
Two-thirds of DoJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit
Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the federal programs branch have voluntarily left the unit since Donald Trump's election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to the list compiled by former justice department lawyers and reviewed by Reuters.
The tally has not been previously reported. Using court records and LinkedIn accounts, Reuters was able to verify the departure of all but four names on the list. Reuters spoke to four former lawyers in the unit and three other people familiar with the departures who said some staffers had grown demoralized and exhausted defending an onslaught of lawsuits against Trump's administration.
'Many of these people came to work at federal programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system,' said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump's second term. 'How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?'
Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress.
The Trump administration has broadly defended its actions as within the legal bounds of presidential power and has won several early victories at the supreme court. A White House spokesperson told Reuters that Trump's actions were legal, and declined to comment on the departures.
'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,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement.
The seven lawyers who spoke with Reuters cited a punishing workload and the need to defend policies that some felt were not legally justifiable among the key reasons for the wave of departures.
Three of them said some career lawyers feared they would be pressured to misrepresent facts or legal issues in court, a violation of ethics rules that could lead to professional sanctions.
All spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics and avoid retaliation.
A justice department spokesperson said lawyers in the unit are fighting an 'unprecedented number of lawsuits' against Trump'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,' the spokesperson said. The justice department did not comment on the departures of career lawyers or morale in the section.
Some turnover in the federal programs branch is common between presidential administrations, but the seven sources described the number of people quitting as highly unusual.
Reuters was unable to find comparative figures for previous administrations. However, two former attorneys in the unit and two others familiar with its work said the scale of departures is far greater than during Trump's first term and Joe Biden's administration.
The exits include at least 10 of the section's 23 supervisors, experienced litigators who in many cases served across presidential administrations, according to two of the lawyers.
A spokesperson said the justice department is hiring to keep pace with staffing levels during the Biden administration. They did not provide further details. In its broad overhaul of the justice department, the Trump administration has fired or sidelined dozens of lawyers who specialize in prosecuting national security and corruption cases and publicly encouraged departures from the civil rights division.
But the federal programs branch, which defends challenges to White House and federal agency policies in federal trial courts, remains critical to its agenda. The unit is fighting to sustain actions of the cost-cutting 'department of government efficiency' formerly overseen by Elon Musk; Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship; and his attempt to freeze $2.5bn in funding to Harvard University.
'We've never had an administration pushing the legal envelope so quickly, so aggressively and across such a broad range of government policies and programs,' said Peter Keisler, who led the justice department's civil division under Republican President George W Bush.
'The demands are intensifying at the same time that the ranks of lawyers there to defend these cases are dramatically thinning.'
The departures have left the justice department scrambling to fill vacancies. More than a dozen lawyers have been temporarily reassigned to the section from other parts of the DoJ and it has been exempted from the federal government hiring freeze, according to two former lawyers in the unit.
A justice department spokesperson did not comment on the personnel moves. Justice department leadership has also brought in about 15 political appointees to help defend civil cases, an unusually high number.
The new attorneys, many of whom have a record defending conservative causes, have been more comfortable pressing legal boundaries, according to two former lawyers in the unit.
'They have to be willing to advocate on behalf of their clients and not fear the political fallout,' said Mike Davis, the head of the Article III Project, a pro-Trump legal advocacy group, referring to the role of DoJ lawyers in defending the administration's policies.
People who have worked in the section expect the Federal Programs Branch to play an important role in the Trump administration's attempts to capitalize on a supreme court ruling limiting the ability of judges to block its policies nationwide. Its lawyers are expected to seek to narrow prior court rulings and also defend against an anticipated rise in class action lawsuits challenging government policies. Lawyers in the unit are opposing two attempts by advocacy organizations to establish a nationwide class of people to challenge Trump's order on birthright citizenship. A judge granted one request on Thursday.
Four former justice department lawyers told Reuters some attorneys in the federal programs branch left over policy differences with Trump, but many had served in the first Trump administration and viewed their role as defending the government regardless of the party in power. The four lawyers who left said they feared Trump administration policies to dismantle certain federal agencies and claw back funding appeared to violate the US constitution or were enacted without following processes that were more defensible in court. Government lawyers often walked into court with little information from the White House and federal agencies about the actions they were defending, the four lawyers said.
The White House and DoJ did not comment when asked about communications on cases. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, in February threatened disciplinary action against government lawyers who did not vigorously advocate for Trump's agenda. The memo to justice department employees warned career lawyers they could not 'substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election'.
Four of the lawyers Reuters spoke with said there was a widespread concern that attorneys would be forced to make arguments that could violate attorney ethics rules, or refuse assignments and risk being fired. Those fears grew when justice department leadership fired a former supervisor in the Office of Immigration Litigation, a separate civil civision unit, accusing him of failing to forcefully defend the administration's position in the case of Kilmar Ábrego García, a man wrongly deported to El Salvador. The supervisor, Erez Reuveni, filed a whistleblower complaint, made public last month, alleging he faced pressure from administration officials to make unsupported legal arguments and adopt strained interpretations of rulings in three immigration cases.
