Washington, D.C. — Under the Biden administration, the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section has witnessed a dramatic reduction in resources and personnel tasked with investigating corruption among government officials. Since former President Donald Trump took office, the section’s dedicated team has shrunk from 36 experienced lawyers to just two, raising concerns about the future of public corruption investigations.
Sources reveal that many attorneys within the Public Integrity Section have either resigned, resigned in protest, or been reassigned to different roles across the country. The team has lost all but one of its paralegals, severely limiting its capacity to provide guidance to U.S. Attorneys’ offices nationwide. Andrew Tessman, a prosecutor who left the Justice Department recently, expressed dismay at the apparent demotion of the section’s priorities, indicating a worrying trend regarding the enforcement of public integrity.
With such a limited staff, the section can no longer effectively advise U.S. attorneys on cases of alleged misconduct. Traditionally, the DOJ’s guidelines mandated that local prosecutors consult with the Public Integrity Section on any federal crime involving corruption or campaign finance violations. However, a policy reversal by Trump’s administration in June has now suspended these consultation requirements, which critics fear opens the door for partisan prosecution.
Former Justice Department employees have raised alarms over the implications of this policy change, suggesting it could facilitate partisan political prosecutions under the Trump administration. Though the Public Integrity Section continues to manage existing cases, it does so primarily thanks to former members who are working on their own accord after being detailed to other divisions.
An internal roster indicates that while twelve attorneys are technically still part of the Public Integrity Section, only two are actively involved in ongoing cases. This marks the smallest staffing level since the section’s establishment in 1976. In contrast, prior reports of the section showed it to have a relatively robust team of 25 attorneys in 1982.
Despite the DOJ reassurances that it remains committed to investigating public corruption, the administration has refused to clarify the rationale behind the cuts. A White House spokesperson argued that the Trump administration is reinforcing institutional integrity and accountability but provided no specific insights regarding the Public Integrity Section’s downsizing.
The decline of the section began with the departure of its chief, Corey Amundson, early in the Trump administration, which was soon followed by significant turnover among its remaining leaders. Reports suggest that the department faced internal pressure to dismiss corruption cases involving prominent Democrats, including New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Those who resisted were reportedly met with threats of termination, leading to further resignations.
In the ensuing months, the DOJ has redistributed most of the remaining Public Integrity Section attorneys to other offices, diluting their focus on government corruption. Their assignments are now often unrelated to public integrity, further impeding the section’s effectiveness.
Some of the section’s work has continued to yield results, such as a recent high-profile conviction involving a senior naval officer for bribery, showcasing the unit’s enduring legacy. Nevertheless, many former employees argue that the administration’s actions and diminished focus on oversight indicate a troubling shift away from transparency and accountability.
The changes implemented during the Trump administration reflect a broader decline in strict enforcement of laws against corruption and abuse of power. The lightening of the Public Integrity Section is emblematic of a shift away from established practices meant to safeguard against such misconduct.
Experts warn that the erosion of resources devoted to public integrity not only jeopardizes ongoing and future investigations but also alters the landscape of accountability in local and national politics. As investigations fall by the wayside or become merely an afterthought, the implications for governance and public trust could be significant.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI, and the facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.