Harrison Miller ’28 Charlie Megosh ’28
In recent years, especially under the second Trump Administration, the Justice Department, a bastion of impartiality since the Watergate scandal, has found its independence under siege as a result of Presidential interference.
The Justice Department, founded in 1870 to handle the legal business of the United States. According to the Department’s website, “The Justice Department’s mission is to uphold the rule of law, keep our country safe, and protect civil rights. Our work across the Department—including all 94 U.S. Attorneys’ offices, our law enforcement agencies, grantmaking components and litigating divisions—is guided by these three co-equal priorities.”
During the Biden Administration, Republicans criticized criminal investigations of President Trump as political retribution. Discarding that the investigations were led by independent special prosecutors, Trump decried the indictments against him as a “weaponization” of the department, and vowed to seek revenge.
Upon taking office, Trump has pursued an unprecedented attack against the Justice Department’s history of independence from the rest of the executive branch. Trump and his allies in the Justice Department dismissed a corruption case against former New York mayor Eric Adams, in what critics have called an illegal quid pro quo agreement, purged prosecutors who worked on January 6th, secured indictments against political rivals such as James Comey, and instilled relatively unqualified ideological loyalists in key positions in the department. In September, the attacks escalated when Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “prosecute his enemies” in a now deleted social media post.
Weaponization of the Justice Department (DOJ) refers to the president’s administration using the DOJ’s investigative, prosecutorial, or enforcement powers for political or personal ends rather than strictly for neutral enforcement of the law. For instance, during the 1969-1974 Nixon administration, an “Enemies List” was created that included Nixon’s rivals in Congress and the media. Federal agencies were then used to harass the targets, leading to widespread reforms after Nixon’s departure.
Especially worrying for legal experts have been Trump’s controversial appointments to key posts and questionable indictments against political enemies. Trump has frequently appointed close allies and personal lawyers to senior DOJ and U.S. Attorney positions.
As a result of these tumultuous times, public confidence in the government has diminished. Americans have increasingly become skeptical of federal institutions’ ability to remain neutral in politically charged cases. Jack Janzyck ’28 expressed concerns, saying, “I feel like Trump is pushing the line of what’s allowed and what isn’t allowed. How is the DOJ supposed to stay neutral if it hires people loyal to him?” Visual Arts Department Chair David Sigel echoes this sentiment, stating, “I believe that partisanship has no place in the DOJ.”
Ultimately, the changes imparted on the Justice Department and the political turmoil that has followed highlight the growing political divide in America. The consequences of these decisions extend far beyond the halls of the government, but to federal employees, essential service for people in need, and public trust in the fairness of justice. As Americans navigate increasing partisanship, the challenge becomes clear: maintaining trust in institutions designed to protect all citizens equally. Hannah Todd ’28 says, “If the Justice Department is used for politics, people will stop trusting it to be fair.”
