Washington — The US Department of Justice is unraveling from within. Nearly two-thirds of the legal team assigned to defend President Trump’s most incendiary policies, including his push to end birthright citizenship and defund Harvard University, have resigned in protest, exposing a crisis of confidence that legal analysts warn could fatally weaken the administration’s courtroom strategy.
According to Tasnim News, at least 69 out of 110 lawyers in the DOJ’s Federal Programs Branch have quit or signaled intent to leave since Trump’s re-election in November 2024, citing “ethical collapse” and “impossible mandates.” The branch, which serves as the frontline defense of federal executive actions, has been left leaderless, with more than ten of its 23 senior supervisors gone.
As reported by Mehr News, a former DOJ attorney said colleagues were being ordered to argue in court “without factual basis or legal merit,” particularly regarding Trump’s executive order eliminating birthright citizenship and his directive to freeze $2.5 billion in funding to Harvard. “We were litigating from political memos, not legal briefs,” the source told Mehr. “That’s not law, that’s theater.”
According to Reuters, that 69 of the 110 lawyers in the branch have either left or filed notice of departure. Many of those exits, according to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, were triggered by Trump’s executive orders attempting to revoke birthright citizenship and to withhold billions in federal funding from Harvard University. These two cases have been central to a growing number of legal battles now facing the administration.
Trump policies face continued legal defeats despite Supreme Court ruling
Despite a favorable Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, Trump’s agenda is still being blocked in court. Last week, a federal court in New Hampshire issued a geographically limited injunction halting the enforcement of Trump’s birthright citizenship order—this time through a class-based workaround.
As analyzed by Bloomberg, judges are adapting their strategy by leveraging procedural mechanisms like class certification, ensuring executive orders can still be stopped without triggering the new Supreme Court restrictions. Legal expert Carl Tobias said the court’s response signals “quiet but deliberate resistance” within the judicial system.
The administration’s push to block federal funding to Harvard, allegedly for “indoctrinating students with anti-American ideology,” is similarly entangled in litigation. With the DOJ’s top civil litigators gone, judges are reportedly demanding more detailed constitutional justification for policies that were previously defended by experienced counsel.
Political loyalty replaces legal experience
In a controversial move, Attorney General Pam Bondi has overseen the replacement of career litigators with at least 15 political appointees, many tied to far-right legal organizations. According to CBS News, several of these new hires have no significant trial experience, but were selected for ideological reliability, not courtroom competence (CBS).
Among the most dramatic consequences of this purge is the disruption of the $100 million fraud case involving Louis Govoni, a Florida businessman accused of stealing federal funds earmarked for special needs children. Michael Gordon, the lead prosecutor, was abruptly fired, despite building a case over two years.
Further DOJ firings have affected January 6 riot prosecutions and classified documents investigations. As CBS reported, internal whistleblowers say attorneys were threatened with termination if they refused to defend Trump’s legal strategies “without question”.
Courts continue to block Trump agenda despite Supreme Court shield
While the Supreme Court’s ruling in June limited the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, trial courts have adapted by using procedural alternatives such as class certification and jurisdiction-specific rulings. These narrower tools allow judges to effectively block the enforcement of executive orders without directly violating the new restrictions.
One federal court recently blocked the enforcement of President Trump’s birthright citizenship order by granting class-based relief, signaling that legal avenues for judicial restraint remain intact. Legal scholars have noted that these tailored injunctions are becoming standard practice, enabling courts to push back on executive overreach while maintaining formal compliance with Supreme Court precedent.
At the same time, federal judges have struck down multiple Trump executive orders targeting law firms, including Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block. In separate rulings, judges described the orders as retaliatory and unconstitutional, arguing they sought to punish legal actors for political representation. The judiciary found that these orders violated First Amendment protections and due process rights, characterizing them as abusive uses of presidential authority.
Legal analysts have emphasized that the combination of internal instability at the Department of Justice and the administration’s aggressive legal posture has created a volatile dynamic. Courts, facing what they see as a collapse in legal standards and rising executive overreach, are increasingly assertive in preserving constitutional boundaries.
A legal empire crumbling from within
The DOJ’s Federal Programs Branch, once regarded as the gold standard for defending complex federal policy cases, now operates with significantly reduced capacity. According to Reuters, 69 out of approximately 110 attorneys—including more than ten senior supervisors—have resigned since President Trump took office for his second term, fueling concerns about the branch’s ability to act as the administration’s primary legal defense in court. With over 60 lawsuits still pending—ranging from immigration initiatives to education reforms—former officials warn that the Justice Department is rapidly losing its most critical legal firewall.
