U.S. Justice Department unit defending Trump policies loses two-thirds of staff
Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since Trump's election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to a list compiled by former Justice Department lawyers.
The tally has not been previously reported. Using court records and LinkedIn accounts, it was possible to verify the departure of all but four names on the list.
Four former lawyers in the unit and three other people familiar with the departures 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 said that Trump's actions were legal, and declined to comment on the departures.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks during a news conference in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House on June 27. |
AFP-JIJI
"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 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.
A U.S. Justice Department logo showing the Justice Department headquarters, known as "Main Justice," behind the podium in a briefing room before a news conference in 2023 |
REUTERS
"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.
It was not possible to find comparative figures for previous administrations, but two former attorneys in the unit and two others familiar with its work said the scale of departures was far greater than during Trump's first term and the administration of former U.S. President Joe Biden.
Heading for the exit
Those exiting 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, as well as Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship and his attempt to freeze $2.5 billion in funding for Harvard University.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi listens as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, after the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of federal judges during a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, in the Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington on June 27. |
REUTERS
"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.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi listens as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, after the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of federal judges during a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, in the Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington on June 27. |
REUTERS
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.
Facing pressure
Four former Justice Department lawyers said 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 Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building in Washington on July 10 |
Jason Andrew / The New York Times
The four lawyers who left said they feared Trump administration policies to dismantle certain federal agencies and claw back funding appeared to violate the U.S. 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. 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 said there was a widespread concern 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 Division unit, accusing him of failing to forcefully defend the administration's position in the case of Kilmar Abrego, the man wrongly deported to El Salvador.
Donald Trump speaks to the media after the U.S. Supreme Court deals a blow to the power of federal judges, by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases, during a legal fight over Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, in the Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington on June 27. |
REUTERS
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. Justice Department officials have publicly disputed the claims, casting him as disgruntled. A senior official, Emil Bove, told a Senate panel he never advised defying courts.
Career lawyers were also uncomfortable defending Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, according to two former Justice Department lawyers and a third person familiar with the matter. A longtime ally of Bondi who defended all four law firm cases argued they were a lawful exercise of presidential power. Judges ultimately struck down all four orders as violating the Constitution. The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal at least one case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
4 hours ago
- Japan Times
Early 2026 U.S. midterm ads focus on Medicaid access and Trump tax cuts
Residents of Columbus, Indiana awoke last week to a yellow billboard purchased by the Democratic National Committee blaring: "Under Trump's Watch, Columbus Regional Health is Cutting Medical Services." Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee, which oversees races for the U.S. House of Representatives, this month launched a digital ad campaign touting U.S. President Donald Trump's tax cuts and blaming Democrats for spiking inflation. As members of Congress return to their home districts for the August recess, the Democratic and Republican parties are launching ad blitzes centered around the tax-cut and spending bill Trump signed into law on July 4, in an unofficial start to the 2026 midterm election campaign. Democrats are focusing their message around access to health care, three party operatives and three officials from allied groups said. Republicans are countering that the tax provisions will put more money in voters' pockets — particularly wage workers and seniors, four party operatives said. The bill makes permanent Trump's 2017 tax cuts and funds his immigration enforcement crackdown, while reducing health care and food aid. It devotes $170 billion to immigration enforcement while cutting $1.1 trillion from Medicaid and other public health programs and $186 billion in food assistance. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million people would lose their health insurance by 2034 as a result of the bill, and that the tax provisions and increased immigration and military spending would increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion over the next decade. "How voters feel about Trump and the economy may be the most important factor next fall — but so is how voters feel about the Republican response to their concern," said Jacob Rubashkin, a nonpartisan analyst with Inside Elections. Republican strategists concede that Democrats, who campaigned against the bill while it was working its way through the Republican-controlled House and Senate, are starting with an upper hand in messaging around the legislation. But they say they have plenty of time to sell the bill's benefits. "We will use every tool to show voters that the provisions in this bill are widely popular,' said Mike Marinella, a spokesman for the NRCC. And the party has a cash advantage. The RNC had $81 million in cash at the end of June, according to Federal Election Commission data, compared to the DNC's $15 million during the same period. The DNC has trailed the RNC in fundraising in the first half of the year at the same time as it has deepened its financial commitments, spending in every state, FEC disclosures show. The RNC also enjoys a huge asset in a sitting president who is still holding fundraisers for big-ticket donors. "At the end of the day, Democrats got a jump start on messaging,' said a Republican Senate operative who asked to remain anonymous to discuss party strategy. "They have won the battle. Now we have to focus on winning the war.' Republicans can only afford a net loss of two of the 220 seats they hold in the House to maintain control. In the Senate, they have a 53-47 advantage. 