Justice Department Under Fire: The Controversy Over Political Loyalty in Federal Prosecutor Hiring
A Public Call That Sparked Outrage
Over a recent weekend, Chad Mizelle, who previously served as chief of staff at the Justice Department and was a key adviser to Attorney General Pam Bondi during her initial months in office, made waves with a social media post that has sent shockwaves through the legal community. In his message on X (formerly Twitter), Mizelle openly called for lawyers who “support President Trump” to apply for positions within the Justice Department. What made this particularly alarming to many legal experts was his apparent suggestion that he could facilitate their placement as career federal prosecutors—positions that are legally required to remain apolitical and nonpartisan. “DM me,” Mizelle wrote, encouraging interested applicants to send him private messages. “We need good prosecutors.” The post immediately raised red flags among former federal prosecutors and legal scholars who saw it as a blatant attempt to politicize what should be an impartial hiring process.
The situation escalated quickly when high-ranking government officials amplified Mizelle’s message. Within forty minutes, Stephen Miller, one of President Trump’s most influential policy advisers and the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, reposted Mizelle’s call with his own addition: “Patriots needed.” The use of the word “patriots” in this context suggested a clear political litmus test for potential prosecutors. Then, on Monday, Jason Reding Quinones, the current U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, added his voice to the chorus by reposting Mizelle’s message with the enthusiastic declaration, “We are hiring!” The involvement of these current senior officials transformed what might have been dismissed as one person’s inappropriate social media post into what appears to be a coordinated recruitment effort backed by the highest levels of the Trump administration.
The Fundamental Problem: Blurring the Lines Between Politics and Justice
The core issue here lies in understanding the structure of the Justice Department and the crucial distinction between political and career positions. Yes, there are political appointees within the Justice Department, including certain leadership roles in Washington and the U.S. attorneys who oversee regional offices throughout the country. These positions change with administrations, and it’s expected that the president will appoint individuals aligned with his policy vision. However, the assistant U.S. attorneys (AUSAs) who actually investigate crimes and prosecute cases in those offices occupy an entirely different category. These career prosecutors are supposed to be completely nonpolitical and nonpartisan, serving the law and the Constitution rather than any particular president or party. They remain in their positions across multiple administrations, providing continuity and ensuring that justice is administered fairly regardless of who sits in the White House.
By Monday, Mizelle appeared on a conservative podcast where he revealed that he had already received “hundreds and hundreds of inquiries” from lawyers interested in becoming AUSAs. While this might sound like a success story of robust interest in public service, the context of his original post—specifically seeking Trump supporters—casts these applications in a troubling light. His posting, combined with the promotional support it received from current senior government officials, has deeply troubled former federal prosecutors across the political spectrum. These aren’t just Democratic critics voicing concerns; conservative legal experts and longtime prosecutors who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations are sounding the alarm about what this represents for the future of impartial justice in America.
Voices of Concern: Former Prosecutors Speak Out
Perry Carbone, who dedicated more than three decades to serving as a federal prosecutor and until recently served as chief of the criminal division at the prestigious U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, spoke candidly about the implications of Mizelle’s recruitment effort. “We shouldn’t have a favorite politician in the Justice Department; we should have a favorite document, and that’s the Constitution,” Carbone told ABC News. He revealed that Mizelle’s post has “generated a lot of discussion” among former federal prosecutors, many of whom are deeply concerned about what this signals for the future of the department. “It’s dangerous,” Carbone stated bluntly. “The day that Department of Justice lawyers are hired based on loyalty to a person—rather than to the Constitution and the rule of law—is the day the rest of us should get very nervous.”
Carbone didn’t stop at expressing general concern; he pointed to specific laws and regulations that Mizelle’s recruitment call appears to violate. He cited the Civil Service Reform Act and other federal laws that explicitly prohibit favoring or discriminating against applicants for federal civil service positions based on their political affiliation. “The law is very clear,” Carbone emphasized. He also referenced the Justice Department’s own manual, which states unambiguously: “All personnel decisions regarding career positions in the Department must be made without regard to the applicant’s or occupant’s partisan affiliation.” The manual goes further, instructing that “efforts to influence personnel decisions concerning career positions on partisan grounds should be reported to the Deputy Attorney General.” In other words, what Mizelle appears to be doing isn’t just inappropriate—according to the department’s own guidelines, it should be reported as a violation.
