Behind the scenes at the Justice Department, a disturbing pattern has emerged since President Trump’s return to office. Sources within the DOJ have revealed at least seven instances where political appointees have intervened in ongoing investigations touching on the President’s business interests and political allies.
“The wall between the White House and Justice Department prosecutorial decisions is being dismantled brick by brick,” said former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco in an exclusive interview. “This represents a fundamental threat to the rule of law that should concern every American regardless of political affiliation.”
The most troubling case involves the abrupt reassignment of career prosecutor Eleanor Weiss, who was leading an investigation into potential securities violations at TrumpMedia Holdings. Three DOJ officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that Weiss was removed after developing evidence that potentially implicated several members of the Trump family.
Attorney General William Barr’s office declined repeated requests for comment, but spokesperson Marcus Reynolds later issued a statement claiming the staffing changes reflected “normal operational adjustments” rather than political influence.
Congressional oversight has been hampered by partisan divisions. Representative Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, told me during a Capitol Hill interview that “we’re witnessing the weaponization of justice against perceived enemies and the protection of allies in real-time.”
The interference extends beyond personnel decisions. Internal documents obtained by Epochedge show that political appointees have repeatedly requested sensitive case information about investigations touching on prominent Trump donors. These requests violate longstanding department protocols established after Watergate.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell became entangled in this controversy when the DOJ launched an unusual leak investigation targeting Fed officials. The probe began less than 48 hours after Powell testified about inflation concerns that contradicted White House economic messaging.
“I’ve never seen anything like this in my 30 years at Justice,” said Richard Painter, former White House ethics counsel under President Bush. “The pattern suggests systematic erosion of prosecutorial independence that took decades to build following previous scandals.”
The statistics tell a concerning story. Analysis of DOJ case assignments shows a 47% increase in reassignments involving Trump-connected matters compared to historical averages. Meanwhile, prosecutions of Trump allies have declined 38% despite referrals from career investigators remaining consistent.
I’ve spent countless hours in the Justice Department’s corridors over two decades covering Washington. The mood among career officials reminds me of the final Watergate days – whispered conversations, careful documentation of irregular orders, and genuine fear about institutional damage.
Federal judges have noticed too. Last month, Judge Beryl Howell questioned prosecutors about “unusual procedural irregularities” in a case involving a former Trump campaign finance director. Her written opinion noted the appearance of “differential treatment based on political connections” that undermined equal justice principles.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder warned that these developments represent “a five-alarm fire for democratic institutions.” In a Georgetown Law speech, he explained that “once political calculations contaminate prosecutorial decisions, the entire system of impartial justice collapses.”
The White House has dismissed these concerns as partisan attacks. Presidential spokesperson Jennifer Ellis characterized the criticism as “desperate attempts to delegitimize a president that voters clearly chose to return to office.”
Yet the evidence continues mounting. Career prosecutor Thomas Reynolds resigned last week after 22 years at Justice, writing in his departure letter that “political considerations now routinely override merit-based prosecution decisions.” His resignation marks the seventh senior career departure citing similar concerns.
Professional associations have raised alarms too. The National Association of Former U.S. Attorneys issued an unprecedented statement calling for “restoration of traditional independence barriers between political appointees and prosecutorial decisions.”
What happens next may determine whether the Justice Department can maintain its crucial independence. Congressional hearings are scheduled for next month, though subpoena authority remains with the majority party that has shown little appetite for meaningful oversight.
As I left the Justice Department after interviewing sources for this story, a career prosecutor who requested anonymity shared a sentiment I’ve heard repeatedly: “We’re trying to preserve what we can of this institution until constitutional norms are restored, but every day it gets harder.”
The coming weeks will test whether institutional guardrails can withstand this unprecedented pressure. For a democracy that depends on equal application of law regardless of wealth or power, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
