Trump’s circular “lawfare”: Justice Department targets its own lawyers for following the law

Salon - Apr 8th, 2025

A senior Department of Justice immigration lawyer, Erez Reuveni, has been placed on leave after conceding in court that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was erroneous, going against a court order to keep Garcia in the U.S. This incident highlights ongoing tensions within the DOJ, where career officials face repercussions for resisting directives they consider illegal or unethical. Reuveni's case is the latest in a series of actions against DOJ officials who have opposed instructions from former President Trump and his administration.

This development underscores a broader issue regarding the independence of government attorneys and their ethical obligations. Historically, DOJ attorneys have resisted presidential pressures to ensure justice and maintain integrity, as seen in previous administrations. The case raises concerns about the erosion of these principles under Trump's influence, where government lawyers are expected to serve personal interests rather than uphold the law impartially. The controversy also draws attention to Trump's problematic nominations, like Ed Martin, who has been criticized for undermining the independence of the U.S. Attorney's office.

Trump Administration Department Of Justice Ethics Kilmar Abrego Garcia Erez Reuveni

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a critical perspective on the Trump administration's handling of Justice Department lawyers, focusing on ethical obligations and independence. While the narrative is clear and timely, it lacks balance, relying heavily on the author's personal experience without sufficient corroboration from diverse sources. The piece addresses significant public interest issues, but its impact is limited by the absence of direct citations and diverse perspectives. To enhance its credibility and engagement, the article could benefit from including additional viewpoints and supporting evidence. Overall, the story raises important questions about legal ethics and government accountability, but it requires further verification and balance to fully inform and engage a broad audience.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims that require verification. For instance, the claim that Erez Reuveni was placed on leave for not following questionable orders needs confirmation. The article also discusses the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which was allegedly against a court order, a detail that should be cross-referenced with legal documents or court records. While the narrative aligns with known controversies surrounding the Trump administration's handling of legal matters, specific details like the actions of Ed Martin and the historical examples cited need further corroboration. The piece is written by Jesselyn Radack, who has a background in legal ethics, lending some credibility; however, the lack of direct citations or links to primary sources diminishes the article's factual precision.

Balance

The article primarily presents a critical perspective on the Trump administration's handling of Justice Department lawyers, particularly focusing on ethical obligations and independence. While it provides historical examples of DOJ officials standing up to presidential directives, it lacks representation of the administration's viewpoint or any defense of their actions. The piece could benefit from more balanced coverage by including statements or responses from the involved parties, such as the DOJ or representatives of the Trump administration, to provide a more rounded perspective.

Clarity

The language used in the article is generally clear and accessible, making it easy to follow the author's arguments. The structure is logical, with a progression from personal experience to broader implications for the Justice Department and government lawyers. However, the narrative occasionally assumes the reader's familiarity with specific legal terms and historical events, which might hinder understanding for a general audience. Simplifying these references or providing brief explanations could improve clarity.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on the author's personal experience and interpretation, which can introduce bias. While Jesselyn Radack's background as a former DOJ ethics attorney adds some authority, the piece lacks diverse sources or corroboration from independent experts or official statements. The absence of direct quotes from involved parties or references to court documents and official records weakens the source quality, making the article less reliable.

Transparency

The article provides some context regarding the author's background and previous experiences, which aids in understanding her perspective. However, it does not clearly disclose the methodology used to gather information or verify claims. The lack of explicit references to primary sources or documents that support the article's assertions limits transparency. Including such references would enhance the reader's ability to assess the validity of the claims made.