Trump DOJ's 'partisan' posturing 'likely to significantly harm' its own cases: experts
11h
U.S. President Donald Trump gestures during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 26, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Legal observers are warning that the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is undermining its own criminal and civil cases through overt political posturing — a strategy one journalist argues is aimed less at securing convictions and more at causing pain and consternation among liberals
An article published by Democracy Docket's Jim Saksa Friday noted that the behavior of Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, who has adopted the mantra “FAFO” (short for “F—— Around and Find Out”) and repeatedly used her official and personal social accounts to issue provocative statements about ongoing or potential litigation.
"The Trump administration’s desire to own the libs online is already leading to own goals in serious criminal matters," the article said.
Dhillon has reposted and commented on litigation involving parental rights, accused judicial decisions of being a “lawless attack,” and described federal prosecutors like Jack Smith as “deranged, partisan zealots.”
In one letter to Portland’s police chief, which she also posted on the social platform X, Dhillon warned that the city’s response to protests “may be based on viewpoint discrimination.” The posturing has drawn concern from legal ethics and prosecution observers, many of whom see it as a serious liability for the DOJ.
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research and a former DOJ voting rights section trial attorney, told the outlet: “As a former government lawyer who litigated many cases, I can’t imagine how that helps the government’s case."
Becker argued that extrajudicial statements may “indicate that the justification that [the DOJ is] giving for enforcing law is merely pretextual, isn’t supported, and it actually serves some kind of partisan purpose that would greatly undermine the DOJ’s entitlement to relief.”
He added: “It is, at best, not going to hurt the government. It cannot help and it’s likely to significantly harm the government and its prosecution of these cases.”
Christy Lopez, a former Civil Rights Division attorney and professor at Georgetown Law, called Dhillon’s public commentary “highly unusual" in comments to Democracy Docket.
“I have no recollection of even private conversations with Civil Rights Division leadership that were remotely as partisan, or that alleged unsupported criminal conspiracy theories,” Lopez said, per the piece.
She warned that when a law enforcement agency publicly prejudges people perceived as opponents, it “undermines confidence in the integrity and fair‑handedness of that law enforcement [organization] — across the board.”
Further criticism centers on how Dhillon’s remarks, and those of other Trump‑aligned DOJ officials, could be invoked by defense attorneys to erode the so‑called presumption of regularity that protects prosecutorial decisions.
In several ongoing cases, judges have already cited extrajudicial statements when considering motions to dismiss, threatened sanctions, or ordered additional scrutiny on the government’s conduct.
The article noted that by turning prosecutions into theater, the administration risks sabotaging its own legal strategies.