In his 2025 inaugural address, the commander-in-chief of the United States promised, among other things, that “the vicious, violent, and unfair weaponization of the Justice Department (DOJ) and our government [would] end.” This bold statement identifies three flawed, un-democratic characteristics within our Justice Department, and promises to bring these flaws to an “end.” This is a seemingly fantastic message from the man that we, the American people, elected to lead us back toward a “great” America; a strong and powerful message that, while acknowledging problems within our great nation, claims the future will be brighter.
In this first public address to the nation, our leader calls upon us to have hope because he will fix what is broken. However, what appears to be an honest message represents Trump’s underlying distaste for the DOJ and his fear for the lack of power he has over its investigative and prosecutorial discretion. Trump has a vision to override the system of checks and balances within the executive branch, which should worry the American public, as this vision threatens our justice system.
Prosecutorial Discretion: the Basis of Justice in America
Within the field of criminal law, federal prosecutors work alongside various federal agencies to investigate crime and prosecute criminals. These federal prosecutors work within the DOJ and are granted incredible power to choose what cases they want to take on in order to balance the scale of justice within the nation. This power to determine whether or not to charge someone with a crime is called prosecutorial discretion. Robert H. Jackson, former Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice, argues that “what every prosecutor is practically required to do, is to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.”
Though people at both ends of the political spectrum have debated the ethics of prosecutorial discretion, the Constitution outlines it as a form of intra-executive branch checks and balances, necessary for our democracy.
Furthermore, it is expected that during a presidential transition, the goals of federal prosecutors and the DOJ as a whole, will change to match those of the incoming administration. In 2021, Merrick Garland, nominated by President Biden, focused on restoring the DOJ’s independence and depoliticizing law enforcement, following concerns about political influence under the Trump administration. In 2017, Jeff Sessions, nominated by President Trump, signaled a tough-on-crime approach, reversing Obama-era policies on criminal justice reform. This trend continued on February 5th, when recently confirmed Attorney General Pam Bondi released fourteen memos outlining priorities to prosecute cartels and transnational criminal organizations in a greater goal to secure national borders and enforce immigration laws. These guidelines are meant to steer federal prosecutors in a new direction in order to align their discretion with the goals of the new administration.
What is not expected or encouraged, however, are strict guardrails for prosecutors to operate within. Since his inauguration, President Trump’s actions have reflected an abuse of power and breach of ethics, which constrains the discretion that prosecutors have.
Donald Trump promises to crack down on the vicious, violent, and unfair DOJ
Following Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election, he was indicted on two federal charges and two state charges, one state charge of which he was found guilty on 34 counts. Returning to office as a felon in January of 2025, Donald Trump began his revenge against the justice system, executing systematic firings within the DOJ and calling for federal charges to be dropped against his allies.
President Trump quickly worked to pardon over one thousand January 6th rioters who were all convicted and charged—by the DOJ—with attacking the United States Capital in his name. He then fired several DOJ prosecuting attorneys who played a significant role in litigating criminal charges against him, and called for corruption charges to be dropped against Trump ally and New York City mayor Eric Adams. Additionally, Trump appointed Pam Bondi as Attorney General, a woman who claimed that “‘the bad’ prosecutors will be prosecuted” within the DOJ. Within the first hundred days of his second term, President Trump has used his executive power to free himself and his allies from the restraints of prosecution and chosen a DOJ leader that has vowed to legally punish ‘bad prosecutors’ within the DOJ.
Such actions are cause for concern as they could be argued to reflect a greater goal to diminish a fundamental democratic ideal that America has stood for since its installation: justice. Federal prosecutors are celebrated for their political independence, displaying a commitment to administer justice, but organized firings and pardons of Trump allies have sent a clear message: regardless of wrongdoing, Trump and his allies are not to be investigated. Though prosecutors may identify a case in which the ‘offense is flagrant, the public harm is great, and proof is certain’, it may not be pursued if it involves Trump or a Trump loyalist. Trump is aggressively molding the DOJ into a tool for his own personal gain, and the consequences of these actions will be catastrophic.
Trump’s actions contradict a historic ethical trend that the DOJ is separate from the president and therefore cannot and should not be prone to interference or direction from them. It is this very breach of ethics that threatens federal prosecuting attorneys, as it puts their job and their work in question. If justice is the goal for prosecutors, what incentive is there to open a case against Trump or his allies if it risks termination and the case will certainly close? What amount of discretion is left for prosecuting attorneys?
Prosecutorial Discretion Under the Trump Administration
Trump’s ongoing efforts to tighten control over the DOJ threaten to undermine a justice system that has long relied on prosecutorial independence as a safeguard for democracy. Federal prosecutors––and the discretion they have––are necessary for a functioning republic.
When the acting No. 2 at the DOJ ordered the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to close the Eric Adams’ case, a group of resignations occurred, including the Trump nominated SDNY interim US Attorney, Danielle Sassoon. These resignations have historical parallels to President Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre,” when DOJ officials resigned en masse rather than comply with politically motivated orders. Though this sort of opposition is not sustainable, it is an example of how prosecutors have responded to this new administration.
While the full extent of prosecutorial discretion under his administration remains uncertain, the mass firings, pardons, and direct interference into legal proceedings suggest a dangerous shift toward a justice system that serves the president rather than the people. An independent justice system is the last line of defense in Trump’s attack on democracy: we must continue to defend it.
