The Trump Administration’s Control of the Department of Justice

Last updated 1 week ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The United States Department of Justice has long operated under a guiding principle solidified after the Watergate scandal: prosecutorial independence. This norm, while not written into the Constitution, holds that law enforcement decisions should be insulated from partisan political influence to ensure equal justice under the law.

The second administration of President Donald Trump has mounted the most significant challenge to this principle in modern history, asserting near-total presidential authority over the department.

This report provides an analysis of how the Trump administration has taken control of the Justice Department, examining the legal theories, personnel strategies, policy overhauls, and specific enforcement actions that have defined this transformation.

Constitutional Conflict: Independence vs. Executive Control

The current struggle over the Department of Justice is rooted in two fundamentally opposed visions of executive power. One, born of historical practice and forged in scandal, views the department as a quasi-independent arbiter of the law. The other, a constitutional theory championed by the administration, sees the department as a direct instrument of presidential will.

Post-Watergate Norm of Prosecutorial Independence

The concept of prosecutorial independence in the American legal system has deep historical roots, inherited from English common law and evolving through centuries of practice. When the federal government was established, the Judiciary Act of 1789 created a diffuse system, appointing an Attorney General but also establishing district attorneys who enforced federal law locally with a great deal of independence from both the president and the attorney general.

The creation of the Department of Justice in 1870 was an act of centralization intended to preserve this independence. By consolidating federal law enforcement into a single executive department, Congress hoped to replace the corrupt partisan concerns of local actors with professional norms and even-handed justice. For a century, this system functioned with an implicit understanding that while the Attorney General served the president, the department’s prosecutorial function was to be shielded from raw political pressure.

This implicit norm was shattered by the Watergate scandal and President Richard Nixon’s attempts to control the investigation into his own conduct. The defining moment came in October 1973 with the “Saturday Night Massacre,” when Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson refused and resigned in protest. His deputy, William Ruckelshaus, also refused and was fired. The order was finally carried out by the third-ranking official, Solicitor General Robert Bork.

The public and congressional backlash was so severe that it cemented prosecutorial independence as a core principle for modern presidencies. It became the ultimate cautionary tale against political interference in law enforcement. However, this powerful norm was never enshrined in statute. It exists primarily in DOJ’s internal regulations and as a tradition of “independent aloofness,” making it vulnerable to a president who simply chooses to disregard it.

Unitary Executive Theory: Legal Justification for Control

The Trump administration’s primary legal and philosophical justification for its actions is the Unitary Executive Theory (UET). This constitutional theory posits that Article II of the Constitution vests all executive power solely in the President, granting him complete authority over the entire executive branch.

From this perspective, an “independent” Department of Justice is a constitutional anomaly. Because the DOJ is part of the executive branch, proponents of UET argue that the president has the “absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department.”

This view is supported by conservative legal organizations like the Heritage Foundation, which argues that a DOJ independent of the president creates an unconstitutional “plural executive.” Such a structure, they contend, is unaccountable to the people, as the Attorney General is not an elected official. True democratic accountability, in this view, requires that the DOJ be subject to the direction of the president, the sole elected officer of the executive branch.

The administration’s public defense of its actions has strategically shifted the discourse. Where previous presidents faced political backlash for actions perceived as interfering with the Justice Department, the current administration frames its interventions as a principled application of constitutional theory. By elevating the Unitary Executive Theory, it recasts demands for investigations not as political retribution, but as the rightful exercise of the president’s Article II authority, compelling critics to engage on complex legal grounds rather than on the more straightforward terrain of fairness and established norms.

Legal Precedent and Ambiguity

The scope of the president’s power under UET, particularly the power to remove executive officials at will, has been a subject of recurring legal battles. The Supreme Court has offered conflicting guidance over the decades.

In Myers v. United States (1926), the Court affirmed a broad presidential removal power. However, later decisions in cases like Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) and Morrison v. Olson (1988) placed limits on this power, particularly for officials in independent agencies with quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions.