Hashtags

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


The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Man charged with killing Minnesota lawmaker plans to plead not guilty
A Minnesota man plans to plead not guilty to charges he killed the top Democratic leader in the state House and her husband after wounding another lawmaker and his wife, his attorney said. Vance Boelter, 57, is due in federal court for his arraignment on Sept. 12 under an order issued late Tuesday, hours after a grand jury indicted him on six counts of murder, stalking and firearms violations. The murder charges could carry the federal death penalty. At a news conference Tuesday, prosecutors released a rambling handwritten letter they say Boelter wrote to FBI Director Kash Patel in which he confessed to the June 14 shootings of Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark. However, the letter doesn't make clear why he targeted the couples. Boelter's federal defender, Manny Atwal, said in an email that the weighty charges do not come as a surprise. 'The indictment starts the process of receiving discovery which will allow me to evaluate the case,' Atwal said Tuesday. She did not immediately comment Wednesday on any possible defense strategies. At his last court appearance, Boelter said he was 'looking forward to the facts about the 14th coming out.' While the scheduling order set a trial date of Nov. 3, Atwal said it was 'very unlikely' to happen so soon. Investigators have already gathered a huge amount of evidence that both sides will need time to evaluate. The scheduling order acknowledges that both sides may find grounds for seeking extensions. And the potential for a death sentence adds yet another level of complexity. The acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Joe Thompson, reiterated Tuesday that they consider the former House speaker's death a 'political assassination' and the wounding of Sen. John Hoffman an 'attempted assassination.' But Thompson told reporters a decision on whether to seek the death penalty 'will not come for several months.' He said it will ultimately be up to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, with input from the capital case unit at the Department of Justice, local prosecutors and the victims. Minnesota abolished its state death penalty in 1911, but the Trump administration says it intends to be aggressive in seeking capital punishment for eligible federal crimes. Boelter's motivations remain murky. Friends have described him as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views who had been struggling to find work. Boelter allegedly made lists of politicians in Minnesota and other states — all or mostly Democrats — and attorneys at national law firms. In an interview published by the New York Post on Saturday, Boelter insisted the shootings had nothing to do with his opposition to abortion or his support for President Donald Trump, but he declined to elaborate on that point. 'There is little evidence showing why he turned to political violence and extremism,' Thompson said. Prosecutors say Boelter was disguised as a police officer and driving a fake squad car early June 14 when he went to the Hoffmans' home in the Minneapolis suburb of Champlin. He allegedly shot the senator nine times, and his wife, Yvette, eight times, but they survived. Boelter later allegedly went to the Hortmans' home in nearby Brooklyn Park and killed both of them. Their dog was so gravely injured that he had to be euthanized. Investigators found Boelter's letter to the FBI director in the car he abandoned near his rural home in Green Isle, west of Minneapolis. He surrendered the night after the shootings following what authorities have called the largest search for a suspect in Minnesota history.


The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
The Trump administration's latest immigration target: Kids aged 11 and under
A far cry from the 'bad, hard criminals' Donald Trump said his undocumented immigrants crackdown would focus on, record-breaking numbers of deportation orders have been issued to young immigrant children under the Trump administration, The Independent can reveal. More kids aged 11 or under — 8,317 — received a removal order from an immigration court in April than any other month in over 35 years of data collection, according to court data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). Since Trump's inauguration in January, judges have ordered removals for over 53,000 immigrant minors. Those children are predominantly elementary school age or younger. Some 15,000 children were aged under four years old, and 20,000 of them were children aged four to eleven. Teenagers are also experiencing climbing deportations, with 17,000 seeing a court-ordered removal, although that's lower than their all-time peak in 2020 under the first Trump administration. Some of these children being deported are unaccompanied minors, who do not have a legal guardian in the US; though the exact number is unclear, since immigration authorities stopped recording this data years ago. Children, including toddlers, are required to show up at immigration hearings to be questioned by a judge – and many, unsurprisingly, do not understand what is happening nor the gravity of their situation. In one case, a source tells the Independent, a young child from Haiti had his immigration court hearing remotely in front of a screen. The child, who had a learning disability, was fidgeting and running around the room. Finally, he pointed at the judge on the screen and asked – 'Who's that?' In other cases, children are being arrested by ICE with their families, but held in detention and deported separately. 'A six year old child was picked up [by ICE] with his father, separated from his dad, and parked in custody for four months before being deported,' a lawyer familiar with children's immigration cases told the Independent. The child was unable to receive legal assistance, as he was deported while federal legal funding had been cut. The deportation outcome rate for immigrant children under age 11 is higher than in any other age group, latest figures show, and has jumped significantly since Trump came into office. What's more, under-18s account for one in four (26 percent) of all deportations ordered in immigration court since January – despite the fact that minors make up just 11 percent of the undocumented population. The vast majority (76 percent) of children under 11 do not have legal representation, and cases are being sped through the system, according to sources close to the courts. 'This is pumping up the deportation numbers on the back of kids – their rights to safety and due process are not respected,' the immigration lawyer told the Independent. 'This is about striking fear in the hearts of everybody. It's demonstrable cruelty in the name of so-called deterrence.' Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin responded to the Independent: 'Accusations that ICE is 'targeting' children are FALSE and an attempt to demonize law enforcement. ICE does not 'target' children nor does it deport children. Rather than separate families, ICE asks mothers if they want to be removed with their children or if the child should be placed with someone safe the parent designates.' Highest-ever deportations for young children Immigration crackdowns across the country have been almost indiscriminate, with new data revealing that ICE is arresting more non-criminals than ever. The number of people who have been deported under the Trump administration is murky; ICE has not disclosed official figures since January, and available immigration court data is not comprehensive, with age not recorded in 13 percent of cases. But analysis of court data reveals that children have been increasingly, and disproportionately, marked for deportation in recent months. Under the Trump administration, immigration courts have quickly ramped up deportation rates. Around two thirds (68 percent) of all immigration court proceedings ended in deportation in May, compared to 39 percent in January. But for children under 11, the removal rate is even higher, at 75 percent in May; and 78 percent for kids under 4 years old, both substantially higher than the 45 percent seen on average for young kids in January. This suggests that children are being disproportionately targeted for deportations under this administration, overrepresented by 2.3 times more than their proportion of the illegal immigrant population, our analysis shows. 'What we're seeing right now is basically a grist mill in immigration court, just scooting kids through the process as quickly as possible,' the lawyer, who asked to remain anonymous, told the Independent. At the same time, children facing immigration court are more vulnerable and less protected than ever. In spite of this, the Trump administration has been fighting to cancel funding which provides legal aid for unaccompanied immigrant children. The government first issued a stop-work order in February, and cancelled federal contracts in March. In April the federal district court ordered the Trump administration to restore funding, saying it is congressionally mandated under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). Legal assistance programs told the Independent that they had since been re-contracted; but remain on 'pins and needles' as the government appeals the court ruling, and Trump's Big Beautiful Bill makes it harder and more expensive to sue against his policies. Rocket dockets and separating families In the meantime, children are being put on expedited paths through immigration court, known as 'rocket dockets', according to the immigration lawyer. Many of these cases are going through in just two weeks from start to finish – which leaves little-to-no room for a child to prepare the necessary documents and arguments. 'Of course, a child is going to file a case that's not completely fleshed out in all the legal arguments, because they don't understand the legal argument,' the lawyer told the Independent. 'This is also really damaging for trafficking victims. Kids who have experienced severe trauma need the time to have their nervous system relax, to understand that they're safe, to share some of the most sensitive details about their cases.' These tactics evoke the family separation policy, employed in 2018 under the first Trump administration, which forcibly kept parents and children apart when detained at the border – with as many as 1,360 families never reunited, according to Human Rights Watch. 'It is seen as against the due process rights of a child to be systematically separated from their parent or legal guardian,' the lawyer explained. 'What's clear is that they are sidestepping the legal settlement to protect children from these cruel techniques."


The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
20 states sue the Trump admin for cutting disaster prevention money
A coalition of 20 US states, predominantly led by Democrats, has launched a legal challenge against the Trump administration, seeking to reinstate a multi-billion-dollar grant programme crucial for infrastructure upgrades designed to mitigate natural disasters. The lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court, contends that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) acted unlawfully by cancelling the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) programme in April, despite its prior approval and funding by Congress. The BRIC programme, established in 2018, was designed to cover up to 75 per cent of infrastructure project costs, or 90 per cent in rural areas, aimed at protecting communities from natural catastrophes. Over the past four years, FEMA had allocated approximately \$4.5 billion in grants for nearly 2,000 projects, many benefiting coastal states, funding initiatives from evacuation shelters to flood walls and improvements to roads and bridges. The administration, however, cited the programme as wasteful, ineffective, and politicised when announcing its termination. "By unilaterally shutting down FEMA's flagship pre-disaster mitigation program, Defendants have acted unlawfully and violated core separation of powers principles," the states, spearheaded by Washington and Massachusetts, asserted in their filing. Neither FEMA nor the US Department of Homeland Security immediately responded to requests for comment regarding the lawsuit. The legal action comes as FEMA faces heightened scrutiny following its response to deadly floods in Texas earlier this month, which claimed over 130 lives. This event has intensified focus on the administration's broader efforts to reduce the agency's scope or even abolish it. A bipartisan group of lawmakers had previously urged FEMA in May to reinstate the grants, emphasising their particular importance for rural and tribal communities, and called for collaboration with Congress to enhance the programme's efficiency. The states further argue that Congress designated disaster mitigation as a core function of FEMA, asserting that the US Constitution and federal law prohibit the Trump administration from altering the agency's mission without legislative input. They also allege that Cameron Hamilton and his successor, David Richardson, who served as acting directors of FEMA when the programme was terminated, were not properly appointed and therefore lacked the authority to cancel it. The states are now seeking a preliminary injunction to compel the programme's reinstatement while the case proceeds, marking the latest in a series of challenges by states against the Trump administration's approach to disaster funding. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a Democrat, underscored the critical need for federal funding in light of the recent Texas floods. "By abruptly and unlawfully shutting down the BRIC program, this administration is abandoning states and local communities that rely on federal funding to protect their residents and, in the event of disaster, save lives," she stated.