A significant exodus is occurring within the Justice Department’s Federal Programs Branch, which is responsible for defending Trump administration policies in court. According to a Reuters analysis, 69 out of approximately 110 attorneys in the unit have either resigned or announced their intent to leave since Donald Trump’s re-election in November 2024 Reuters+10Reuters+10Just The News+10.
Sources within the DOJ report that departures stem from diminished morale, fatigue from a sustained caseload tied to controversial policies, and concerns about ethical challenges related to misrepresenting facts in court. The plaintiffs cite several contentious measures defended by the branch—including restricting birthright citizenship and halting federal funding to Harvard—that some lawyers found legally dubious The Guardian+4Reuters+4The Daily Beast+4.
Focusing on oversight, at least 10 of the unit’s 23 supervisors have exited, many of whom served under multiple administrations The Guardian+10Reuters+10Tribune Online+10. These departures are strikingly large compared to typical turnover during previous presidential transitions, including Trump’s first term and the current Biden administration Reuters+12Reuters+12Just The News+12.
Responding to the staffing crisis, DOJ leadership has temporarily reassigned lawyers from other divisions and brought in around 15 political appointees to the Federal Programs Branch. The unit has even been exempted from the federal hiring freeze to facilitate recruitment Reuters+12Reuters+12Just The News+12. The White House maintains that these measures aim to “defend the President’s agenda” and resist an “unprecedented number of lawsuits” targeting Trump-era actions Tribune Online+4Reuters+4The Daily Beast+4.
Several anonymous former attorneys told Reuters they were driven to resign because they felt the unit was being used to push legal boundaries without sufficient legal justification or input from federal agencies, raising ethical red flags Reuters+1Just The News+1. Fletcher with the DOJ refuted claims of misrepresentation, insisting that defended policies were within constitutional bounds U.S. News+11Reuters+11ABC News+11.
Experts, including former civil division head Peter Keisler, note the branch is dealing with exceptional demands in defending Trump policies across areas like executive orders, funding cuts, and agency restructurings—a pace unprecedented in modern DOJ history Bloomberg Law+2Reuters+2Just The News+2.
Concerns have been raised about the DOJ’s ability to maintain credibility in court. Reports indicate rushed filings and factual errors occurred as early as spring 2025 under heavy litigation pressure . This dynamic, combined with a large cohort of political appointees, suggests a shift in how the DOJ approaches its traditional role as a nonpartisan legal institution.
Main Points
- Nearly two-thirds of attorneys in the DOJ’s Federal Programs Branch left or plan to leave since November 2024 The Guardian+6Reuters+6Tribune Online+6.
- Resignations are driven by ethical concerns, fatigue, and disagreement with defending controversial policies.
- At least 10 supervisors have exited—a substantial loss of institutional knowledge The New Republic+3Reuters+3Tribune Online+3.
- DOJ responded by reassigning staff, hiring political appointees, and exempting the unit from hiring freezes The Guardian+3Reuters+3Just The News+3.
- Observers warn of risks to credibility and legal integrity as the branch defends high-profile Trump-era actions .
Implications & Outlook
- Operational risk: Reduced staffing and less-experienced attorneys could weaken the DOJ’s defense in ongoing litigation.
- Ethical and institutional strain: Persistent turnover and political pressure may further test DOJ norms and public confidence.
- Precedent-setting challenges: With multiple Trump policies now reaching the Supreme Court, staffing and credibility issues will be critically examined.
- Internal restructuring: Long-term solutions may involve more political hires, but could prompt resistance from career attorneys.
- Public and legal scrutiny: Congress, courts, and professional bodies may investigate whether political influence compromised DOJ independence.
