Table of Contents
- A Chilling Consensus
- How the Justice Department Changed
- Key Indicators of Decline
- The Supreme Court Factor
- What Comes Next?
- Sources
A Chilling Consensus
Last year, before the 2024 election, The New York Times Magazine surveyed 50 top legal minds—Republicans and Democrats alike—about what a second Trump term might mean for the rule of law. Many expressed concern, but some held out hope that institutional guardrails would hold.
Eight months into Trump’s second term, that optimism has vanished. In a follow-up survey, nearly every expert now describes the current state of American justice as “very, very worrying.” One phrase kept appearing in their responses: “Bow to the emperor.”
How the Justice Department Changed
The Department of Justice (DOJ), once seen as a bastion of nonpartisan legal integrity, has been transformed into what many describe as a political weapon. Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the DOJ has:
- Indicted former FBI Director James Comey after career prosecutors refused to bring charges
- Forced the resignation of U.S. Attorneys who wouldn’t pursue politically motivated cases
- Created a “weaponization working group” targeting Trump’s perceived enemies
- Pressed U.S. attorney offices to investigate liberal nonprofits like George Soros’s Open Society Foundations
Perhaps most alarming: Trump installed his personal insurance lawyer, Lindsey Halligan—who had never prosecuted a case—as U.S. Attorney for Eastern Virginia. Within days, she secured an indictment against Comey that seasoned prosecutors had previously rejected.
Key Indicators of Decline
Legal experts point to several red flags that signal a systemic erosion of the rule of law:
1. Mass Exodus from DOJ
Over 4,000 DOJ employees—nearly 4% of its workforce—have left since January 2025. Many departed in protest; others were pushed out for lacking “loyalty.”
2. Collapse of Internal Checks
In Trump’s first term, Attorney General Bill Barr resigned rather than carry out baseless election-fraud investigations. Today, no senior official dares say “no.” As one former DOJ official put it: “The lesson Trump learned is that independent lawyers are a liability.”
3. Intimidation of Big Law
Trump’s executive orders targeting major law firms have chilled legal resistance. While firms once led challenges to Trump’s travel ban, today many avoid taking cases against the administration for fear of retaliation.
The Supreme Court Factor
Many experts once believed the judiciary—especially the Supreme Court—would serve as a backstop. But with three Trump-appointed justices, the Court has repeatedly sided with the administration in emergency rulings, allowing Trump to:
- Defund federal agencies without congressional approval
- Cancel billions in congressionally mandated foreign aid
- Fire agency heads at will
Worse, the Court’s 2024 ruling granting presidents broad immunity for “official acts” has emboldened the administration. “The Supreme Court has shocked me the most,” said retired federal judge Nancy Gertner. “I believe they are fully on board with enabling him.”
What Comes Next?
Despite the bleak outlook, a few experts hold out hope that the Court might eventually draw a line—perhaps on birthright citizenship or Federal Reserve independence. “Once they say no, and the world doesn’t end,” said one Reagan-era lawyer, “they’ll be more comfortable saying no again.”
But the deeper damage may be cultural. When lawyers stop believing they can speak truth to power—and citizens stop trusting that justice is blind—the rule of law becomes a relic, not a reality.
As one former Republican-appointed judge asked: “What do we do if the premises of our Constitution are no longer widely shared?”
