Opinion - Under Trump, the division formerly known as ‘civil rights' is in peril
The civil rights division used to be the crown jewel of the Justice Department. Now, because of the department's unbounded commitment to implement President Trump's agenda, it is a profound embarrassment — or it would be, if the ideological rigidity of the department's leadership were not such effective armor against that discomfort.
I have practiced law in Washington, D.C. for more than 45 years. In the Clinton White House, I was the liaison between the White House counsel's office and the Justice Department. I served during the Obama administration in the deputy attorney general's office, and in the civil rights division from 2022 until January 2025. In addition, over many years in private practice, I dealt frequently with the department, including in the aftermath of Watergate, and then under Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump.
I can say with certainty that the current assault on civil rights is not normal, and that this is not a proper way to run a law enforcement agency.
Although past Republican administrations have been accused of neglecting civil rights, none exhibited the Trump administration's destructive, nihilist hostility toward civil rights. Even if the department did not always combat racial discrimination with the vigor that critics wanted, at least it did not reflexively oppose such enforcement at the insistence of political taskmasters.
The Justice Department has always followed broad policy cues from the White House. But the Department has steadfastly cordoned off its enforcement decisions. I recall, when serving as senior counsel in the White House, being 'asked' to leave a meeting at Justice that unexpectedly turned to enforcement issues. At all times, I understood that the independence of the department was sacrosanct. Indeed, part of my job as a political appointee at the department was to insulate the nonpartisan career employees from political pressures. To my knowledge, no one suggested that career employees — in the argot of the current administration–needed to 'get with' the president's program or leave.
Regarding that agenda, I do not take issue with the civil rights division's announced intent to address antisemitism and discrimination against Christians. Such discrimination is invidious and merits investigation. The problem lies not in including those areas but rather in ignoring or discounting all the other forms of bias.
For example, the new assistant attorney general heading the civil rights division has issued new mission statements for each of the division's sections. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 is the foundational document for the housing section's efforts to combat discrimination. Yet the mission statement for the section reportedly does not mention it.
The mission statement for the voting section is similarly myopic. For much of the 20th Century, few Black people in the South could vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 sought to end that disenfranchisement — to guarantee a right that, as President Lyndon Johnson put it, 'no American, true to our principles, can deny.' Heroes of the Civil Rights Movement fought, suffered, and died for this law. It was their seminal achievement and the touchstone of the work of the Voting Section.
Yet the new mission statement barely mentions the Voting Rights Act. Instead, it addresses fraud and noncitizen voting, minuscule problems in the American electoral system. It focuses not on discrimination but rather reflects Trump's flat earth conspiracy theory that he won the 2020 election.
The civil rights division has now sought to match the staffing of the section to its anemic mission, ousting the section's leadership, dismissing its cases, and reportedly reducing the legal staff to a grand total of three.
Magical thinking is not a viable law enforcement strategy. The department cannot stop discrimination by pretending it has ended. It cannot prevent voter suppression by ignoring it or stop assaults on the right to vote by concentrating paltry resources on fringe issues.
There is reason to fear that the department's skewed approach goes beyond hostility toward civil rights — that it actually furthers an anti-democratic agenda. Consider the context: While the Justice Department was busy gutting the voting section, Trump issued an Executive Order on elections (since overturned in court) that would have disenfranchised millions of American citizens and sought to disrupt the use of electronic voting machines.
In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security has suspended the efforts of its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to help states harden their voting systems against cyberattacks. It has laid off the relevant employee, and ended funding to the group that coordinated security issues for the election community.
Further, the Attorney General disbanded the Justice Department task force fighting foreign attempts to influence U.S. elections and is dismantling the public integrity section of the department's criminal division, which has prosecuted voter fraud and intimidation. Interwoven with all these efforts is Trump's non-stop denial of the results of the 2020 election. These efforts undercut the operation and integrity of our electoral system and undermine public confidence in it, with the civil rights division in tow.
Since Attorney General Edward Levi in 1975 redeemed the Justice Department from the political abuses of Watergate, the department, in both Republican and Democratic administrations, has at least tried to maintain an appropriate level of independence, to enforce the law fairly against friend and foe, and to avoid any taint of partisanship — until now.
What is happening in the Justice Department, especially in the civil rights division, is not normal. The norm is to safeguard the integrity of law enforcement, to follow the law, to protect civil rights and to respect the Constitution. It is not to carry out the president's political agenda.
