The acting head of the Justice Department has dismissed over a dozen officials and career attorneys who collaborated with former special counsel Jack Smith in the prosecution efforts against President Donald Trump, which spanned more than a year leading up to his election victory in November against Vice President Kamala Harris.
Fox News Digital initially reported that Acting Attorney General James McHenry communicated his decision through letters to the prosecutors, indicating that their dismissal was due to a lack of trust in their ability to “faithfully implement the president’s agenda.” A DOJ representative informed Fox that McHenry sent an email to each affected individual regarding their termination.
In relation to the trust concern, a legal analyst on a network program noted that all prosecutors associated with a special counsel do so voluntarily, as no one is mandated to take on such roles. Consequently, those prosecutors typically possess a vested interest in securing convictions against the individuals being targeted. This suggests that the prosecutors dismissed by McHenry may not have supported Trump, leading him to conclude that they could not be depended upon to carry out their responsibilities under his administration.
Fox reported that the exact number of terminated DOJ prosecutors and officials remains unclear, as a list of names has not been promptly provided. A DOJ official stated to Fox News, “Today, Acting Attorney General James McHenry terminated the employment of several DOJ officials who were instrumental in prosecuting President Trump. Given their actions, the Acting Attorney General does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda.”
This decision is said to align with the objective of curtailing the perceived weaponization of government, as noted by the official. Furthermore, it follows the Justice Department’s reassignment of numerous officials during the initial week of the Trump administration to a Sanctuary City task force and other related initiatives.
Former Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith, a veteran official within the Justice Department, as special counsel in November 2022. Smith, who previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney and led the DOJ’s public integrity section, was tasked with investigating President Trump’s management of classified documents following his departure from the White House, as well as examining whether he obstructed the federal investigation into this issue.
Additionally, Smith was responsible for overseeing the inquiry into potential attempts by President Trump or other officials to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election, particularly concerning the certification of the Electoral College vote on January 6, 2021. He filed charges against Trump in both investigations, to which Trump responded with a plea of not guilty.
In July 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon from the Southern District of Florida dismissed the case regarding classified records, determining that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful. Smith had also indicted Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., related to the 2020 election case. However, following Trump’s election as president, Smith sought to dismiss this case, a motion that Judge Tanya Chutkan approved.
In a related development, a federal judge recently overturned a previous order that barred Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and seven other group members from entering Washington, D.C., without court permission. This decision came after Trump commuted their sentences for their roles in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who was appointed by Obama and oversaw the Oath Keepers conspiracy trials, lifted the restriction, asserting that it would be “improper” to modify their original sentences “post-commutation.”
Judge Mehta stated, “It is not for this court to divine why President Trump commuted Defendants’ sentences, or to assess whether it was sensible to do so,” while denying the Justice Department’s request to completely eliminate the Oath Keepers’ supervised release terms, acknowledging the complexities involved.
The motion presented by the U.S. Department of Justice has been partially approved and partially rejected, as stated by Mehta. He clarified that the court will not formally ‘dismiss’ the non-custodial segments of the defendants’ sentences; however, the defendants are no longer required to adhere to the conditions of supervised release that were imposed by the court.
