A Crisis in the Trump Justice Department: Mass Resignations and Ethical Showdowns
A Crisis in the Trump Justice Department
The Trump Justice Department is embroiled in a deepening crisis following the mass resignation of prosecutors who refused to comply with an order to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The turmoil began on a tense Friday morning when acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove called a meeting with the Justice Department’s public integrity section. Bove instructed them to select one career lawyer to file a motion dismissing the charges against Adams. While Bove did not explicitly threaten to fire those who refused, the stakes were clear, as Thursday had seen a wave of resignations from prosecutors in New York and the public integrity unit. These resignations underscored the gravity of the situation and the ethical concerns at play.
After the meeting, the public integrity lawyers convened separately to strategize. Among the options considered was a mass resignation, reflecting the depth of their opposition to Bove’s directive. Ultimately, however, most agreed to designate one person to file the dismissal to bring an end to the standoff. Later that day, Bove, along with prosecutors Ed Sullivan and Antoinette Bacon, submitted the filing that could potentially end the case.
Prosecutors Stand Their Ground
Over the past 36 hours, seven prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned rather than comply with Bove’s order to drop the corruption case against Adams. Among those who stepped down were high-profile figures, including Danielle Sassoon, the Trump-installed acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Hagan Scotten, a line prosecutor who submitted a scathing resignation letter. In his letter, Scotten condemned the order as a quid pro quo arrangement, arguing that using prosecutorial power to influence elected officials violated legal and ethical standards.
Scotten’s resignation letter was particularly damning, stating, “Any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way.” He further wrote, “If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.”
The prosecutors’ defiance highlights the broader tension within the Trump Justice Department, which has been accused of weaponizing the DOJ for political purposes. Many of those who resigned were not Biden appointees but rather career prosecutors and Trump appointees, like Sassoon, who clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Their resignations underscore the widespread belief among legal professionals that Bove’s order crossed an ethical and legal line.
The Targeting of the Public Integrity Section
The public integrity section of the Justice Department has long been a target of the Trump administration, which has sought to undermine the federal government’s ability to combat public corruption. Created after the Watergate scandal to root out corruption, the unit has faced existential threats under Trump. Senior administration officials have even considered eliminating it altogether.
The recent events have brought this tension to a head. After Sassoon’s resignation on Thursday, Bove turned to the public integrity unit to carry out his order to dismiss the Adams case. However, this request was met with further resignations. Kevin Driscoll, the top career criminal division prosecutor overseeing the public integrity section, and John Keller, the acting head of the unit, both stepped down. Their colleagues gathered at a nearby bar to toast their departing colleagues, a gesture that reflected both camaraderie and shared outrage.
When Bove then summoned three more prosecutors from the office for a video call, they attempted to dissuade him from forcing them to file the dismissal. When Bove insisted, the trio resigned on the spot. They then rejoined their colleagues at the bar, a poignant symbol of their solidarity in the face of what they viewed as an unethical directive.
The Eric Adams Case: A Political Flashpoint
The case against Eric Adams, a Democrat and the mayor of New York City, has become a flashpoint in the Trump Justice Department’s broader push to align prosecutorial decisions with political priorities. The Southern District of New York (SDNY) last year brought public corruption charges against Adams, marking the first prosecution of a sitting mayor in the city’s modern history. Adams pleaded not guilty, and the case was set to go to trial this spring.
However, Trump’s reelection in November 2024 changed the dynamics of the case. Just days before Trump’s inauguration, Adams traveled to Mar-a-Lago for a meeting with the then-president-elect, sparking speculation about the fate of his criminal case. Adams also accepted a last-minute invitation to Trump’s inauguration.
Soon after Trump took office, Adams’ attorneys approached the White House counsel’s office to inquire about a pardon but did not receive a response. About a week later, Bove contacted Adams’ attorney, Alex Spiro, to discuss the case. Bove indicated that the Justice Department was aware of the legal arguments and the weaknesses of the case, suggesting that dismissal was under consideration. He also sought input on how the prosecution was impacting Adams’ ability to govern and whether it represented an example of the “weaponization” of the Justice Department.
In a January 31 meeting in Washington, Adams’ legal team argued that the looming trial would hinder Adams’ ability to lead the city and address pressing issues like illegal immigration. They also raised concerns about the political motivations of the prosecution, pointing to an op-ed written by Damian Williams, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, as evidence of politicization. Williams, who had resigned in mid-December, wrote a piece titled “An indictment of the sad state of New York government,” which Adams’ attorneys seized on as proof of bias.
Sassoon, in her resignation letter, accused Adams’ attorneys of repeatedly urging a quid pro quo arrangement, where the dismissal of the indictment would be tied to Adams’ cooperation with the Trump administration’s enforcement priorities. She alleged that her colleagues took notes during the meeting but were forced to hand them over to Bove afterward.
Implications for the Justice Department
The mass resignations and the broader controversy surrounding the Adams case raise significant concerns about the independence and integrity of the Justice Department under Trump’s leadership. Trump’s criminal defense attorneys, including Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, now hold influential positions within the DOJ, leading to accusations of politicization and favoritism.
Blanche and Bove have been skeptical of the Adams prosecution from the outset, questioning whether prosecutors could prove that Adams intentionally violated campaign finance laws. They view the dismissal of the case as part of Trump’s broader agenda to review aggressive prosecutions and align DOJ priorities with political objectives. Shortly after arriving at the DOJ, Bove instructed all U.S. attorney offices to identify cases where there was potential overreach, particularly in public corruption and business cases.
In a letter accepting Sassoon’s resignation, Bove defended the decision to drop the case, arguing that Sassoon had overstepped her authority by refusing to follow the policies of the president and the attorney general. He wrote, “You lost sight of the oath that you took when you started at the Department of Justice by suggesting that you retain discretion to interpret the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with the policies of a democratically elected President and a Senate-confirmed Attorney General.”
However, Sassoon and other prosecutors have pushed back, arguing that the order to dismiss the case was unjustified and politically motivated. Sassoon noted that Bove’s memo ordering the dismissal explicitly stated that the decision was made without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories underpinning the case.
The Broader Context of Trump’s DOJ
The turmoil over the Adams case is just one example of the broader tensions within the Trump Justice Department, where political loyalists are increasingly influencing prosecutorial decisions. Bove, who will likely assume a powerful position within the DOJ if Blanche is confirmed as deputy attorney general, has been at the forefront of efforts to align the department’s actions with Trump’s political agenda.
Bove has been instrumental in the firings of prosecutors involved in Trump-related criminal cases and has overseen the review of FBI agents who investigated the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. His role in the Adams case has only deepened the perception that the DOJ is being weaponized for political gain, eroding public trust in the institution.
As the crisis unfolds, the Justice Department’s leadership has made its priorities clear. In a memo issued on Friday, Justice Department chief of staff Chad Mizelle framed the dismissal of the Adams case as part of the DOJ’s return to its “core function of prosecuting dangerous criminals, not pursuing politically motivated witch hunts.” However, the mass resignations and the strong statements from departing prosecutors like Sassoon and Scotten suggest that many within the DOJ view the decision to drop the case as a dangerous overreach.
The developments in the Adams case serve as a stark reminder of the challenges facing the Justice Department under Trump’s leadership. As the administration continues to push its agenda, the ongoing exodus of respected prosecutors and the growing perception of politicization threaten to undermine the department’s independence and credibility. The outcome of this high-stakes standoff will have far-reaching implications for the rule of law and the integrity of the Justice Department.
