Justice department civil rights division loses 70% of lawyers under Trump

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Justice Department's Civil Rights Division Faces Drastic Staff Reductions Under Trump Administration"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 6.4
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

Since the beginning of 2023, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has experienced a staggering reduction in personnel, with estimates indicating that over 250 attorneys have either left, been reassigned, or accepted buyout offers. This drastic decline, amounting to approximately 70%, highlights a significant transformation within the division, which has historically been responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws established in 1957. The core civil enforcement sections, which had around 365 attorneys in January, now report that only about 105 remain following a deferred resignation offer that ended on April 28. The repercussions of these departures are profound, as they hinder the division's ability to effectively enforce civil rights statutes mandated by Congress, leading some insiders to declare that the division as it was known has effectively ceased to exist. The reduction is particularly alarming in sections overseeing voting rights, educational opportunities, and employment litigation, where personnel numbers have plummeted to fewer than five attorneys in some areas, raising concerns about the federal government's capacity to uphold civil rights protections across various domains.

The changes within the Civil Rights Division have been largely influenced by the Trump administration's agenda, particularly under Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump ally who took over as the division's head in April. Dhillon has publicly stated that the division will focus on enforcing the administration's priorities, such as investigating alleged voter fraud and addressing perceived discrimination against white individuals in college admissions. Critics, including former attorneys from the division, have expressed alarm over the potential politicization of career roles within the department, fearing that individuals loyal to Trump may be appointed to fill vacancies, which could compromise the quality of legal representation and expertise in civil rights enforcement. The loss of experienced attorneys, who possess specialized knowledge developed over years, raises concerns about the division's ability to identify and litigate cases effectively. The overall sentiment among former staff is one of dismay, as many believe that the current leadership's approach is detrimental to the integrity and mission of the Civil Rights Division, marking a departure from its traditional, apolitical role in safeguarding civil rights for all citizens.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article highlights a significant reduction in personnel within the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division during the Trump administration, claiming that over 250 attorneys have left since January. This reduction is portrayed as a strategic dismantling of the division, which is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws. The narrative suggests that this shift aligns with Trump's broader agenda, emphasizing issues such as voter fraud and discrimination against specific groups.

Implications of Personnel Reduction

The loss of around 70% of the attorneys in the Civil Rights Division raises concerns about the division's ability to effectively enforce civil rights protections. Current and former employees suggest that the division may no longer fulfill its intended purpose, which could lead to a decrease in civil rights protections for marginalized communities.

Perception Management

The article appears to be aimed at creating a sense of alarm regarding the future of civil rights enforcement in the U.S. By framing the reduction in personnel as a "gutting" of the division, the piece sets a narrative that seeks to rally support for civil rights advocacy and raise awareness about potential challenges ahead.

Potential Concealment

While the article focuses on the changes within the Civil Rights Division, it may sidestep broader discussions about the implications of these changes on the enforcement of other federal laws or regulations. There could be a desire to keep attention concentrated on civil rights issues while other areas of governance might also be undergoing significant transformations.

Truthfulness and Manipulativeness

The report appears to be grounded in factual assertions, as it cites specific numbers and provides context regarding personnel changes. However, the framing of the narrative — particularly the use of terms like "gutting" and references to Trump’s allies — adds a layer of emotional appeal that could be considered manipulative. This approach may aim to provoke outrage and mobilize public sentiment against the administration's policies.

Public Sentiment and Target Audience

The article likely resonates with communities that prioritize civil rights and equality, particularly those who might feel threatened by the changes in the Justice Department. It serves to engage those concerned about social justice and civil rights, aiming to reinforce their fears and motivate activism or political engagement.

Impact on Markets and Political Climate

While the article may not directly influence stock markets, it could affect the political landscape by energizing voter bases that oppose the Trump administration's policies. If civil rights enforcement is perceived to be weakened, it may motivate increased civic engagement among activists and organizations focused on these issues.

Global Context

In terms of global power dynamics, the article reflects ongoing debates within the U.S. regarding civil rights and governance. It connects to larger themes of democracy and justice that resonate worldwide, especially in discussions about human rights.

Use of AI in Reporting

It is unlikely that AI played a direct role in the writing of this article, as it appears to involve human investigative journalism focusing on specific events. However, if AI were involved, it might have influenced the style or structure of the article, emphasizing emotionally charged language to strengthen its persuasive impact.

In conclusion, the article provides a detailed account of staffing changes in the Civil Rights Division, while also shaping the narrative around the implications of these changes. Its blend of factual reporting with emotionally charged language raises questions about its overall objectivity and the intentions behind its publication.

