Dear Reader,

Imagine yourself as a junior federal prosecutor right now anywhere in America. Having served almost 17 years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) in the SDNY under six different Attorneys General (from John Ashcroft to Jeff Sessions), I can tell you that every change in Administration in Washington brings a certain amount of anxiety in the ranks of DOJ around the country. What kind of boss will the new AG and incoming U.S. Attorney be? What will be the areas of prosecutorial emphasis and how will they impact my cases and workload? This is all par for the course and more times than I can count, I’ve assured young new attorneys not to worry: People and priorities change, but institutions hold and the overall mission to serve justice, to “do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons,” (as a certain U.S. Attorney Bharara often told us) will continue. This time around though feels different. Were I still a supervisor in SDNY, for the first time, I am not sure I could say the same thing to the ranks.

First, there is the symbolism. Most other AGs, not sworn in by a President Trump, have taken their oaths inside the halls of DOJ, surrounded by DOJ attorneys and staff with the royal velvet blue curtain you would probably recognize in the background and under the DOJ seal — which stands for service on behalf of Lady Justice. Not AG Bondi. She took the oath in the Oval Office, where Trump refused to say that she would be “totally impartial” with respect to a particular political party. Her first news appearance since becoming AG was not a DOJ press conference with all the trappings of integrity and formality, but a solo appearance on Fox News with the White House very deliberately in the background. This all sends quite a strong message: I work for the President, to carry out his political agenda, and not for Lady Justice.

But of course, this isn’t only symbolism. On her first day, Bondi issued 14 directives, some of which are typical during Administration changes, such as the reallocation of DOJ resources to and from certain types of offenses and guidance on charging decisions. Agree or disagree with these changes, it happens every time, and it is the right of a new Administration to set its priorities. But she also issued a memo unlike anything I have ever seen, creating a “Weaponization Working Group” as part of a purported effort outlined by a Trump Executive Order, to “Restor[e] the Integrity and Credibility of the Department of Justice.” Bondi directs the group to look into Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations; “federal cooperation” with the criminal and civil cases against Trump in New York; “the pursuit of improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions” related to Jan. 6; and a range of other DOJ past actions. All of this is done on behalf of POTUS’s agenda and describes DOJ as “his lawyer,” eviscerating the line between politics and law enforcement.

The memo includes flowery caveats purportedly to reassure the rank and file, stating that those who have acted with “a righteous spirit and just intentions” or taken “good faith actions” need not have “any cause for concern.” The interpretation of these vague and arbitrary terms are left entirely in the hands of decision makers like the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Trump’s hatchet man at DOJ and FBI, and his second hatchet man, interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin. Neither of them exactly inspires confidence that they will be remotely fair or apolitical in their determinations. Worse, the Working Group will submit a report to POTUS directly through his Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s most ideologically aggressive aides.

Perhaps most concerning of all, this so-called policy memo calls out specific cases and prosecutors by name — cases which were all charged by grand juries and/or repeatedly upheld by state and federal judges. Like these cases, or hate them, there is no legal basis to criminally target the prosecutors who brought them or worked on them. If Trump and Bondi truly thought there was some indication of wrongdoing in Smith’s cases, the most appropriate and non-political way to develop their theory would be to refer the matter to the DOJ Inspector General (one of the few agency IGs not summarily fired by Trump). I cannot think of any other instance in which the DOJ wielded its power to investigate duly elected state prosecutors and law enforcement officers for bringing particular cases. And, to be clear, there is no single federal crime I can even think of that would plausibly apply. This is such a severe encroachment on the independence of state prosecutors and threatens to chill much needed cooperation between federal and state law enforcement agencies on important crimes like gun trafficking, narcotics trafficking, child kidnapping and so much more.

Lest we write this off as merely performative (which I deeply hope it is), like any other move, it cannot be viewed in isolation. It is part and parcel of a pattern of demonizing and intimidating line prosecutors, FBI agents, and office leadership to never disagree with any policy or practice of this Administration, and certainly to never launch any inquiry, or investigation into any member of the Trump Administration or its allies. This pattern was evident in the pardoning of violent convicted criminals of January 6th, the firing of prosecutors and FBI supervisors who worked on those cases, the witch hunt at the FBI for any agents involved in Jan. 6th investigations, and the threats to discipline or fire attorneys who decline to sign legal briefs based on personal beliefs.

So, what would I say to a line AUSA in today’s atmosphere? Whether to stay or go is a personal decision that everyone has to make for themselves based on a variety of factors. Being able to represent the United States is a great honor, and the work is challenging and meaningful beyond almost any other. So, I would never lightly suggest that anyone should preemptively leave before they had planned. We absolutely need people who took these jobs for the right reasons to stay and uphold their oaths. But personal integrity is hard to earn and easy to lose. The best advice I can give right now is never ever compromise your principles. And know this — you are not alone. There are plenty of people out here to support you, and we already are.

Stay Informed,

Mimi