In August, US President Trump issued an order to tighten crime control in Washington, D.C. Photo: U.S. Department of Justice headquarters. Photographed in Washington on November 28, 2025 (Reuters/Nathan Howard)
[ワシントン １７日 ロイター] – In August, US President Trump issued an order to tighten crime control in Washington, D.C. At this point, the Department of Justice is on shaky ground. Illegal searches, laxity in prosecutions, and careless comments from executives in charge. Legal experts believe that the premise that “government procedures are being carried out properly” in both criminal and civil cases is being undermined by the accumulation of small gaps in the courtroom.
In August, federal agents and police spotted Torres Riley pulling a backpack inside a Trader Joe’s grocery store, searched him and recovered two firearms. However, federal prosecutors were forced to drop the charges after security camera footage revealed that the search lacked “probable cause” and was illegal.
In ruling on the case, Federal Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui said the errors were part of a larger pattern of “unprecedented prosecutorial mismanagement.” Of the criminal charges filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington over an eight-week period, 21% were dismissed or withdrawn. This is outstanding compared to the 0.5% rejection rate over the past 10 years.
“It appears that prosecutors filed charges and detained Mr. Riley before properly investigating the circumstances of his arrest,” Faruqui wrote.
Until now, it has been relatively rare for federal courts to question the Justice Department’s competency or integrity. But doubts about the Justice Department are becoming increasingly common after a series of legal gaffes that have crippled the agency since January, according to a Reuters poll and legal experts.
The Justice Department declined to comment on pending litigation, but a spokesperson said, “The Department has won court victories for the Trump administration and the American people, including 24 successful Supreme Court emergency cases and multiple indictments of international terrorists, violent criminals, and even politicians accused of corruption.”
Tim Lauer, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, said: “We will enforce the law to the letter and prosecute when the facts warrant action. Judges and juries will decide the outcome, and our role is to hold violators accountable.”
Missteps have sometimes hindered the Justice Department’s focus on civil and criminal cases. The scope ranges from prosecutions of Trump’s political opponents to cases involving immigration, violent crime, gender reassignment treatment and voting rights.
There have also been cases where executives have made statements on television or on the Internet about pending cases that deviate from their statements submitted under oath to the court. These comments violate departmental regulations designed to ensure fair trials.
Because of these mistakes, Justice Department prosecutors are losing credibility in federal courts. In fact, some judges have dismissed the government’s subpoenas and have indicated the possibility of holding prosecutors in contempt of court. Opinions have also been expressed that question the actions of the authorities. In some cases, grand juries have dismissed indictments. This is an extremely unusual situation, given that the prosecution essentially controls the scope of evidence presented.
Former federal prosecutor Alexis Loeb points to the longstanding legal doctrine that courts trust the government’s actions, saying, “When you stand in court on behalf of the government, you rely on trust, and the Justice Department is supported by the presumption that the process is being conducted properly.” “If that breaks down and the court loses credibility, the job becomes much more difficult.”
Perhaps the most high-profile case of Justice Department failure was the department’s indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, a Trump critic, on charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress. Comey was fired by Trump in 2017.
A federal judge dismissed the charges in November. This is because they determined that the charges were brought by interim U.S. Attorney Harrigan, who was illegally appointed. Halligan is said to have been personally nominated and chosen by Trump. His predecessor had expressed concern that the evidence available was insufficient to indict Mr. Comey and New York Attorney General James.
The case was in trouble even before this judgment was issued. Magistrates said they found numerous errors by Mr Harrigan. They range from misstatements of the law to the grand jury to possible misconduct, such as presenting evidence to the grand jury without filtering out privileged material between Mr. Comey and his lawyers.
After another judge disqualified Mr. Harrigan from serving as a federal prosecutor, the Justice Department sent an email to prosecutors instructing them to leave Mr. Harrigan’s name in the signature line on all pleas and credit him with the position. However, the word “Attorney” was misspelled.
Legal experts said at least some of the legal lapses were caused by a systemic lack of insight.
From January to November, the department lost more than 2,900 lawyers, according to public records. This is three times the number of lawyers who retired each year over the past four years.
“It is no coincidence that the mass exodus of experienced federal prosecutors and agents has been followed by an increase in actual and perceived failures by Justice Department officials,” said Peter Lalas, a former federal prosecutor.
Mistakes have also occurred as department leaders sought attention on social media and sought political support from Mr. Trump and his supporters.
FBI Director Patel posted on X (formerly Twitter) about the arrest of Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan on charges of obstructing immigration enforcement. At the time, disclosure of information about the incident was restricted. Months later, Patel mistakenly posted that the FBI had a suspect in the Charlie Kirk assassination, a statement he later had to retract. The FBI did not respond to requests for comment on this matter.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Branch issued an out-of-court statement regarding the Department of Justice’s motives for pursuing criminal charges against Salvadoran immigrant Kilmer Abrego Garcia. Branch told Fox News that prosecutors began the investigation after a Maryland judge questioned Garcia’s decision to leave the United States and ruled that the government did not have the authority to deport him.
The judge later noted that the statement could support Garcia’s request that the charges be dismissed as “retaliatory charges.”
Additionally, a memo prepared by Attorney General Bondy caused a stir. Several federal courts have rejected a Justice Department subpoena seeking medical records from medical providers that equated gender reassignment surgery on minors with genital mutilation. The court said the Justice Department was acting in “bad faith.”
“They shoot first, aim later, and they end up missing the target,” said Gene Rossi, a former prosecutor. “There’s no wall between the White House and the Department of Justice in terms of communication and political process. That’s why failures happen.”
Our Code of Conduct: Thomson Reuters “Principles of Trust”
