An Exodus at Justice: Turmoil, Vacancies and a Crisis of Confidence Grip the T̄R̄UMP Justice Department

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is facing one of the most profound internal crises in its modern history, as thousands of lawyers and staff members have resigned or been pushed out amid mounting criticism from federal judges, members of Congress and former department officials.

According to current and former officials, the number of departures since the start of President T̄R̄UMP’s second term is approaching 8,000 — a staggering figure that has hollowed out divisions across the department, from U.S. attorneys’ offices to specialized units handling national security, public corruption and cryptocurrency enforcement. While precise totals are difficult to verify independently, multiple people familiar with internal staffing data describe a department strained to a breaking point.

The turmoil was on vivid display during Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, where lawmakers from both parties pressed her about staffing shortages, missed court deadlines and allegations that the department has failed to comply with judicial orders. Instead of providing detailed explanations, Ms. Bondi frequently responded with combative retorts and personal attacks, prompting criticism not only from Democrats but also from former career prosecutors who described her performance as “deeply damaging” to the department’s credibility.

“It’s not just about policy disagreements,” said Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general. “It’s about competence, institutional norms and respect for the courts. What we’re seeing is a collapse of the department’s traditional commitment to professionalism and candor.”

Judges Sound the Alarm

Federal judges across the country — including several appointed by Republican presidents — have grown increasingly outspoken in their rebukes of the department’s conduct. In courtrooms from Minnesota to Florida, judges have cited repeated failures to meet filing deadlines, incomplete disclosures and what some have characterized as misleading or unsupported declarations.

In one immigration case in Minnesota, a government lawyer told the court she lacked the training and staffing to manage a growing docket of habeas petitions filed on behalf of detainees ordered released. According to a transcript reviewed by The Times, the lawyer expressed frustration that her office could not process paperwork fast enough to comply with court orders.

The judge in that case warned that continued noncompliance could lead to sanctions, echoing similar admonitions from other courts. In a January hearing, a chief federal judge remarked that the department had violated more court directives in a single month than some agencies do in years.

Justice Department officials dispute the characterization of systemic defiance, attributing delays to “extraordinary caseload pressures” and what they describe as “unprecedented litigation demands.” A spokesperson said the department “remains committed to upholding the rule of law and fulfilling its obligations to the courts.”

Yet former prosecutors say the pattern suggests deeper dysfunction.

“When judges begin to question whether they can trust representations from Justice Department lawyers, that’s an institutional crisis,” Mr. Litman said. “The department’s power has always rested on its credibility.”

A Hollowed-Out Workforce

The wave of departures has affected career attorneys and political appointees alike, though career staff — who traditionally provide continuity across administrations — appear to have left in particularly high numbers.

Several former officials cited what they described as a hostile internal environment, where dissenting legal views were unwelcome and loyalty to the president was emphasized over independent legal analysis. Some pointed to directives that, in their view, blurred the line between policy advocacy and legal obligation.

The attrition has had practical consequences. In some districts, prosecutors with limited courtroom experience have been reassigned to handle complex cases. The department has also turned to military lawyers from the Judge Advocate General’s Corps to assist with overflow, according to two people familiar with the arrangement.

One area cited repeatedly during Ms. Bondi’s testimony was the cryptocurrency enforcement unit, which lawmakers said had been dramatically scaled back. Representative Joe Neguse, Democrat of Colorado, pressed the attorney general on staffing levels in the division. Ms. Bondi declined to provide specifics, instead pivoting to unrelated criminal cases in Mr. Neguse’s district.

Critics argue that weakening specialized units creates enforcement gaps in rapidly evolving areas like digital asset fraud. The department has not publicly detailed its current staffing for that unit.

A Contentious Hearing

Ms. Bondi’s appearance before Congress underscored the widening divide between the department’s leadership and its critics. Lawmakers questioned her about allegations related to the handling of sensitive investigative files, including records tied to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

When asked about the scope of references to President T̄R̄UMP in previously released materials, Ms. Bondi dismissed the line of questioning as politically motivated and cited economic indicators as evidence of the administration’s success. The exchange, clipped and shared widely online, became a flashpoint for detractors who said it illustrated a reluctance to engage substantively with oversight.

Supporters of Ms. Bondi contend that the hearing devolved into partisan theater and that the attorney general was responding in kind.

“Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight, but it should be grounded in facts, not sensationalism,” said a senior administration official who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Still, even some former Republican Justice Department officials expressed concern about the tone.

“The attorney general represents the department, not just the president,” said a former senior official who served under President George W. Bush. “There’s a way to defend your policies without eroding respect for the institution.”

ICE and Enforcement Tensions

The department’s struggles intersect with the administration’s aggressive immigration agenda. Lawyers tasked with defending Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions in court have faced a flood of emergency motions and habeas petitions challenging detention conditions and removals.

Advocates for detainees describe overcrowded facilities and delays in implementing release orders. The department has denied systemic wrongdoing but acknowledged logistical hurdles.

Former officials say the tension between rapid enforcement priorities and procedural safeguards has placed career attorneys in a difficult position.

“You can’t shortcut due process without consequences,” said a former immigration litigator who left the department earlier this year. “If leadership signals that speed and optics matter more than compliance, lawyers are left exposed in court.”

Long-Term Implications

The Justice Department has endured periods of controversy before — from Watergate to the post-9/11 debates over executive power. But former officials across administrations describe the current moment as distinct in scale and speed.

Rebuilding morale and staffing, they say, could take years.

“The department’s institutional memory is walking out the door,” said Mr. Litman. “Once you lose that depth of experience, it’s not easily replaced.”

For now, federal judges continue to press for answers in court, and congressional oversight is likely to intensify as the election cycle approaches. Whether the department can restore confidence — among its own workforce, the judiciary and the public — remains uncertain.

What is clear, former officials say, is that the Justice Department’s authority ultimately depends less on rhetoric than on trust.

“When the department speaks, courts have historically listened,” the former Bush-era official said. “If that trust erodes, the consequences extend far beyond any single administration.”