Trump Attorney Now Running DOJ—Prosecutors Walk Out

The Trump administration’s Justice Department is facing serious internal turmoil as federal prosecutors resign en masse and a federal judge exposes what appears to be political interference in corruption cases, raising alarm bells about the erosion of prosecutorial independence that conservatives have long championed as essential to the rule of law.

Story Snapshot

Acting Deputy AG Emil Bove ordered dismissal of NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ corruption case “without assessing the strength of evidence,” triggering mass DOJ resignations
Federal Judge Dale Ho rejected the dismissal as “pretextual,” finding prosecutors had followed proper guidelines with “no evidence of improper motives”
DOJ leadership reportedly threatened to fire entire Public Integrity Section unless lawyers signed dismissal orders they believed violated prosecutorial ethics
Conservative legal scholars warn the controversy represents a dangerous abandonment of rule-of-law principles that have protected Americans from politicized justice for half a century

Political Pressure Derails Adams Prosecution

Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, who previously served as President Trump’s criminal defense attorney, directed federal prosecutors in February 2025 to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Bove’s memorandum explicitly stated the dismissal was warranted without evaluating evidence strength, and suggested the case would be “relooked at after Adams’ mayoral election.” This language immediately raised red flags about using federal prosecutorial power as political leverage, a practice that undermines the impartial justice system conservatives have traditionally defended against partisan weaponization.

Federal Prosecutors Refuse to Compromise Integrity

U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon responded to the dismissal directive with a letter stating it raised serious concerns inconsistent with her duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor. Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade revealed that DOJ leadership placed Public Integrity Section lawyers in a room with an ultimatum: sign the dismissal or face mass termination. This strong-arm tactic represents the kind of government overreach and intimidation that directly contradicts constitutional principles of independent justice. Multiple prosecutors chose resignation over compromising their professional ethics, demonstrating courage in defending prosecutorial independence.

Judge Exposes Pretextual Dismissal Rationale

Federal Judge Dale Ho took the extraordinary step of appointing an outside lawyer to present independent arguments, noting there had been no adversarial testing of the government’s position. In April 2025, Ho dismissed the case with prejudice but found the Justice Department’s rationales “unsupported by any objective evidence” and rejected claims the prosecution constituted election interference. The judge determined prosecutors had followed all appropriate Justice Department guidelines with zero evidence of improper motives, directly contradicting the administration’s justification. This judicial rebuke exposes concerning patterns where political considerations override legitimate law enforcement functions.

Conservative legal scholar Ilya Somin, a Federalist Society member, characterized the dispute as a microcosm of tensions in conservative circles between those prioritizing rule of law and those willing to subordinate legal principles to political objectives. Reuters reported the case illustrated challenges to prosecutorial independence standards that have stood for half a century. A former senior Justice Department official described the situation as the most dire crisis current DOJ attorneys have faced in the modern era, with intimidation tactics that are absolutely chilling. These assessments from respected conservative voices underscore how this controversy threatens foundational principles that protect all Americans from arbitrary government power.

Personnel Shakeup Reveals Deeper Conflicts

Ed Martin, a Trump ally who chaired the DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group, was demoted in December 2025, losing his assistant attorney general title and investigative responsibilities. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche oversaw Martin’s demotion, sidelining him from controversial investigations he had championed. The personnel changes reflect internal struggles over the department’s direction and priorities. While cleaning house of Biden-era appointees serves legitimate objectives, the manner and context of these changes raise questions about whether the Justice Department is being restructured to serve political interests rather than impartial law enforcement that protects constitutional rights.