Trump Adviser Issues Ultimatum to DOJ Lawyers on Alignment

Person speaking at a microphone, gesturing with hand.

Trump transition adviser Mark Paoletta issues a stern ultimatum to Department of Justice attorneys: align with the President-elect’s vision or face termination.

At a Glance

Mark Paoletta warns DOJ career attorneys against sabotaging Trump’s agenda
Attorneys urged to fully commit to implementing Trump’s policies or leave
Examples of previous policy resistance cited, including affirmative action cases
Paoletta argues resistance undermines democracy and the rule of law
Republicans believe DOJ needs an overhaul; Trump yet to select department head

Paoletta’s Warning to DOJ Attorneys

In a bold move that signals potential changes within the Department of Justice, Mark Paoletta, a Trump transition adviser, has issued a stark warning to career DOJ attorneys. The message is clear: those who are not fully committed to implementing President-elect Donald Trump’s policies should either leave their positions or face termination.

“Career DOJ lawyers must be fully committed to implementing President Trump’s policies or they should leave or be fired,” Paoletta stated firmly. This declaration underscores the administration’s intent to ensure that the DOJ aligns with the President-elect’s vision for the country.

Emphasis on Implementing Presidential Policies

Paoletta emphasized the duty of DOJ lawyers to promote the objectives of the President within the bounds of the law. He cited specific policy areas where alignment is expected, including the deportation of illegal aliens, securing the border, and banning race-based affirmative action.

This approach reflects a broader Republican sentiment that the DOJ requires significant reform. As of now, President-elect Trump has not yet selected a department head for the DOJ, leaving room for speculation about potential changes in leadership and direction.

Past Instances of Alleged Sabotage

To bolster his argument, Paoletta provided examples of what he considers previous instances of sabotage by career DOJ attorneys during Trump’s first administration. These include a case against Yale University for racial discrimination in admissions and an investigation into Covid-19 nursing home deaths in New York under Governor Andrew Cuomo’s administration.

These examples serve to illustrate the administration’s concerns about potential resistance within the DOJ and underscore the importance of alignment with presidential policies.

Implications for Democracy and Rule of Law

Paoletta argues that career attorneys who refuse to implement the President’s policies are not merely dissenting but actively undermining the rule of law and subverting democracy. This perspective frames the issue as one of democratic integrity rather than simple policy disagreement.

As the transition period continues, all eyes will be on the Department of Justice to see how this directive is received and implemented. The coming months may reveal whether this approach leads to significant changes within the DOJ or faces resistance from career staff committed to their interpretation of the department’s role.