Unanalyzed Article Content

More than 250 attorneys in the justice department’s civil rights division have either left, been reassigned, or accepted a buyout offer since January, according to an estimate provided to the Guardian by people familiar with the matter. The significant decrease in personnel underscores how Donald Trump is gutting the arm of the federal government responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws.

About 235 attorneys in the division’s civil enforcement sections have accepted buyouts or have quit the justice department and roughly another 20 have been reassigned or detailed to do other work within the agency, including handling public records requests and internal agency complaints.

The sections that handle civil enforcement work in the division, the core of the its work, had around 365 attorneys in January, according to a rough estimate provided to the Guardian. About 105 remain after a 28 April deadline to accept a deferred resignation offer.

The roughly 70% reduction in attorneys comes as the Trump administrationhas sought to transformthe civil rights division, created in 1957 to enforce US federal civil rights laws. Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump ally who took over the division in April,has made it clearthat the focus of the division will be enforcing Trump’s priorities, including hunting for voter fraud (which is exceedingly rare), preventing discrimination against white people in college admissions, and limiting the rights of transgender people.

Current and former department employees emphasized that the departures effectively made it impossible for the division to fulfill the civil rights statutes it has long been ordered to enforce by Congress.

“I don’t think it’s an overstatement to see this as the end of the division as we’ve known it,” said a civil rights division attorney. “Some things will certainly go on and there are some excellent folks staying, but the breadth of the work will surely diminish and will certainly be focused almost exclusively on administration priorities.”

The justice department did not return a request for comment.

The civil rights division is led by a handful of political appointees – known as the “front office” – who set the priorities for the section. But the bulk of the work is done by civil servants who serve as line attorneys and report to their section managers, also civil servants, who then interface with the front office.

But now several of the division’s sections have seen a severe reduction in personnel. The voting, educational opportunity, employment litigation and federal coordination and compliance section all went from having dozens of attorneys in January to fewer than five, according to a person familiar with the matter.The federal coordination and compliance section, whose responsibilities include enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act – prohibiting those who receive federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, national origin, and sex – now has zero permanent attorneys.

“The federal government’s capacity to enforce civil rights protections across voting, education, housing, disability rights, and police accountability have been severely compromised,” said Chiraag Bains, a lawyer who served as a career prosecutor and political appointee in the civil rights division.

Dhillon, a Trump ally who supported his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has celebrated the reduction in attorneys from the division.

“Now, over 100 attorneys decided that they’d rather not do what their job requires them to do, and I think that’s fine, because we don’t want people in the federal government who feel like it’s their pet project to go persecute police departments based on statistical evidence, or persecute people praying outside abortion facilities instead of doing violence,” she saidin a podcast interviewwith the conservative personality Glenn Beck on 26 April. “The job here is to enforce the federal civil rights laws, not woke ideology.”

She appeared to further cheer on the departures in a post on X on Tuesday,saying“personnel is policy”.

Stacey Young, a former civil rights division attorney who started the groupJustice Connection, a network of department alumni supporting their former colleagues, called Dhillon’s message “sadistic”.

“They made a concerted effort to purge dedicated career civil servants at the civil rights division. And slamming them for leaving is cruel,” she said. “I’ve never seen DoJ employees treated with the kind of malice from their own government, like we’re seeing now.

“They were involuntarily reassigned. They were told to take the deferred resignation offer. And it was suggested to them that if they didn’t, they could be laid off. So the message was clear: ‘If you’re not on board with what we’re doing, if you’re not on board with the president’s own policy agenda, get out.’”

The departures mean the department is losing expertise in complex areas of civil rights enforcement such as housing discrimination and sexual harassment, said Omar Noureldin, who served as a political appointee in the civil rights division during the Biden administration.

“This isn’t the type of knowledge that you learned in law school. It’s the type of knowledge that you develop over years of practice,” said Noureldin, who now is a senior vice president for policy and litigation at the watchdog group Common Cause. “When you lose that deep expertise, either you’re not going to identify the right cases to bring, and so you’re going to waste resources in bringing cases that are not strong cases, or you’re going to mess up the cases that you could have won because, again, you don’t have the expertise.”

While the work of career attorneys has long been apolitical, Bains speculated that the department would try to fill the positions with lawyers loyal to the president.

“I fully expect them to hire loyalists into these career roles,” he said. “They are going to politicize the career hiring process and hire people, probably first and foremost, who are loyal to Trump.”

“We’re probably going to see some extremely bad lawyering in the department in these cases, if that’s what they do,” he added.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian