A Justice Department in Turmoil as Prosecutors Resign and Pam Bondi Faces Mounting Backlash

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is confronting one of its most severe internal disruptions in decades, as thousands of attorneys have resigned or been dismissed amid escalating political pressure, public confrontations, and controversial enforcement decisions under Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The most recent flashpoint emerged in Minnesota, where six senior federal prosecutors abruptly departed after clashing with department leadership over investigative priorities involving immigration enforcement, civil rights, and an ongoing federal fraud inquiry. Their exit follows a broader wave of resignations across multiple divisions of the department, including the Civil Rights Division in Washington and U.S. attorney offices in several states.

According to reporting by Reuters journalist Brad Heath, more than 2,900 Justice Department attorneys resigned or were fired during the first 10 months of the year, roughly three times the department’s typical annual attrition rate. Current estimates place the total closer to 3,000, prompting renewed concern among legal scholars and former officials about the department’s stability, independence, and long-term capacity.

The Minnesota Resignations

The Minnesota departures included some of the office’s most senior prosecutors, among them the chief deputy and several line attorneys who had overseen complex fraud and public corruption investigations initiated during the Biden administration.

Officials familiar with the cases said those investigations had already resulted in prosecutions and convictions and were widely viewed as central to maintaining public confidence in federal law enforcement.

Attorney General Bondi publicly characterized the departures as an act of defiance, asserting in a televised interview that the prosecutors “didn’t want to support law enforcement” and had attempted to use accrued leave before resigning.

“They wanted the taxpayers to pay for them to go on vacation,” Bondi said. “So I fired them.”

But current and former Justice Department officials dispute that account. Several said the resignations were driven by internal directives they believed compromised prosecutorial independence, including orders to halt or avoid certain investigations while redirecting resources toward politically sensitive enforcement actions.

A Broader Pattern of Departures

The Minnesota episode reflects a larger trend unfolding across the department. At least four to five senior attorneys from the Civil Rights Division have resigned in recent weeks, according to people familiar with the matter. Additional departures have occurred in the national security, public integrity, and appellate divisions.

Former Justice Department leaders describe the cumulative impact as unprecedented.

“You’re not just losing personnel,” said one former senior prosecutor. “You’re losing institutional memory, judgment, and credibility all at once.”

Legal scholars warn that sustained departures on this scale could undermine the department’s ability to enforce federal law consistently, particularly in complex white-collar, civil rights, and national security cases that require years of experience and continuity.

Press Freedom Under Intensifying Scrutiny

The internal turmoil has been compounded by controversy over press freedom after federal agents executed a search warrant at the home of a Washington Post reporter, seizing personal electronic devices as part of a leak investigation involving classified information.

Attorney General Bondi confirmed that she rescinded a policy implemented under former Attorney General Merrick Garland that restricted the department’s ability to subpoena journalists or search their communications.

“We have to protect classified information,” Bondi said, citing national security concerns.

Press freedom advocates reacted with alarm, arguing that the move represents a significant departure from longstanding norms.

“This marks a fundamental shift in how the Justice Department treats journalists,” said a First Amendment attorney familiar with the case. “It risks chilling investigative reporting at precisely the moment when public accountability is most essential.”

The Washington Post has not been accused of wrongdoing, and the reporter has not been charged. The department has declined to say whether additional media organizations are under investigation.

Political Messaging and Public Defense

Attorney General Bondi has defended her actions in appearances on conservative media outlets, framing the resignations as part of a broader struggle against what she has described as entrenched resistance within federal institutions.

She accused departing prosecutors of ideological bias and suggested that some had been seeking private-sector employment before leaving government service.

Critics argue that such public messaging further politicizes an agency historically insulated from partisan conflict.

“When the attorney general is publicly attacking career prosecutors, it sends a clear signal,” said a former Justice Department ethics official. “And that signal is that loyalty matters more than independent judgment.”

Local Leaders Voice Alarm

In Minnesota, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey questioned the broader implications of the resignations for public safety and accountability.

“If we genuinely care about prosecuting fraud and serious crimes,” Frey said in an interview, “we should be concerned that the very people tasked with that work are walking out the door.”

He warned that the loss of experienced prosecutors could slow ongoing investigations and erode community trust in federal institutions.

A Department at a Crossroads

The wave of resignations comes amid heightened political tension over immigration enforcement, federal oversight, and executive authority. While Attorney General Bondi maintains that the department is restoring discipline and accountability, critics see what they describe as a hollowing-out of one of the government’s most critical institutions.

Historically, large-scale departures from the Justice Department have occurred during moments of profound institutional stress — most notably during the Watergate era. Comparisons to that period, once rare, are now being openly discussed by former officials.

“This isn’t about a single case or a single office,” said a former U.S. attorney. “It’s about whether the Justice Department remains an independent guardian of the rule of law, or becomes another political instrument.”

What Comes Next

The department has not announced plans to replace the departing prosecutors, and officials have declined to estimate how long existing investigations may be delayed.

Congressional Democrats are calling for oversight hearings, while Republican leaders have largely defended Bondi’s actions as necessary to restore order within federal law enforcement.

For now, the Justice Department continues to function — but under a growing cloud of uncertainty.

As one longtime department attorney put it privately, “The damage isn’t just in who has already left. It’s in who’s quietly preparing to leave next.”