More recently, the Court has trended back toward a more expansive view of presidential authority in cases like Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), which struck down removal protections for the single directors of certain agencies. This legal ambiguity has created an opening for an aggressive assertion of presidential power over agencies, including the DOJ.

International Context

Critics of this theory warn that it provides a pathway to autocracy. A comparative analysis of democratic decline in countries like Hungary, Poland, and Turkey shows that the centralization of control over prosecution services is a defining characteristic of authoritarianism.

In those nations, leaders used their power to shield political allies from prosecution while persecuting opponents, tilting the electoral playing field, and shrinking the space for public debate. This international context reframes the domestic debate, highlighting the stakes involved in dismantling the traditional firewalls between politics and law enforcement.

Installing Loyalists: Personnel Strategy

The most direct and effective method for asserting control over the Department of Justice has been the systematic replacement of career professionals and traditional appointees with individuals whose primary qualification is their demonstrated loyalty to the President. This strategy, drawn directly from the playbook of the conservative policy blueprint known as Project 2025, aims to ensure that the President’s agenda is implemented without the internal resistance that characterized parts of his first term.

Top-Level Appointments

The new leadership team at the DOJ and its key law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), reflects a clear preference for loyalists over institutionalists.

Attorney General Pam Bondi: Confirmed on February 4, 2025, Bondi’s appointment sent an unambiguous signal about the administration’s intentions. As a key figure in the President’s 2020 campaign, she played an active role in spreading unsubstantiated claims of widespread election fraud. During her contentious confirmation hearing and in subsequent congressional testimony, she has consistently defended the administration’s actions by accusing the previous administration of politicizing the department first, a tactic that deflects questions about her own independence.

FBI Director Kash Patel: Confirmed on February 20, 2025, Patel is a former Trump administration official known for his fierce loyalty to the President and his public criticism of the DOJ and FBI’s investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election. His installation at the head of the nation’s premier law enforcement agency was seen as a move to ensure direct White House control over sensitive investigations.

Other Key Figures: The pattern continues with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer for the President, and Harmeet Dhillon as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, a longtime political ally.

These appointments represent a deliberate effort to staff the department’s highest echelons with individuals who have a proven record of personal and political allegiance, rather than those who have risen through the traditional, non-partisan ranks of the department. This preemptively silences the kind of internal dissent that occasionally stymied the administration in its first term. The selection criteria are explicitly based on perceived loyalty, ensuring that officials who might have previously acted as an institutional check on presidential power are removed before they can become an obstacle.

Key Appointments as of October 2025

U.S. Attorneys: Bypassing Confirmation

Perhaps the most radical departure from tradition has been the administration’s strategy for staffing the 94 U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country. These officials serve as the chief federal law enforcement officers in their respective districts and have historically operated with significant prosecutorial discretion. The administration has repeatedly circumvented the standard Senate confirmation process to install loyalists in these powerful positions.

This strategy has transformed these offices from non-partisan law enforcement bodies into extensions of the White House’s political agenda. The new appointees are often former personal lawyers or campaign staff with explicit partisan goals, who then use their offices to investigate political rivals of the President at the state and local level.

This creates dozens of potential political fiefdoms across the country, capable of launching investigations that align with the President’s political needs and effectively weaponizing the federal law enforcement apparatus at a local level.

Lindsey Halligan (Eastern District of Virginia): This district, which includes the Pentagon and CIA headquarters, is one of the most important for national security cases. The administration installed Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide and one of the President’s former personal lawyers with no prosecutorial experience, as the acting U.S. Attorney.

This move came after her predecessor, Erik Siebert, an experienced career prosecutor, declined to seek an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey due to insufficient evidence. Halligan’s office promptly secured that indictment.

Alina Habba (District of New Jersey): The President named Alina Habba, another of his former personal attorneys, as interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. When her time-limited term was set to expire, federal judges in the district voted to replace her with a veteran career prosecutor.

In an unprecedented move, the administration engaged in a series of legally questionable maneuvers—including having Habba resign and then reappointing her to a different position that, under a separate vacancy statute, allowed her to reclaim the top job—to override the judiciary and keep her in power.

