Mass Exodus at the Justice Department – Why Trump’s Lawyers Are Throwing in the Towel

It is an exodus rarely seen in Washington - and an unmistakable signal from the inner circles of the American rule-of-law establishment: Since Donald Trump’s re-election as President of the United States, two-thirds of the attorneys in the Justice Department division responsible for defending administration policy have resigned. Specifically, 69 of 110 lawyers in the “Federal Programs Branch,” a central unit of the Department of Justice (DOJ), have thrown in the towel since the 2024 election. And the reasons are plain to see. “Client from hell” - that’s how some behind closed doors describe their new old client. An attorney-client relationship that has become unbearable for many. What once began as sober legal representation of a democratically elected government has, in just a few months, turned into a test of professional ethics. Instead of defending legislative initiatives, the task is now to legally shield authoritarian decrees, to obscure political acts of revenge, and to fend off a flood of lawsuits against measures that are considered legally dubious even within the administration.

Trump’s second term in office resembles in many ways a campaign against the institutional backbone of the United States. Anti-immigration laws, attacks on asylum rights, assaults on diversity programs, the erosion of press freedom, targeted weakening of international agreements - and an ever-growing number of executive orders that flow from the White House into court filings within hours. For the Federal Programs Branch, this means a constant state of emergency, overnight work, moral disorientation. And a work environment that increasingly feels toxic. A former DOJ lawyer, who wishes to remain anonymous, puts it bluntly: “We’re no longer defending - we’re justifying things that violate everything this country once stood for.” What especially wore him down was the order to go after a group of detained journalists on behalf of the government - with the goal of suppressing critical reporting on ICE deportations. Another lawyer describes internal meetings where questions about the constitutionality of new decrees were met with silence or pressure. “It wasn’t about law anymore - it was about loyalty.” Among DOJ circles, a new term has taken hold: “ethical attrition” - ethics-driven attrition. It affects not only young attorneys, but also seasoned professionals with decades of service. Some have declared they never want to work for a government again. Others report depression, insomnia, and the feeling of having become part of a machinery that systematically bends the law.

What makes the situation particularly explosive is that many of these resignations are occurring in a department that, under normal circumstances, attracts little public attention. The Federal Programs Branch is responsible for defending government initiatives in areas such as health, immigration, education, the environment, and homeland security. Its work forms the legal backbone of the Executive Branch. That this crucial pillar is now crumbling says a lot about the political tensions within the administration - and about the legal discomfort with the agenda Donald Trump is pursuing. Officially, the Justice Department remains calm. A DOJ spokesperson said on Monday that the increased workload “can be compensated with new recruitment and internal restructuring.” But behind the scenes, concerns are growing that the quality of legal representation is suffering - and with it, the ability to legally sustain Trump’s policies. Some administrative judges already report sloppily filed briefs, attempts to circumvent court rulings, and unusually frequent continuances by the government. Democrats in Congress are sounding the alarm. Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke of an “unprecedented hemorrhaging at the heart of our justice system” and called for a public hearing on the DOJ’s situation. Human rights organizations, too, view these developments with concern. If the Justice Department increasingly becomes a line of defense for authoritarian arbitrariness, they warn, the rule of law risks being hollowed out from within - not by external enemies, but through political self-poisoning. What remains is the image of an institution in a state of emergency. A department that normally serves as the backbone of democracy is becoming a plaything of a president who shows no interest in democratic oversight. And a legal corps that, with every new order, must ask itself: Where does professional duty end - and where does complicity begin? Those who are leaving are giving the answer. And that answer is: right here.