After she was confirmed, Attorney General Pam Bondi told lawyers at the Department of Justice that it was their job to “zealously advance, protect and defend” the policies of the U.S. as set by the president. It was an example of how the Trump administration has sought to transform the DOJ into the president’s tool for promoting his agenda and challenging detractors. Ali Rogin reports.
Amna Nawaz:
Shortly after she was confirmed, Attorney General Pam Bondi told lawyers at the Department of Justice that it was their job to — quote — “zealously advance, protect and defend the policies of the United States as set by the president.”
It was an early example of the ways in which the Trump administration has sought to transform the DOJ into the president’s tool for promoting his agenda and challenging detractors.
Justice correspondent Ali Rogin and the “News Hour” politics team have been reviewing the events of the past year to better understand how this transformation is playing out.
And Ali joins me now.
So, Ali, we know a big part of this story is the number of attorneys who’ve left the DOJ. What have you found?
Ali Rogin:
Yes, Amna, since last January, the DOJ work force has fallen by about 8 percent, which represents about 9,000 employees. About a fifth of that were people who accepted the DOGE offer at the beginning of the administration to retire or leave.
But if you look at this chart of total DOJ staffing changes by fiscal year, they’re usually not that drastic. They increase a little one year, they decrease a little the next year. But then, in fiscal year 2025, there is a significant drop.
Amna Nawaz:
So what should we understand about that? Why are people leaving?
Ali Rogin:
Yes, I have spoken to a number of attorneys who have served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, many of them including the first Trump administration.
And they say that it is normal for policy priorities in the Department of Justice to change, depending on who’s in office, what party. That’s even what was done in the first Trump administration. But they say this time is very different, and Attorney General Bondi seems to be taking directions directly from President Trump.
These attorneys have many different reasons for leaving. Some of them were motivated by the dismissal of some prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases. Others left after the prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, after he was wrongly deported. Some lawyers have quit in response to the DOJ’s hands-off approach to the immigration actions we’re seeing across the country.
In Minnesota, a group of attorneys quit after the DOJ declined to prosecute the ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good. And also, Amna, we have seen the DOJ decimate or completely eliminate entire offices.
Amna Nawaz:
What does all this mean for the work of the DOJ, their ability to investigate and prosecute cases?
Ali Rogin:
Well, one of the things it means is that attorneys are stretched thinner and people are prosecuting cases on which they have little to no subject matter expertise.
In fact, in Minnesota, one of the prosecutors who resigned was actually leading many of the social services fraud cases that had initially drawn the attention of the Trump administration to this state. Another benchmark I’m tracking is the failures to return indictments before grand juries.
The bars for returning indictments is relatively low. They have to find probable cause that an offense took place. And it doesn’t need to be unanimous. Amna, there’s an old saying here that you could indict a ham sandwich. And that’s why, in recent years, the DOJ has pursued more than 100,000 cases.
And in most years that we have data for, they have only failed to get a no true bill, which is what failure to indict is known as, in a handful of cases.
But in this DOJ, one official told me, former official, said there was a shockingly high number of no true bills, notable cases, include two failed attempts to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, the case against the so-called sandwich guy involving a man who threw a sandwich at a federal agent, and more recently, last week, six lawmakers who taped a video saying that service members did not have to obey illegal orders from the president.
Amna Nawaz:
What are we hearing, meanwhile, and seeing from the leaders inside DOJ? We have seen allegations of retribution. Are we seeing that action?
Ali Rogin:
We’re hearing some of it.
In November, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said that there was a war against judges. And the Justice Department is also trying reportedly to impeach judges that they consider obstructive. And for context, since 1803, there have been 15 impeachments of judges, and eight of them have resulted in conviction and removal.
The DOJ has also taken the unusual step of overriding some judges’ choices for people to serve as U.S. attorney if no one’s been Senate-confirmed to those positions. This happened in New Jersey, where judges picked a prosecutor. The DOJ overruled them and installed Trump’s personal lawyer, Alina Habba.
Or, recently, it happened in New York, where judges appointed a veteran prosecutor. And then a few hours later, Todd Blanche tweeted that the man had been fired.
And, Amna, we reached out to the Department of Justice with a list of questions about all of this. They have not yet responded, but we will update if they do.
Amna Nawaz:
All right, that’s our justice correspondent, Ali Rogin.
Ali, thank you.
Ali Rogin:
You bet.
