By Andrew Goudsward and Brad Heath
WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) – In one courtroom after another, federal judges have accused U.S. President Donald Trump’s Justice Department of an extraordinary spate of misconduct, including making false statements, failing to comply with court orders and improperly using the legal system to harass political opponents.
Such rebukes might be expected to trigger a flurry of activity within the department’s two internal watchdogs tasked with policing the government’s most powerful law-enforcement agency.
But shrinking staffs and fears of political retribution have largely sidelined the offices, limiting new investigations into the administration, according to Reuters interviews with four former DOJ staffers and a review of department employment and investigations data.
Nearly half the workforce at the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has left during Trump’s second term, while about 17% have departed the Office of Inspector General, government records show. Many retired or took buyouts the administration offered to shrink the federal workforce, according to the records and three people familiar with the departures.
The number of new OPR investigations has declined to a 20-year low even as misconduct complaints soar, the review found. The government watchdogs are “afraid of doing any watching,” said one former DOJ official who left last year.
Details of the watchdogs’ diminished staffing and declining investigations have not previously been reported.
OPR investigates misconduct by department lawyers while the inspector general probes waste, fraud, abuse and other wrongdoing departmentwide. OPR does not disclose who it investigates and the inspector general conducts much of its work in secret. But the four former DOJ employees said the staff departures and the slower pace of investigations make clear that they are not adequately addressing the surge of allegations facing the department.
Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels said OPR “remains committed to ensuring accountability for all DOJ attorneys” and rigorously investigates misconduct allegations. John Lavinsky, a spokesperson for the DOJ Inspector General, said the office is committed to independent oversight and does not “avoid investigations or reviews that are difficult or controversial.”
DOJ officials have broadly disputed judges’ findings of misconduct and have accused courts of being politically hostile to Trump.
DEFANGED ETHICS WATCHDOG
Department policy requires attorneys to report any judicial finding or substantial allegation of misconduct to the OPR. Its investigations, if sustained by DOJ leadership, can lead to attorneys being fired or referred to state disciplinary authorities for review of their law licenses.
Since Trump returned to office, the Office of Professional Responsibility has shrunk from 29 employees to 16, according to Justice Department data Reuters obtained through a public-records request. The administration also fired OPR’s director, Jeffrey Ragsdale, and has yet to name a replacement.
Such office turmoil “sends a message to the workforce that ethics is not important or that ethics is subordinate to the wills or interests of the political administration,” said Benjamin Grimes, a former Justice Department ethics official who now lectures at Columbia Law School.
During the 2025 fiscal year, which ended in September, OPR opened seven new investigations, the lowest in two decades, even as the office received 1,666 complaints, the highest in any year since 2005, according to a Reuters review of annual reports. The office has not disclosed its more recent work this fiscal year.
By comparison, the office opened an average of more than 18 investigations annually during the past decade, including Trump’s first term.
This week, federal prosecutors revealed they reported to OPR a federal judge’s findings of grand jury misconduct in a now-dismissed case against six Chicago-area immigration activists. It was not immediately clear if OPR opened an investigation.
OPR typically investigates only a small fraction of the complaints it receives, finding most lack evidence or fall outside its remit.
One of OPR’s highest-profile probes examined Jack Smith, who led DOJ prosecutions into Trump’s handling of classified documents and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. The probe examined Republican lawmakers’ claims that Smith’s team tried to harm Trump’s chances in the 2024 election and sought to improperly coerce cooperation from a Trump aide.
By last spring, OPR investigators had interviewed Smith, which has not been previously reported, and expected to complete the investigation by last summer, according to two people familiar with the matter. But a year later, the probe has yet to conclude. One of the people told Reuters that political appointees asked for it to be suspended.
The department has since launched a separate criminal investigation into Smith, who denies any wrongdoing.
A department spokesperson declined to answer questions about the probe. A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment.
STAFF EXODUS AT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE
The inspector general’s office lost 99 employees since the end of President Joe Biden’s administration, reducing staffing to 477 people, according to Office of Personnel Management records.
Historically, the office has investigated politically sensitive matters including the FBI’s handling of its investigation into contacts between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.
The office routinely informs Congress about major investigations. During Trump’s current term, however, it has publicly disclosed only one politically sensitive inquiry – an audit of the DOJ’s release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. The department faces bipartisan criticism alleging it botched the congressionally mandated release of files, heavily redacting records of public interest while failing to redact information exposing some victims’ identities.
In another case, according to letters reviewed by Reuters, the inspector general’s office referred a DOJ whistleblower alleging wrongdoing by senior Trump officials to OPR, saying that office was better positioned to investigate. Reuters could not establish whether OPR has pursued the matter.
One former official who left the Inspector General’s office late last year said it had started to avoid investigating “the high-profile stuff.”
COURT REBUKES
The declining power of the DOJ watchdogs comes as judges increasingly call out the government’s lawyers for alleged misconduct. A federal judge last year found what he called a disturbing pattern of Justice Department errors in the first of two prosecutions of James Comey, the former FBI director and Trump foe, including improper evidence handling and fundamental misstatements of the law to a grand jury. The case was later dismissed on other grounds.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams accused senior officials including acting Attorney General Todd Blanche of failing to properly defend the government in Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and instead reaching what she described as a collusive settlement granting Trump and his family businesses sweeping tax immunity.
Blanche this week formally rescinded a separate portion of the agreement setting aside $1.8 billion to compensate Trump allies the president claims suffered government mistreatment. Republican opposition to the “anti-weaponization fund” had stalled Blanche’s bid to become attorney general.
Federal prosecutors said the findings in the Comey case were based on misinterpretations by the judge. Blanche has disputed what he called insinuations in Williams’ order and Trump’s personal lawyers have appealed it.
The Trump administration has also moved to make it harder for outside authorities to scrutinize the actions of DOJ attorneys, suing to block one ethics case against a former official and seeking new authority to restrict investigations by state agencies that regulate lawyers.
Justice Department officials have accused state-level investigations of being politically motivated and aimed at intimidating lawyers carrying out Trump’s agenda.
“We see all these opinions where judges are critical of the government lawyers, and then we’re not seeing anything coming out of OPR,” said Bruce Green, a legal ethics expert and law professor at Fordham University. “So how can you trust them?”
(Reporting by Andrew Goudsward and Brad Heath in Washington; editing by Michael Learmonth and Richard Valdmanis)
Comments