A Justice Department in Revolt: Why Trump’s Own Lawyers Are Walking Away

Washington — The quiet exits began months ago. Then they accelerated. Now, they have become impossible to ignore.

Nearly two-thirds of the Justice Department lawyers tasked with defending President Donald Trump’s policies in federal court have either resigned or announced plans to leave, according to multiple current and former officials familiar with the situation. The departures, concentrated in the Civil Division unit responsible for defending executive actions, represent an extraordinary breakdown inside a department traditionally defined by continuity, institutional loyalty, and deference to the rule of law rather than to any one president.

In government terms, the exodus is “highly unusual.” In plain terms, it is almost without precedent.

The departures come as federal courts across the country have increasingly blocked, paused, or sharply criticized a series of Trump administration initiatives — from aggressive immigration actions to attempts to penalize private law firms viewed as politically hostile. In one recent case, a federal judge halted a new executive order targeting a prominent firm that had successfully sued Fox News for spreading false claims about election fraud, calling the order a “shocking abuse of power.”

That ruling crystallized a question now echoing throughout the legal community: Has the administration crossed a line by using the machinery of government to punish legal adversaries — and are government lawyers being asked to defend the indefensible?

An Unprecedented Ethical Squeeze

Justice Department lawyers are bound by a professional duty not only to their client — the United States — but also to the courts themselves. They are prohibited from misrepresenting facts, concealing material information, or advancing arguments they know to be legally unsound.

According to interviews conducted by Reuters, The New York Times, and other outlets, many departing attorneys say they were placed in an impossible position: defend policies they believed lacked legal authority, or risk termination, professional sanction, or both.

Several lawyers described being pressured by Trump-appointed political leadership to take more aggressive positions in court — even as federal judges demanded statutory justification, constitutional grounding, and factual support that the administration could not reliably provide.

“You can survive losing a case,” said one former Civil Division attorney who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “You can’t survive misleading a federal judge.”

Judges Take Notice

The strain has become visible in courtrooms.

In hearings across multiple jurisdictions, judges have expressed frustration with Justice Department attorneys who appear unable — or unwilling — to answer basic questions about the legal basis for administration actions. In some cases, DOJ lawyers have conceded factual errors or acknowledged that procedures were not properly followed.

In one particularly striking incident, a government attorney admitted in open court that an individual had been wrongfully deported. The admission, while consistent with ethical obligations, infuriated senior political officials, according to people familiar with the response. The lawyer was subsequently dismissed.

Soon afterward, that same attorney joined a legal group now suing the administration.

The episode has become emblematic of a deeper rupture: lawyers punished for honesty, and rewarded — if at all — for loyalty.

Executive Power and Retaliation

At the center of the controversy is a broader expansion of executive power — and its use against perceived enemies.

The blocked executive order targeting the law firm that prevailed against Fox News alarmed constitutional scholars across the ideological spectrum. While administrations have long clashed with private firms, directly penalizing a firm for its litigation success raises serious First Amendment and separation-of-powers concerns.

“There is no modern precedent for punishing a law firm simply for winning a case against a politically aligned entity,” said Kathleen Clark, a government ethics expert at Washington University. “That veers into retaliation — and retaliation by the executive against legal advocacy is deeply problematic.”

The judge who halted the order appeared to agree, warning that such actions threaten the independence of the legal profession itself.

A Department, Not a Defense Team

President Trump has publicly criticized what he calls “weak” or “disloyal” government lawyers, suggesting that Justice Department attorneys should fight more aggressively on his behalf. But that framing misrepresents the role of the department, former officials say.

The Justice Department does not exist to protect a president’s political interests. It exists to enforce federal law and to represent the United States as an institution — including conceding error when the government is wrong.

Historically, that distinction has been fiercely protected by attorneys general of both parties. Even during moments of intense political pressure — Watergate, Iran-Contra, post-9/11 surveillance litigation — DOJ lawyers largely stayed in place, often disagreeing internally but maintaining institutional cohesion.

What is happening now, former officials say, is different.

“This isn’t ideological disagreement,” said a former senior DOJ official from a Republican administration. “This is lawyers believing they are being asked to cross ethical red lines.”

The Cost to Trump’s Agenda

The practical consequences are already mounting.

With fewer experienced litigators available, the department has struggled to staff major cases. Younger or less specialized attorneys are being pushed into high-stakes constitutional litigation, often against seasoned outside counsel. Courts have taken notice, sometimes explicitly questioning the government’s preparedness.

More broadly, the departures undermine the administration’s claims of legal confidence. A president whose own lawyers decline to defend his policies faces an implicit credibility crisis.

“This doesn’t happen when policies are clearly lawful,” said Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general. “It happens when lawyers fear that defending them could end their careers.”

A System Under Stress

The Justice Department has weathered political storms before. But the current moment reflects a deeper tension between law and loyalty — one that has left many attorneys concluding that resignation is the least damaging option.

Some have moved to private practice. Others have joined advocacy organizations now challenging Trump administration policies in court. Still others have left law altogether.

What unites them is not ideology, but calculation: that staying would require compromising the very rules that allow the legal system to function.

For President Trump, the irony is stark. He has long styled himself as the candidate of “law and order,” yet now presides over a Justice Department hollowed out by ethical resistance.

For the courts, the concern is more fundamental. When government lawyers no longer feel able to speak freely and honestly before judges, the adversarial system itself begins to erode.

And for the country, the question lingers: what happens when the people tasked with defending the law decide the law needs defending from the administration itself?

As one former DOJ attorney put it, “Walking away was the hardest choice I’ve ever made. But staying would have meant pretending the Constitution was optional. And it’s not.”