'Critical opportunity' The messaging battle, largely focused on battleground states and districts, is key to defining the bill in the minds of voters. "The bill is currently unpopular, and there's been a lot of conversation among Republicans about how to refocus on the more popular aspects and use the upcoming recess to sell the bill to skeptical voters,' Rubashkin said. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted last month as the bill was moving through Congress, some 64% of registered voters oppose cuts to Medicaid and food stamps in return for lower taxes for everyone. Democrats are seizing on that sentiment, pushing the idea that Republicans have taken away health care to pay for tax giveaways for billionaires. The DNC has purchased billboards in a handful of Republican districts facing reduced services and shutdown of rural hospitals and health facilities. "Republicans threw working families under the bus to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, and we'll never let them — or voters — forget that,' said DNC Deputy Communications Director Abhi Rahman in a statement to Reuters. "This will define the midterms.' Republicans say the bill's provisions on tips, overtime and Social Security show the party is focused on issues affecting working families. They also point to a $50 billion fund the bill establishes to help rural hospitals. In a memo earlier this month, the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged candidates to talk about the bill in personalized terms, highlighting "service industry workers who will keep more of their hard-earned tips,' "first responders and critical workers who will keep more of their overtime pay' and "working parents and caretakers who benefit from increased tax credits for child and dependent care.' Another Republican strategy memo prepared by Tony Fabrizio and David Lee, Trump's pollsters, urges candidates to "lead on kitchen-table issues." The memo was commissioned by One Nation, a super PAC that last week launched a $10-million-plus TV and digital ad blitz playing up the tax features of the bill. The ads will air in states like Georgia and Texas where Republicans are defending seats. Another Republican PAC, Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group founded by Charles Koch and the late David Koch, will launch a TV and digital ad campaign in key districts next month, said Bill Riggs, a spokesperson for AFP. And the American Action Network is running TV and digital ads in 29 battleground congressional districts in Arizona, California, New York and Pennsylvania, emphasizing tax cuts and border security. "It's a new America, full of hope, thanks to President Trump and House Republicans," the ad intones. 'Trump tax' Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to tie Medicaid cuts to reduced health care access and higher costs. The DNC's website claims that the bill will "cost the poorest 10% of households $1,600 a year while raising the income of the richest 10% of Americans by $12,000 a year." Unrig Our Economy, a left-leaning outside group focused on populist economic messaging, is running ads in Iowa, Arizona and Pennsylvania depicting voters voicing frustration at their Republican lawmakers for voting for Trump's bill. "I'm so angry that Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks just voted for the largest cut to Medicaid in history to give tax breaks to billionaires,' said one ad running in Iowa, featuring a Davenport resident identified as Maria. The group plans to spend $7 million by the end of the year, according to spokesperson Kobie Christian. On Monday the group launched a "multi-million dollar' ad campaign focused on the Medicaid cuts in four Texas congressional districts. Protect Our Care, a left-leaning health care advocacy organization, said it plans to spend up to $10 million on ads in the first half of next year, largely focused on urging Republican lawmakers to restore funding to Medicaid. "Republicans won't be able to spin their way out of their parents being kicked out of a nursing home,' said Brad Woodhouse, the group's executive director. Environmental groups are also targeting the bill's rollback of clean energy incentives. Climate Power and the League of Conservation Voters spent $500,000 on an ad pressuring lawmakers in six congressional districts to vote against the bill, claiming that it will increase electricity rates, according to League of Conservation Voters President Pete Maysmith. "The bill just happened, so let's start communicating with people when it's fresh and happening,' said Maysmith. "We don't want to show up later and try to pick up that conversation.'
Japan Times
8 hours ago
- Japan Times
U.S. public opinion divided over atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
U.S. citizens are divided over the August 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the closing days of World War II, an opinion poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in the United States shows. Respondents who said the bombings were "justified" accounted for 35%, while 31% said they were "not justified." Those who were "not sure" made up 33%. The survey, released Monday, was conducted on more than 5,000 U.S. adults between June 2 and 8, ahead of the 80th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings on the city of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and the city of Nagasaki three days later. The share of respondents who answered that the attacks were justified fell sharply from 56% in the previous survey, in 2015, and that of those who said they were not justified also dropped, from 34%. The decreases in both answers were apparently due to the "not sure" option not being available in the 2015 survey. By gender, 51% of the male respondents thought the bombings were justified while the proportion stood at only 20% for female respondents. Older respondents tended to defend the use of the atomic bombs, with the proportion of those age 65 or over who are supportive of the bombings coming to 48%. By contrast, only 27% of those under 30 gave that answer. Meanwhile, 69% of all respondents think that the development of nuclear weapons has made the world "less safe," far exceeding the 10% who answered the opposite. A large majority, at 83%, of all respondents said they "know a lot' or 'a little" about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Japan Today
9 hours ago
- Japan Today
Trump is getting the world economy he wants — but the risk to growth could spoil his victory lap