Directing Investigations and Prosecutions

With loyalists installed in key positions, the administration has moved to actively direct the enforcement of federal law, using the immense power of the Justice Department to pursue political adversaries while protecting political allies. This has created a de facto two-tiered system of justice, executed openly and justified by the President’s public statements and the department’s new leadership.

This approach erodes public trust in the impartiality of the justice system, as it becomes increasingly clear that one’s political allegiance is a key determinant of their legal jeopardy.

Targeting Political Opponents

The pattern of using the DOJ for political retribution became clear within the first year of the administration. By repeatedly and openly using the department to retaliate against political opponents, the administration is attempting to normalize this behavior, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future administrations of both parties.

The Case of James Comey: The indictment of the former FBI Director serves as the quintessential example of the new DOJ at work. For years, President Trump publicly accused Comey of treason and demanded his prosecution for his role in the Russia investigation.

After career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia repeatedly found insufficient evidence to bring charges, the administration forced out the U.S. Attorney and installed Lindsey Halligan. Shortly thereafter, a grand jury indicted Comey on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding.

During a contentious Senate hearing, Attorney General Bondi deflected direct questions about whether the President had ordered the prosecution, stating only that President Trump is “the most transparent president in American history.” Comey has pleaded not guilty, and his defense team plans to argue that the case is a vindictive prosecution directed by the White House.

The Investigation of Letitia James: New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the successful civil fraud investigation that resulted in a half-billion-dollar judgment against the Trump Organization, has also become a target.

Following the President’s public vows of revenge and a social media post in which he berated AG Bondi for “moving too slowly” in prosecuting his enemies, the FBI opened a criminal investigation into James for alleged mortgage fraud related to a home purchase. The case was brought by the same U.S. Attorney’s office in Virginia that indicted Comey, and critics have pointed out that it appears to bypass normal review processes and is based on flimsy evidence promoted by the President’s political allies.

A Pattern of Retribution: Other prominent critics of the President, including Democratic Senator Adam Schiff and former National Security Advisor John Bolton, are also reportedly under investigation by the DOJ. This pattern illustrates a systematic effort to use the threat of federal prosecution to silence or punish political opposition.

This effort has been aided by the dismantling of internal DOJ guardrails, such as the historic gatekeeping role of the Public Integrity Section, which was designed to prevent such weaponized prosecutions.

Protecting Political Allies

In stark contrast to the aggressive pursuit of the President’s critics, the DOJ has taken a markedly different approach in cases involving his political allies.

The Tom Homan Investigation: During the 2024 presidential transition, the FBI was actively investigating Thomas Homan for accepting a $50,000 cash bribe from undercover agents posing as businessmen seeking government contracts. Despite the transition team being aware of the active probe, President Trump announced Homan as his choice for “Border Czar” and formally appointed him on January 20, 2025. The investigation was subsequently closed.

The Jeffrey Epstein Files: The handling of files related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has also raised questions. In February 2025, Attorney General Bondi claimed on television that the Epstein client list was “sitting on my desk.”

However, in July, the DOJ released a memo stating it had found “no incriminating ‘client list'” and that no further disclosure of the voluminous evidence would be appropriate due to intertwined victim information. This reversal came after reports that the President’s name was among the many in the files, leading to accusations that the department was managing a politically sensitive case to protect powerful figures.

The Pardon Power

The most profound assertion of presidential power over the justice system has been the use of executive clemency. On his first day in office, President Trump issued a proclamation granting sweeping pardons and commutations for nearly 1,500 individuals charged or convicted in relation to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

This was not merely an act of mercy for individuals but a wholesale nullification of one of the largest and most complex investigations in DOJ history. The sentences of 14 leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys convicted of seditious conspiracy were commuted to time served, and all other defendants received a “full, complete and unconditional pardon.”

The President characterized the prosecutions as a “grave national injustice” and ordered the Attorney General to seek the dismissal of all pending indictments. This action represents the ultimate expression of the President’s power to override the entire judicial process—from investigation and prosecution to conviction and sentencing.

