Trump Team Strengthens Control Over Government Lawyers

Trump Administration’s Aggressive Purge of Government Lawyers Raises Concerns Over Legal Integrity

Following his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, former President Donald Trump and his allies began strategizing on ways to operate more effectively should he regain power. A key realization from his first term was that government lawyers, even those politically aligned with him, often challenged the legality of his proposals and actions. In a bid to circumvent these obstacles, his team expressed intentions to appoint legal gatekeepers who would be less likely to raise objections to his directives.

Now, just a month into his new term, the Trump administration has taken sweeping measures to suppress independent legal thought, raising alarm among legal experts and former officials. Trump’s recent appointments have removed numerous career lawyers from the Justice Department’s leadership, replacing them with his own defense attorneys. This purge has escalated with the sidelining of the Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally reviews and vets executive orders in the White House, leaving it without an acting chief. Recently, Attorney General Pam Bondi added to this trend by dismissing the top lawyer at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

The administration’s overhaul extends into the Pentagon, where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dismissed high-ranking judge advocates general, who provide independent legal guidance on both domestic legal parameters and international laws of war. These three-star military lawyers represent a nonpartisan source of legal advice, critical in upholding the rule of law within the armed forces.

During a press briefing, Hegseth conveyed a lack of regard for these senior uniformed lawyers, asserting that they were not “well suited” for their roles and that he did not want individuals who “exist to be roadblocks” for military operations. His comments have set off alarms among retired JAG officers, who emphasize the importance of these legal professionals in ensuring that military actions comply with both national and international law.

The rapid dismissal of experienced legal advisors harkens back to a disconcerting quote from Shakespeare: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Critics argue that such actions underscore a drift towards authoritarianism, reminiscent of a warning issued by Justice John Paul Stevens, who raised concerns that diminishing the role of lawyers signals a move toward a totalitarian regime.

In a recent appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” Hegseth dismissed concerns that the administration’s actions could amount to illegality, framing the firings as an effort to introduce “fresh blood” into the legal framework of the military. Yet, his history of disparaging military lawyers casts a shadow over his motivations. In his memoir, he criticized them as “jagoffs” and has previously questioned the necessity of following the Geneva Conventions.

Hegseth’s recent actions included the firing of Army Lt. Gen. Joseph B. Berger III and Air Force Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer, aiming to exert greater political control over selections for their successors, who would be demoted to lower ranks. He criticized the established legal appointment processes, suggesting that these were obstacles rather than protocols to ensure accountability and expertise.

Moreover, Trump’s administration has engaged in systematic efforts to undermine experienced legal counsel across federal agencies. The removal of independent agency board members, inspectors general, and civil servants signals a blatant disregard for legal constraints. Notably, Trump has attempted to merge the U.S. Agency for International Development into the State Department, ignoring statutory requirements that mandate its independence.

During his 2024 campaign, Trump proposed radical policies, including deploying military forces on domestic soil to combat crime and protests, raising significant constitutional concerns. Although the Posse Comitatus Act limits military involvement in law enforcement, the administration’s priorities appear to disregard these legal frameworks. Past incidents, particularly those involving military responses to the Black Lives Matter protests, underscore the potential dangers of such policies.

Russell T. Vought, who resumed oversight of the Office of Management and Budget, has been a staunch advocate for consolidating power within the White House. Prior to his return, he led a pro-Trump think tank that sought to provide justifications for deploying military forces on U.S. soil, including suppressing protests deemed riots by the administration.

In a 2023 speech, Vought reflected on the administration’s goal of cultivating an environment where lawyers would not impede policy proposals. Recalling past experiences in the Oval Office, he expressed a desire to circumvent legal objections that could arise from proposed actions, indicating a shocking departure from traditional legal norms.

The Trump administration’s approach to governance has consistently leaned toward an expansive view of executive power, often undermining the rule of law. This ideology is reminiscent of previous efforts under the George W. Bush administration, which similarly sought to manipulate legal frameworks during times of national crisis. Despite congressional prohibitions against interfering with military legal advice, these continued attempts to curtail independent legal representation raise serious questions about the integrity of the legal system and the constitutionality of executive actions.

As these developments unfold, the implications for the rule of law and democratic governance remain significant. The continued removal of experienced legal advisors from crucial governmental roles may further entrench a culture of impunity, with long-lasting effects on the application of law and accountability within the executive branch.