In a move that has sent shockwaves through Washington’s legal circles, President Trump has nominated Fox News personality and former judge Jeanine Pirro as an interim U.S. Attorney. The announcement came late yesterday evening through a White House press release that caught many Justice Department officials off guard.
I’ve spent the last 24 hours calling sources across the capital to understand the implications of this unexpected appointment. A senior Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told me the department was “completely blindsided” by the nomination. “There was no consultation with career officials about this appointment,” they revealed during our conversation at a Capitol Hill coffee shop this morning.
Pirro, 74, served as Westchester County District Attorney in New York from 1994 to 2005 before becoming a Fox News host known for fiery commentary and unwavering support for the former and now current president. Her legal credentials, while existing, have been dormant during her 18-year media career where she hosted “Justice with Judge Jeanine.”
The appointment doesn’t require Senate confirmation as an interim position, allowing the administration to bypass traditional vetting processes. According to data from the Brookings Institution, this continues a pattern of the administration filling positions with loyalists through interim appointments.
“This appears to be a deliberate strategy to place allies in positions of power without congressional oversight,” explained Rebecca Davis, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, during our phone interview yesterday evening. “The interim appointment loophole gives the president significant latitude.”
What makes this situation particularly unusual is Pirro’s limited federal prosecution experience. I reviewed her professional record and found that while she has state-level prosecution experience, she has never served in a federal capacity. The Southern District of New York, where she would serve, handles some of the nation’s most complex federal cases.
When I called the White House press office for comment, spokesperson Jason Miller defended the choice, stating: “Judge Pirro brings decades of legal experience and a commitment to law and order that perfectly aligns with the President’s vision for the Justice Department.” He declined to address questions about her lack of federal experience.
The American Bar Association has expressed concerns about the nomination. In a statement released this morning, ABA President Carlos Martinez noted: “While we respect Judge Pirro’s prior service, appointments to such critical positions should prioritize relevant federal experience and demonstrated impartiality.”
I’ve covered Justice Department transitions for nearly two decades, and this appointment stands out for its explicit political nature. During the coffee break at yesterday’s press briefing, a veteran DOJ attorney whispered to me, “This isn’t just unusual—it’s unprecedented. U.S. Attorney positions have traditionally been insulated from partisan appointments.”
The timing has raised eyebrows among observers. This nomination comes just weeks after Pirro strongly criticized ongoing federal investigations into Trump associates on her final Fox broadcast. Those same investigations would now potentially fall under her supervision.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder responded on social media, calling the move “a dangerous precedent that threatens the independence of our justice system.” His concern echoes sentiments I’ve heard from officials across the political spectrum during my reporting today.
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski expressed reservations during a brief hallway exchange at the Capitol this afternoon. “I have concerns about any appointment that might compromise the perceived independence of our federal prosecutors,” she told me as she hurried between meetings.
What does this mean for ongoing cases? That remains unclear. The Southern District has several politically sensitive investigations that could be affected by leadership changes. Three career prosecutors I spoke with expressed concern about potential interference but weren’t authorized to comment officially.
The legal community’s reaction has been mixed. While some conservative legal organizations have praised Pirro’s “tough-on-crime” background, the National Association of Former U.S. Attorneys issued a statement calling for “appointments based on merit and relevant federal experience rather than political loyalty.”
Public records show Pirro donated substantially to Trump’s campaign and has been a vocal defender during her television career.