The administration has continued to use the pardon power to reward political allies, granting clemency to individuals convicted of offenses ranging from campaign finance violations to contempt of Congress.

Civil and Voting Rights Enforcement

Beyond influencing specific cases, the administration has used its control over the Justice Department to enact a sweeping, ideologically driven overhaul of federal civil rights and voting rights enforcement. Through a series of executive orders and new departmental directives, the DOJ’s mission in these areas has been fundamentally inverted.

Dismantling DEI Programs

On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14151, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” This order is built on the premise that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are not remedies for discrimination but are themselves a form of illegal, race- and sex-based discrimination that violates federal civil rights law.

The order’s directives are far-reaching:

• It revokes numerous previous executive orders, including President Lyndon B. Johnson’s landmark 1965 order (EO 11246) that established the foundation for affirmative action and equal opportunity requirements for federal contractors
• It orders the immediate termination of all DEI and DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) programs, policies, and activities across the entire federal government
• It directs the Attorney General to “combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities”

This has led to a complete repurposing of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. Under the leadership of Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, the division reportedly ordered an immediate “litigation freeze” on new traditional civil rights cases shortly after the inauguration.

Its new mission, as outlined in the executive order and subsequent DOJ guidance, is to investigate and potentially prosecute private entities—including publicly traded corporations, large non-profits, universities, and even state and local bar associations—for maintaining diversity initiatives.

The administration is engaged in a sophisticated effort to co-opt the language and legal infrastructure of the civil rights movement to dismantle its achievements. By redefining programs designed to promote diversity as the primary source of “illegal discrimination,” the tools of equality are being turned into weapons against equity—a profound and potentially long-lasting reinterpretation of American civil rights law.

Targeting LGBTQ+ Protections

The administration has also taken direct aim at federal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. A series of executive orders has redefined “sex” in all federal statutes and regulations to mean only biological sex as assigned at birth, explicitly stating that it “does not include the concept of ‘gender identity’.”

The DOJ has been tasked with enforcing this new definition, leading to a cascade of policy reversals:

• The Attorney General was directed to ensure the Bureau of Prisons revises its policies to prohibit federal funds from being used for gender-affirming medical care for inmates and to enforce a blanket policy of housing transgender individuals according to their biological sex, not their gender identity
• The DOJ rescinded its previous guidance that applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County—which found that anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII—to other areas of federal law like Title IX in education
• The administration has instructed agencies to remove gender identity questions from federal surveys and forms, making it more difficult to track the experiences and well-being of LGBTQ+ people

These actions have been met with immediate legal challenges. Multiple federal lawsuits have been filed arguing the orders are openly discriminatory and unconstitutional, and federal judges have issued temporary injunctions blocking their enforcement in some contexts, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle over the scope of civil rights protections.

Retreating from Voting Rights Enforcement

The Justice Department has systematically withdrawn from its historical role as the primary federal guardian of voting rights. This retreat has been swift and comprehensive, marked by the abandonment of key lawsuits filed by the previous administration to protect minority voters.

Specific examples include:

Louisiana v. Callais: The DOJ withdrew its amicus brief and its request to participate in oral arguments before the Supreme Court in a crucial case concerning whether Louisiana was required under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to create a second majority-Black congressional district.

Texas Redistricting: The department voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit challenging Texas’s 2021 redistricting plan, which the previous administration had alleged was drawn with discriminatory intent to dilute the voting power of minority citizens in violation of the VRA.

Voter Purges: The DOJ dropped its challenge to a voter purge program in Virginia that it had previously argued disproportionately and wrongly removed naturalized citizens from the voter rolls.

This withdrawal has been accompanied by a hollowing out of the Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section, where all but a few career attorneys have reportedly resigned or been removed, leaving the section incapable of litigating complex voting rights cases.

The DOJ has transitioned from this passive retreat to an active role in efforts that critics argue are designed to suppress votes and intimidate election officials. The department has sent letters to at least 27 states demanding they hand over their complete voter registration files, including sensitive personal information like driver’s license and Social Security numbers, under the pretext of investigating voter fraud.