President Donald Trump reads from a paper and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen listens after reaching a trade deal between the U.S. and the EU at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland Sunday, July 27, 2025. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) By JOSH BOAK and PAUL WISEMAN President Donald Trump is getting his way with the world economy. Trading partners from the European Union to Japan to Vietnam appear to be acceding to the president's demands to accept higher costs — in the form of high tariffs — for the privilege of selling their wares to the United States. For Trump, the agreements driven by a mix of threats and cajoling, are a fulfillment of a decades-long belief in protectionism and a massive gamble that it will pay off politically and economically with American consumers. On Sunday, the United States and the 27-member state European Union announced that they had reached a trade framework agreement: The EU agreed to accept 15% U.S. tariffs on most its goods, easing fears of a catastrophic trans-Atlantic trade war. There were also commitments by the EU to buy $750 billion in U.S. energy products and make $600 billion in new investments through 2028, according to the White House. 'We just signed a very big trade deal, the biggest of them all,' Trump said Monday. But there's no guarantee that Trump's radical overhaul of U.S. trade policy will deliver the happy ending he's promised. The framework agreement was exceedingly spare on details. Most trade deals require months and even years of painstaking negotiation that rise and fall on granular details. Financial markets, at first panicked by the president's protectionist agenda, seem to have acquiesced to a world in which U.S. import taxes — tariffs — are at the highest rates they've been in roughly 90 years. Several billion in new revenues from his levies on foreign goods are pouring into the U.S. Treasury and could somewhat offset the massive tax cuts he signed into law on July 4. Outside economists say that high tariffs are still likely to raise prices for American consumers, dampen the Federal Reserve's ability to lower interest rates and make the U.S. economy less efficient over time. Democrats say the middle class and poor will ultimately pay for the tariffs. 'It's pretty striking that it's seen as a sigh of relief moment,' said Daniel Hornung, a former Biden White House economic official who now holds fellowships at Housing Finance Policy Center and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 'But if the new baseline across all trading partners is 15%, that is a meaningful drag on growth that increases recession risks, while simultaneously making it harder for the Fed to cut.' The EU agreement came just four days after Japan also agreed to 15% U.S. tariffs and to invest in the United States. Earlier, the United States reached deals that raised tariffs on imports from Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Kingdom considerably from where they'd been before Trump returned to the White House. More one-sided trade deals are likely as countries try to beat a Friday deadline after which Trump will impose even higher tariffs on countries that refuse to make concessions. The U.S. president has long claimed that America erred by not taking advantage of its clout as the world's biggest economy and erecting a wall of tariffs, in effect making other countries ante up for access to America's massive consumer market. To his closest aides, Trump's use of tariffs has validated their trust in his skills as a negotiator and their belief that the economists who warned of downturns and inflation were wrong. Stocks dipped slightly in Monday afternoon trading, but they've more than recovered from the tariff-induced selloff in April. 'Where are the 'experts' now?' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick posted on X. But the story is not over. For one thing, many of the details of Trump's trade deals remain somewhat hazy and have not been captured in writing. The U.S. and Japan, for instance, have offered differing descriptions of Japan's agreement to invest $550 billion in the United States. 'The trade deals do seem to count as a qualified win for Trump, with other countries giving the U.S. favorable trade terms while accepting U.S. tariffs,' said Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University economist. "However, certain terms of the deals, such as other countries' investments in the U.S., seem more promising in the abstract than they might prove in reality over time.'' Trump is also facing a court challenge from states and businesses arguing that the president overstepped his authority by declaring national emergencies to justify the tariffs on most of the world's economies. In May, a federal court struck down those tariffs. And an appeals court, which agreed to let the government continue collecting the tariffs for now, will hear oral arguments in the case Thursday. And he's yet to reach an accord with China — which has deftly used the threat of retaliatory tariffs and withholding exports of rare earth minerals that are desperately needed for electric vehicles, computer chips and wind turbines to avoid caving in to Trump's demands. The U.S. and China are talking this week in Stockholm, Sweden. There is also skepticism that tariffs will produce the economic boom claimed by Trump. Analysts at Morgan Stanley said 'the most likely outcome is slow growth and firm inflation,' but not a recession. After all, the 15% tariffs on the EU and Japan are a slight increase from the 10% rate that Trump began charging in April during a negotiation period. While autos made in the EU and Japan will no longer face the 25% tariffs Trump had imposed, they will still face a 15% tax that has yet to appear in prices at U.S. dealerships. The administration has said the lack of auto price increases suggests that foreign producers are absorbing the costs, but it might ultimately just reflect the buildup of auto inventories to front-run the import taxes. 'Dealers built stocks ahead of tariff implementation, damping the immediate impact on retail prices. That cushion is starting to wear thin,' Morgan Stanley said in a separate note. 'Our Japan auto analyst notes that as pre-tariff inventory clears, replacement vehicles will likely carry higher price tags.' Economist Mary Lovely of the Peterson Institute for International Economics warned of a 'slow-burn efficiency loss'' as U.S. companies scramble to adjust to Trump's new world. For decades, American companies have mostly paid the same tariffs – and often none at all – on imported machinery and raw materials from all over the world. Now, as a result of Trump's trade deals, tariffs vary by country. 'U.S. firms have to change their designs and get inputs from different places based on these variable tariff rates,'' she said. 'It's an incredible administrative burden. There's all these things that are acting as longer-term drags on economy, but their effect will show up only slowly.'' Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, said that the United States' effective tariff rate has risen to 17.5% from around 2.5% at the start of the year. 'I wouldn't take a victory lap,'' Zandi said. 'The economic damage caused by the higher tariffs will mount in the coming months.'' © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
