely appalled that United States assistant attorneys are being fired because they worked on the January 6 case,' Raskin said.
'Think about the implications of that. People are being fired for doing their jobs well, and their job was bringing cases against people who violently assaulted federal police officers,' he said.
But that concern was not publicly shared by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chair of the panel.
'I have confidence in President Trump, confidence in his team at the Justice Department, if that's what they think is in the best interest of fulfilling their mission, that's their call,' he told The Hill.
'I don't know this particulars about each individual, but if that's what the attorney general believes is in the best interest of the Justice Department's mission, that's fine.'
Comey and Terrill both addressed morale in letters to their colleagues.
Comey said unjustified firings mean 'fear may seep into the decisions of those who remain.'
'Do not let that happen. Fear is the tool of a tyrant, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place. A fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power. Of commitment to seek justice for victims. Of dedication to truth above all else,' she wrote.
Terrill, too, hinted at a call to action from colleagues.
'I believe in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – 'the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,'' he wrote in a post on LinkedIn that included his brief termination notice.
'I also believe that Edmund Burke is right and that 'the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After a blown deadline, what next for US-Canada trade?
A self-imposed deadline for a new US-Canada trade deal came and went on Friday. So what happens next for these two deeply entwined neighbours? Canada and the US have been locked in a tariff war for six months and, despite talk of "intense" negotiations in recent weeks, a trade agreement remains elusive. Both President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney have poured cold water on the idea they will reach a quick, and tariff-free, deal. And Trump's open criticism of Canada's move to recognise a Palestinian state dashed hopes for a last-minute agreement earlier this week. The pessimism marks a shift in tone from as recently as June's G7 meeting, when the two leaders set themselves the summer deadline. Canadian negotiators have come to the conclusion that "it's not the end of the world" if a quick deal isn't reached and "that quality over speed and a rushed agreement matters a lot", said Fen Hampson, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa. Carney - who has been tight-lipped about the negotiation details - has said as much himself, repeating that just "any deal" won't do. Still, there are pressures on both sides to give businesses a reprieve. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said on Friday he shares "Canadians' disappointment" that a deal was not reached by the deadline. He urged Carney's Liberals to do more to "take back control of our economic future". Canada is now facing a 35% tariff rate, though there is a carve out for goods compliant under a current free trade deal. American global tariffs on steel, aluminium, autos and auto parts are hurting, as the US is a top market for those sectors. On Sunday, Canada's minister for US-Canada trade Dominic LeBlanc told the BBC's US partner CBS News that trade talks will continue, and that negotiations so far have been "informative, constructive and cordial." LeBlanc added he expects Carney and Trump to speak again in the coming days. "We think there is an option of striking a deal that will bring down some of these tariffs, and provide greater certainty to investment," he said. The Trump administration has justified those tariffs by claiming a lack of co-operation on stemming the flow of illicit drugs like fentanyl. Canada denies that, noting about 1% of US fentanyl imports originate in Canada. It has also brought in new border protections and a "fentanyl czar" in recent months in an effort to address Trump's concerns. Threatened tariffs on copper and the expected end of a global tariff exemption used by shoppers of goods under $800 could also pinch. Canada has responded with C$60bn ($43.3bn; £32.3bn) in counter tariffs on various American goods - the only country along with China to directly retaliate against Trump. "It comes as no surprise that businesses are craving certainty after months and months of tumultuous announcements," said Catherine Fortin-Lefaivre, vice-president of international policy and global partnership at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. "But at the same time, they're not craving certainty at the expense of a really bad deal." A few factors give Canada some breathing room. On paper, it looks like the country is facing a severe tariff rate from the US, but trade is currently more free than the levies suggest at first glance. In March, Trump announced a tariffs reprieve on goods compliant with the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement, known in Canada as CUSMA and the US as the USMCA. That deal - negotiated during Trump's first term in office - came into force five years ago. Almost 90% of Canadian exports to the US are ultimately able to cross the border duty free, if firms file out necessary paperwork, under that agreement. "That has given us a buffer, no question about it, that other countries don't have right now," said Prof Hampson. It means Canada is overall paying a much lower tariff rate than many of the deals already inked with the US, like the EU, South Korea and Japan at 15%, or Indonesia and the Philippines at 19%. Ottawa has also brought in some relief programmes for affected industries and has also collected about C$1.5bn more in import duties than in the same period last year, due