This action, combined with the President’s public threats to prosecute election officials from 2020, creates a chilling effect on election workers and voter registration groups, who now face the threat of federal investigation for carrying out their duties.

Immigration and Corporate Crime Enforcement

The administration’s realignment of the Justice Department extends beyond civil rights to its core law enforcement missions. Priorities in immigration and white-collar crime have been fundamentally reshaped to align with the President’s political and economic agenda.

Immigration Enforcement

The administration has placed mass deportation and border control at the center of its domestic policy agenda, and the DOJ has been retooled to serve this priority. This effort is backed by a massive infusion of resources through legislation like the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), signed on July 4, 2025, which provides the Department of Homeland Security with $45 billion for detention and $32 billion for enforcement and deportation operations.

The administration’s policies are constructing an alternative legal system for non-citizens that operates outside traditional civilian norms and with fewer due process protections. The legal justification for these aggressive policies rests on the President’s proclamation that the flow of migrants at the southern border constitutes an “invasion,” a military term used to invoke extraordinary executive powers under Article IV of the Constitution.

This proclamation purports to suspend asylum laws for those crossing the border and dramatically expand the use of “expedited removal,” a process that allows for deportation without a formal court hearing.

Military Lawyers as Immigration Judges: The administration has authorized the use of up to 600 active-duty military lawyers, known as Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs), to serve as temporary immigration judges. Critics argue this move is not only ill-advised but potentially illegal.

It blurs the line between civilian and military functions, raising concerns about violations of the Posse Comitatus Act. Furthermore, it undermines due process, as JAGs remain bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the military chain of command, potentially compromising their judicial independence.

This plan replaces experienced civilian judges, over 80 of whom have been fired since January, with military personnel who may receive as little as two weeks of training in complex immigration law.

Reinstatement of “Remain in Mexico”: The administration has revived the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which forces asylum-seekers arriving at the southern border to wait in Mexico for the duration of their U.S. court proceedings, a policy that has been widely condemned for creating dangerous humanitarian conditions.

Termination of Asylum Processing Tools: The CBP One mobile application, which allowed migrants to schedule asylum appointments, was terminated on Inauguration Day, effectively shutting down a key legal pathway for seeking protection.

White-Collar Crime: America First Approach

The administration’s approach to corporate crime has been reoriented around a nationalist economic agenda, prioritizing the protection of U.S. corporate interests over the broader enforcement of anti-corruption laws. This shift was signaled early on when the DOJ was ordered to pause all Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigations for 180 days while it developed a new policy to promote “American economic competitiveness.”

The new white-collar enforcement plan, released in May 2025, redefines the purpose of enforcement. Instead of primarily punishing wrongdoing for its own sake, the new goal is to protect and advance U.S. economic interests. The new guidelines explicitly state that FCPA enforcement should be targeted at conduct that “directly undermines U.S. interests” or harms “specific and identifiable U.S. entities.”

This implies that if a U.S. company engages in bribery abroad that does not directly harm an American competitor, it is a lower priority. This transforms corporate crime enforcement from a tool of global anti-corruption into a tool of economic nationalism.

Key elements of the new approach include:

New Enforcement Priorities: The plan directs prosecutors to focus on “high-impact areas” with a direct domestic nexus, such as trade and tariff fraud, government procurement fraud, and crimes committed by Chinese-affiliated companies listed on U.S. exchanges. A new focus is also placed on prosecuting companies that collaborate with drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations.

Lenient Corporate Enforcement: The DOJ has revised its Corporate Enforcement Policy to offer greater incentives for companies to self-disclose misconduct. Under the new guidelines, companies that voluntarily self-disclose, fully cooperate, and remediate are now guaranteed a declination of prosecution, a significant shift from the previous presumption of a declination.

Even companies that do not fully meet the criteria may receive a non-prosecution agreement with reduced fines and no requirement for an independent monitor.

De-emphasis on Regulatory Crimes: A May 9, 2025, executive order titled “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations” directs that criminal enforcement of “regulatory offenses” and “strict liability criminal offenses” is disfavored. This further reduces the legal exposure for corporations in highly regulated sectors like healthcare and finance.