Even conservative voices have joined the criticism. Andy McCarthy, a conservative commentator and frequent Trump critic who himself served as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York for nearly two decades, didn’t mince words. “If support for [the current] president is now a condition of enforcing federal law, Congress should defund DOJ. DOJ should only exist if it’s nonpartisan. Too dangerous to liberty otherwise,” McCarthy wrote in response to Mizelle’s post. He added a particularly pointed observation: “If AG Garland’s office had posted this, MAGA & GOP would be calling for impeachment,” referring to Merrick Garland, the attorney general during the Biden administration. McCarthy’s comment highlights the double standard at play and reminds us that concerns about the politicization of justice should transcend partisan boundaries.
The Defense: Mizelle’s Constitutional Argument
When confronted with criticism, Mizelle didn’t back down. Appearing on Steve Bannon’s podcast on Monday, he defended his recruitment post by offering a constitutional justification that many legal experts find troubling. Mizelle argued that Article II of the Constitution explicitly states that “all executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States,” and therefore “any time an executive branch officer is using executive power—an AUSA indicting somebody or bringing criminal evidence against somebody—all of that is executive power that’s included.” According to this interpretation, since prosecutors exercise executive power and that power ultimately derives from the president, there’s nothing wrong with ensuring prosecutors support the president’s agenda.
Mizelle went on to describe his previous work as Bondi’s chief of staff in stark terms that reveal his view of how the Justice Department should operate. “My job as chief of staff was to root out a lot of this stuff,” he explained, referring to employees he believed weren’t sufficiently aligned with Trump. “On Day 1 we dismissed about 100 people who we thought were working against Donald J. Trump, and then thousands more left.” He framed this mass exodus not as a purge but as proper governance: “That’s how government should work. It should work that if you can’t follow the wishes of the duly elected president of the United States, then you need to leave. And all we’re looking for now are people who want to follow his agenda.” This view represents a fundamental reinterpretation of the role of career prosecutors, transforming them from independent legal professionals bound by the Constitution into essentially political operatives expected to advance the president’s wishes.
However, Carbone and other legal experts strongly reject this constitutional interpretation. While they acknowledge that policies may legitimately change from one administration to another, they maintain that prosecutors “have to exercise independent professional judgment, not political obedience.” There’s a crucial difference between implementing different policy priorities within the bounds of the law and demanding personal loyalty to a president. The former is appropriate and expected; the latter undermines the very foundation of the rule of law. Historical precedent supports this view. A 2008 report from the Justice Department’s inspector general, issued after investigating allegations that the George W. Bush administration had improperly used political affiliations to screen candidates for apolitical positions, concluded that such practices violated both Justice Department policy and civil service law. Two political appointees were found to have broken federal law by considering political affiliations in their hiring decisions, demonstrating that this isn’t a new debate and that clear legal standards already exist.
A Pattern of Politicization and Growing Concerns
Former prosecutors emphasize that Mizelle’s recruitment post isn’t an isolated incident but rather “just another symptom” of larger problems afflicting the Justice Department. Carbone noted that the department “has been building this reputation of independence for 50 years, since Watergate, and now here we are in a place where we’ve taken a giant step back.” The reference to Watergate is significant—that scandal led to reforms specifically designed to insulate the Justice Department from political interference, ensuring that the awesome power of federal prosecution couldn’t be wielded as a weapon against political enemies or withheld as a favor to political allies. The hard-won independence that emerged from that crisis now appears to be eroding.
Mark Rotert, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago during the 1980s and 1990s and participated in his office’s hiring committee, called Mizelle’s post “disgraceful.” He offered a window into how hiring decisions were traditionally made: “It never would have occurred to us to explore what the candidate’s views were about the president, or what kind of job the president is doing. Partisan politics were never considered a relevant or even an appropriate discussion point.” This represents the traditional understanding of how career prosecutors should be selected—based on their qualifications, legal skills, and commitment to impartial justice, not their political loyalties. The contrast with Mizelle’s approach couldn’t be starker.
The controversy surrounding Mizelle’s recruitment effort comes at a particularly sensitive time for the Justice Department, which faces mounting criticism over its handling of numerous politically charged matters. The department has fired prosecutors and investigators who were involved in previous Trump-related investigations, raising questions about retaliation. It has filed federal charges against or otherwise investigated many of President Trump’s political enemies, creating the appearance that the department is being weaponized for political purposes. There was the department’s initial failure to investigate the officer who fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis, and most recently, last week’s FBI seizure of ballots and other records related to the 2020 election from an elections office in Fulton County, Georgia. Each of these incidents, viewed in isolation, might be defensible on its own merits, but together they create a troubling pattern that suggests the Justice Department is increasingly functioning as a political instrument rather than an independent guardian of the rule of law. Neither the Justice Department spokesman nor the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida responded to requests for comment from ABC News, leaving many questions unanswered and concerns unaddressed.