Robert Weiner formerly served as senior counsel in the front office of the civil rights division of the Department of Justice. He is now director of the Voting Rights Project at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

15 minutes ago
Trump administration hit with second lawsuit over restrictions on asylum access
McALLEN, Texas -- Immigration advocates filed a class action lawsuit Wednesday over the Trump administration's use of a proclamation that effectively put an end to being able to seek asylum at ports of entry to the United States. The civil lawsuit was filed in a Southern California federal court by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the American Immigration Council, Democracy Forward, and the Center for Constitutional Rights. The lawsuit is asking the court to find the proclamation unlawful, set aside the policy ending asylum at ports of entry and restore access to the asylum process at ports of entry, including for those who had appointments that were canceled when President Donald Trump took office. Unlike a similar lawsuit filed in February in a Washington, D.C., federal court representing people who had already reached U.S. soil and sought asylum after crossing between ports of entry, Wednesday's lawsuit focuses on people who are not on U.S. soil and are seeking asylum at ports of entry. No response was immediately issued by the Department of Homeland Security or Customs and Border Protection, which were both among the defendants listed. Trump's sweeping proclamation issued on his first day in office changed asylum policies, effectively ending asylum at the border. The proclamation said the screening process created by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act 'can be wholly ineffective in the border environment' and was 'leading to the unauthorized entry of innumerable illegal aliens into the United States.' Immigrant advocates said that under the proclamation noncitizens seeking asylum at a port of entry are asked to present medical and criminal histories, a requirement for the visa process but not for migrants who are often fleeing from immediate danger. 'Nothing in the INA or any other source of law permits Defendants' actions,' the immigrant advocates wrote in their complaint. Thousands of people who sought asylum through the CBP One app, a system developed under President Joe Biden, had their appointments at ports of entry canceled on Trump's first day in office as part of the proclamation that declared an invasion at the border. 'The Trump administration has taken drastic steps to block access to the asylum process, in flagrant violation of U.S. law,' the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies stated in a news release Wednesday.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House preparing Trump's meetings at G7 summit, which Zelenskyy attends
The White House has confirmed that it is preparing separate bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit, where, in addition to the G7 leaders, the presidents of Brazil, Mexico and Ukraine are expected to attend. Source: White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt during a press briefing in Washington, quoted by Ukrinform Quote from Leavitt: "I can confirm there will be quite a few bilateral meetings between the president [Trump – ed.] and other foreign leaders." Details: Meanwhile, Leavitt did not specify whether a meeting between President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is planned. Quote from Leavitt: "The White House is still working very hard to finalise that schedule, and we will provide that for you as soon as we have it." Background: The Office of the President of Ukraine hopes to organise a meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit on 15-17 June. Last week, Zelenskyy confirmed that he had received an invitation to the G7 summit. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Thin-Skinned Trump Snaps Over Kennedy Center Snub
Donald Trump snapped at a reporter who tried to ask about Kennedy Center actors who were planning to walk out rather than perform for him Wednesday night. He cut off the question, insisting, 'I couldn't care less!' 'Honestly, I couldn't,' Trump continued on the red carpet. 'All I do is run the country well,' he said, before launching into a lengthy list of his self-proclaimed achievements. Les Misérables cast members were offered the option to sit out the show on the night of Trump's attendance, and about a dozen performers were planning to do so, CNN reported last month. It underscores the ongoing conflict between Trump and members of the performing arts center, which he effectively seized control of in February. The president ousted much of the board, replaced them with loyalists, and appointed himself chairman, vowing to eliminate programming he deemed too 'woke,' such as events featuring drag performers. 'There's no inflation. People are happy. People are wealthy. The country is getting back to strength again,' said Trump, who was accompanied on the red carpet by Melania. 'That's what I care about.' In fact, inflation held largely steady in May at 2.4 percent. There are protests across the country as anger over Trump's immigration crackdown grows, especially in Los Angeles, which is contending with a militarized response from the Trump administration that local officials say they did not want or need. The Kennedy Center, meanwhile, has seen subscription sales plummet by more than a third year-on-year in the wake of Trump's takeover. But Trump has insisted his leadership will make the center 'great again.' Richard Grenell, the Trump-appointed president of the Kennedy Center, slammed the potential boycott last month and suggested actors who participated should be publicly identified, telling The New York Times, 'Any performer who isn't professional enough to perform for patrons of all backgrounds, regardless of political affiliation, won't be welcomed.' 'In fact, we think it would be important to out those vapid and intolerant artists to ensure producers know who they shouldn't hire—and that the public knows which shows have political litmus tests to sit in the audience,' he added. Loud boos could be heard from the audience as Trump waved from the presidential box, there were also cheers and a chant of 'USA! USA!' There was applause earlier for several drag queens as they arrived at the event. A group of drag performers had been expected to attend in protest after some attendees gave up their tickets following Trump's shakeup. Vice President JD Vance also attended the event with his wife, Usha Vance, and joked on X that he had no idea what the iconic musical was about. Trump, too, appeared to lack knowledge of the plot when he couldn't say whether he identified more with the protagonist or antagonist.