Institutional Resistance

The Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the Department of Justice have not gone unchallenged. A battle is being waged in the halls of Congress, in the nation’s courtrooms, and within the department itself.

Congressional Oversight

The primary venue for political pushback has been the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Attorney General Pam Bondi has faced contentious oversight hearings. These hearings have starkly illustrated the deep partisan chasm that renders congressional oversight largely ineffective.

There is no bipartisan agreement that a problem even exists, which prevents Congress from taking meaningful action like passing new laws to protect DOJ independence or pursuing contempt charges. This effectively neuters the primary constitutional check on executive overreach.

The hearings have showcased two completely irreconcilable narratives:

The Democratic View: Democrats on the committee have accused Bondi of systematically weaponizing the DOJ, destroying its credibility, and acting as the President’s personal enforcer. Senator Dick Durbin, the committee’s top Democrat, remarked that the level of White House interference would “make even President Nixon recoil,” while Senator Mazie Hirono stated, “What was once the Department of Justice has become the Department of Revenge and Corruption.”

They have pressed Bondi on the President’s public social media posts demanding the prosecution of his enemies and the shuttering of investigations into his allies, which they characterize as explicit directives.

The Republican View: Republicans have defended the Attorney General, arguing that it was the previous administration’s DOJ that was politicized. They have pointed to the investigation by Special Counsel Jack Smith, which obtained the phone records of several Republican lawmakers, as evidence of a weaponized department that Bondi is now rightfully reforming. They have echoed Bondi’s claim that she is working to restore a “one-tier system of justice.”

Throughout these hearings, Bondi has repeatedly refused to answer direct questions about her communications with the President regarding specific cases, such as the Comey indictment, asserting that she would not discuss such conversations.

Judicial and Civil Society Response

With Congress deadlocked, the most significant resistance has come from the judicial branch and civil society. Numerous lawsuits have been filed by organizations like the ACLU, civil rights groups, and coalitions of states challenging the legality and constitutionality of the administration’s executive orders on DEI, LGBTQ+ rights, and immigration.

Federal courts have become a key battleground. In several instances, judges have issued temporary restraining orders or nationwide injunctions, blocking the implementation of these policies. For example, federal judges have blocked the executive orders redefining sex, preventing the transfer of transgender inmates and the loss of their medical care.

These rulings have often been met with emergency appeals from the DOJ to the Supreme Court, which has been criticized for its increasing use of the so-called “shadow docket” to grant the administration relief without full hearings or explanations.

The administration’s actions are forcing federal judges to question a foundational legal doctrine: the “presumption of regularity,” the standard assumption that the government is acting in good faith and following proper procedures. The pattern of replacing prosecutors to achieve a desired outcome, as in the Comey case, has led defense attorneys to explicitly challenge the legitimacy of prosecutors’ appointments and to file motions to dismiss cases on the grounds of vindictive and politically motivated prosecution.

If courts begin to widely abandon this presumption, it would represent a seismic shift in the relationship between the judicial and executive branches, signaling a deep, systemic loss of trust in the DOJ’s integrity.

Internal Resistance

While much of the department’s leadership has been replaced, there are signs of turmoil and resistance within the career ranks. Reports indicate that scores of veteran prosecutors and federal agents have been fired, forced out, or have resigned in protest of the new direction of the department.

A crucial, though limited, check on the department’s conduct is the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Created by Congress in the wake of Watergate, the IG is a statutorily independent watchdog tasked with investigating waste, fraud, and abuse within the department.

However, the IG’s power has been tested. The administration has fired more than a dozen IGs across the federal government, creating what one former IG called a “threat environment” for government oversight. The current acting DOJ Inspector General, Don R. Berthiaume, was appointed into this tumultuous environment.

Furthermore, the IG’s authority is constrained. For example, it lacks the power to issue testimonial subpoenas to compel testimony from former government employees, a limitation that hindered an investigation into former Attorney General Jeff Sessions during the first Trump administration.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.