to the counter tariffs. Why Trump's global tariffs 'victory' may well come at a high price See the Trump tariffs list by country Five things now pricier in Canada due to tariffs 'In business, indecision is killer' - Canadian firms seek certainty And while in the US consumer confidence is up and prices there have remained contained, it helps Canada's negotiating position if they can wait for Americans to start feeling the pain of tariffs. "It's Americans who are going to squawk," said Prof Hampson. Ms Fortin-Lefaivre predicts US businesses, especially smaller firms that don't have the same resources to withstand them, will be pressuring political leaders. "So that pressure could play to our advantage," she said. Canadians also appear willing to give the new prime minister some leeway. Opinion polls suggest they are generally satisfied with his handling of trade. Carney "understands that doing what's best for the economy right now is actually what's best for him politically", Martha Hall Findlay, director of the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy and a former Liberal MP, told the BBC. Trump has said he is imposing tariffs to boost domestic manufacturing, open overseas markets and raise money for the government. He is also using them to push countries like Canada on a range of non-trade issues, including military spending. In the last few weeks, Ottawa has significantly ramped up its defence spending, boosted security at the shared border and killed a digital tax opposed by American tech firms. Those moves show Canada is "doing what the Americans wanted us to do", said Ms Fortin-Lefaivre. She hopes Canadian negotiators are pushing for tariffs to be as low as possible, as well as working to ensure the two deeply integrated supply chains are able to continue working together. Canada is pressing for relief on the 50% steel and aluminium tariffs, which are squeezing US automakers. And on Thursday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signalled in an interview with CNBC that is an option on the table. Trump meanwhile, has raised a number of longstanding trade irritants besides fentanyl, including Canada's protections around its dairy industry. Ottawa has previously warned of more countermeasures to come if talks collapse, though political appetite for that may be waning. Retaliatory tariffs "haven't seemed to have had the kind of impact that we would hope for", British Columbia Premier David Eby recently told Bloomberg. On retaliation, Prof Hampson said: "The Americans have escalation dominance here. So you want to be smart about it." A spokesperson for Carney declined to say whether more countermeasures remained on the table. Meanwhile, Canadian negotiators have been in Washington most of this week and keep pushing talks forward, with the minister responsible for Canada-US trade saying on Friday an acceptable agreement "was not yet in sight". "We all crave the certainty of a deal," said Ms Fortin-Lefaivre. But research by her business group suggests firms are making contingency plans. Almost 40% of goods exporters have already diversified suppliers outside the US, and 28% have diversified buyers. They are also looking ahead to what may be more challenging talks with CUSMA, which has proven a critical backstop, as it is up for review next year. It is all part of a wider push by the country to diversify trade away from the US, pull down barriers that have hindered trade between provinces, and press forward more quickly on major projects. The economic links between the two countries will stay strong - Canada will still be one of the largest trading partners and economic and security allies of the US. But the irony is that Trump's threats may be "forcing Canada to understand we have to get our own economic house in order," said Ms Hall Findlay. "It's going to take some really tough decisions. And I do think our current government gets this." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
Top Trump aide accuses India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine
Stephen Miller on Fox News: Trump said, 'It is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia.' WASHINGTON – A top aide to President Donald Trump accused India of effectively financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing oil from Moscow, after the U.S. leader escalated pressure on New Delhi to stop buying Russian oil, in a Fox News interview that aired on Aug. 3. More: President Trump announces 25% tariff on imports from India "What he (Trump) said very clearly is that it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia," said Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff at the White House and one of Trump's most influential aides. More: Russia does not care about Trump's 'theatrical ultimatum', senior official says Miller's criticism was among the strongest yet by the Trump administration about one of the United States' major partners in the Indo-Pacific. "People will be shocked to learn that India is basically tied with China in purchasing Russian oil. That's an astonishing fact," Miller said on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures." The Indian Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Indian government sources told Reuters on Aug. 2 that New Delhi will keep purchasing oil from Moscow despite U.S. threats. More: Trump says he ordered 2 nuclear subs to 'appropriate regions' after Russia nuclear threats A 25% tariff on Indian products went into effect on Aug. 1 as a result of its purchase of military equipment and energy from Russia. Trump has also threatened 100% tariffs on U.S. imports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Miller tempered his criticism by noting Trump's relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which he described as "tremendous."
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
