A Racist Post, a Legal Exodus, and a Justice Department Under Strain

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s decision to repost a racist video depicting former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes ignited bipartisan condemnation over the weekend, reopening long-standing concerns about racial animus, presidential conduct, and the erosion of institutional guardrails under his administration. But the controversy has also intersected with a far deeper and more consequential development: a growing collapse of the legal infrastructure meant to defend the president and his policies.

On Saturday night, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Mr. Trump refused to apologize for the post, dismissing criticism and claiming ignorance of the video’s full contents. “I am, by the way, the least racist president you’ve had in a long time,” he said. The White House initially defended the post before quietly deleting it more than 12 hours later, attributing the repost to an unnamed staff member.

The explanation did little to quell outrage. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, the only Black Republican in the Senate, called the repost “the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House.” Other Republican lawmakers urged the president to apologize, a rare public rebuke from within his own party.

Yet even as the public debate focused on race, another crisis was unfolding largely out of view: an unprecedented exodus of lawyers from the Justice Department and from Mr. Trump’s personal legal teams, driven, according to multiple accounts, by pressure to defend actions they viewed as legally indefensible or ethically impermissible.

A Mass Departure at the Justice Department

At the center of the turmoil is the Justice Department’s Federal Programs Branch, the elite unit responsible for defending federal policies and executive actions in court. According to reporting by Reuters and The Guardian, roughly 69 of the unit’s approximately 110 attorneys — more than 60 percent — have resigned or announced plans to leave since the start of Mr. Trump’s second term.

Former department officials say the departures are not the result of routine turnover or political disagreement, but of alarm over being asked to advance legal arguments they believed violated constitutional standards or administrative law.

Several former attorneys, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid professional repercussions, described an atmosphere in which lawyers were pressured to defend executive actions issued without proper legal process, sometimes in defiance of court orders. Others said they feared being pushed to mislead judges — a serious ethical violation that can result in sanctions or disbarment.

“This was not about policy differences,” said one former Justice Department lawyer familiar with the departures. “This was about being asked to say things in court that were simply not true.”

The Justice Department declined to comment on personnel matters but denied that attorneys were instructed to mislead courts.

Judges Signal Growing Distrust

Federal judges, meanwhile, have increasingly expressed skepticism toward representations made by the Trump administration. In several recent rulings, judges have cited inconsistencies, incomplete disclosures, or a pattern of unreliable claims by government lawyers, reinforcing concerns that the credibility of the department has been compromised.

Legal scholars say the loss of experienced attorneys has real consequences. “When the most qualified lawyers leave, what remains is a thinner bench with less institutional memory and weaker credibility,” said Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general. “Judges notice.”

U.S. Attorneys Walk Away

The crisis has extended beyond Washington. In Virginia, Eric Sebert, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District, resigned after refusing pressure from the White House to pursue charges against Letitia James, the New York attorney general who successfully prosecuted Mr. Trump in a civil fraud case.

According to NPR, Mr. Trump had urged Mr. Sebert to “find something” to charge Ms. James with. After an internal review found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, Mr. Sebert declined. Shortly thereafter, he resigned. Mr. Trump later told reporters he wanted him “out.”

In Delaware, Julianne Murray, the acting U.S. attorney, also stepped down amid disputes over the administration’s effort to install loyalists in prosecutorial roles without Senate confirmation — a move legal experts warned could undermine prosecutorial independence.

“These resignations point to an effort to politicize federal prosecution,” said Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney. “That is deeply dangerous in a democracy.”

Trump’s Personal Legal Team Frays

Mr. Trump’s personal legal defenses have fared no better. Over the past two years, a succession of prominent attorneys have withdrawn from representing him across multiple cases.

Joseph Tacopina left the New York hush money case before trial. Drew Findling exited the Georgia election interference case prior to Mr. Trump’s surrender. In the classified documents case, Tim Parlatore, Jim Trusty, and John Rowley all departed.

While each departure was accompanied by varying public explanations, the pattern is unmistakable. Lawyers sign on, review the evidence, and leave.

“Lawyers don’t quit high-profile cases lightly,” said a defense attorney who has declined to represent Mr. Trump. “When they do, it’s usually because the facts are worse than expected — or because the client won’t follow legal advice.”

Multiple attorneys who have represented Mr. Trump in the past have cited nonpayment, disregard for counsel, and demands to pursue frivolous or misleading arguments.

The Broader Implications

Legal experts say the cumulative effect is profound. Mr. Trump now relies increasingly on attorneys with limited experience or reputations for aggressive, ethically questionable tactics — a dynamic that weakens his position in court and further erodes judicial trust.

More significantly, former government lawyers who have resigned may become key witnesses if congressional investigations or future prosecutions proceed. Once outside the department, they are no longer bound by internal confidentiality rules and can testify about what they saw and why they left.

“This isn’t just turnover,” said one former DOJ official. “It’s evidence.”

The institutional damage may last well beyond Mr. Trump’s presidency. Restoring confidence in the Justice Department, scholars warn, could take years.

“Once an institution is perceived as politicized, rebuilding trust is extraordinarily difficult,” said Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice.

A Pattern Converges

The racist repost that sparked the latest uproar is not an isolated incident, critics say, but part of a broader pattern — one in which norm-breaking conduct, institutional pressure, and personal grievance converge.

As lawmakers debate the post’s implications and courts weigh challenges to administration policies, the steady departure of lawyers — those charged with upholding the law — may prove the most consequential signal of all.

For many legal professionals who have walked away, the calculation was stark: stay and risk professional ruin, or leave and preserve one’s integrity.

Increasingly, they are choosing the door.