The Justice Department has undergone a significant transformation under Donald Trump’s administration, marked by sweeping personnel changes and an apparent shift in its guiding principles. Massive firings have led to the removal of numerous career civil servants, with the DOJ being particularly affected. More than a dozen U.S. Attorneys have been dismissed, and hundreds of lawyers and investigators involved in cases related to January 6 and Trump’s past indictments face potential termination.
The most striking development is the shift in how the DOJ appears to function. Instead of operating as an independent legal body, many perceive it as a tool for targeting Trump’s adversaries while shielding his allies. The traditional notion of justice rooted in the rule of law, impartiality, and independence from political influence seems to have been upended.
For criminal defense lawyers, this transformation raises pressing concerns. Historically, federal prosecutors were considered fair-minded and apolitical. Defense strategies centered on persuading prosecutors that cases were weak, that juries would be unpersuaded, or that legal technicalities might favor the defense. Lawyers also worked within the legal system, sometimes seeking favorable rulings from judges even when dismissal was unlikely.
In the past, decisions about prosecutions were largely confined to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and DOJ headquarters, known as “Main Justice.” While different administrations prioritized different types of cases, direct political intervention in specific prosecutions was virtually unheard of. If a president disagreed with a prosecution, they had the option to grant a pardon an act separate from the legal system, though historically controversial.
Now, however, the traditional framework appears to be breaking down. Recent developments, such as the halted prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams after prosecutors resigned in protest, suggest that legal decisions may now be influenced by political considerations rather than legal merit. If these trends continue, defense lawyers may need to reconsider their approach.
Under normal circumstances, a defense lawyer would focus on convincing prosecutors not to bring charges. Now, it may be necessary to go beyond the DOJ and appeal directly to political power perhaps even the White House. While not every case will attract presidential attention, personal connections and influence could play a new and troubling role in criminal defense strategy.
If the DOJ is indeed becoming transactional, important questions arise. What criteria will be used to hire federal prosecutors? Will their qualifications matter, or will their political loyalties be paramount? The traditional image of an independent, objective prosecutor may no longer apply.
For defense attorneys, this shift presents an ethical dilemma. The duty of “zealous representation” may now require considering unconventional approaches, including seeking intervention from political figures. This is a disturbing prospect one that blurs the line between legal advocacy and political maneuvering. While well-connected attorneys have occasionally lobbied the White House in national security cases, the idea of a defense lawyer routinely appealing to the president for case outcomes is deeply unsettling.
The situation will only change if an attorney general takes decisive action to reestablish DOJ independence. Until then, defense lawyers representing well-connected clients may feel compelled to explore political avenues as part of their legal strategy. Ironically, failing to do so might even be seen as a failure in their ethical duty to advocate fully for their clients.
