Trump’s Directive to US Attorneys Could End Law Enforcement Independence

The latest directive from President Donald Trump is raising concern among legal experts and U.S. attorneys across the country.

The memorandum being issued by Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, Trump’s former personal defense lawyer, signals a departure from the traditional cooperative approach between the U.S. Department of Justice and local law enforcement.

Previously, DOJ officials worked closely with local authorities to enforce the law impartially under past administrations. But this new directive appears to set the stage for increased federal intervention in areas traditionally handled by state or local agencies.

Pat Kreitlow, host of “UpNorthNews Radio,” asked Jim Santelle, a former U.S. attorney in Wisconsin, Justice Department official in Washington and host of “Amicus: A Law Review,” about the changes in the directive.  

“He has issued this memorandum providing direction and a sense of emphasis for U.S. attorneys in terms of their discretion and prosecution,” Santelle explains. “What I find troubling by this one, and in the language of this one, putting aside the bluster of the language itself – is this notion that we are now apparently setting up controversy between local and state authorities.”

At the core of the controversy is the potential for increased political influence over prosecutorial decisions, a significant shift from the DOJ’s nonpartisan tradition. This directive could lead to a wave of resignations among U.S. attorneys as they face the pressure to comply with the White House directives or risk termination.

The memo is also raising concerns that Trump could use the terminations of Democratic appointees as political theater, casting them as martyrs to rally his base.

“This is the kind of thing, especially when you’ve got Biden appointed U.S. attorneys still in many of these positions,” Santelle said. “You’ve also got acting U.S. attorneys in many of these positions where the receipt of this is so contrary to their initial commission, which, again, is called the law, and not to do the bidding of the president because he feels the local and state authorities are not going to follow his particular views on enforcement.”

Santelle anticipates the new memorandum could provoke a broader backlash, even from some conservative appointees who may balk at the politicization of justice. There is hope U.S. attorneys committed to the impartial enforcement of the law will make a stand and remind the nation that their oath is to uphold the Constitution, not to execute the president’s political agenda.

Meanwhile, local officials are bracing for the ripple effects of this policy shift, especially in communities where the balance between local autonomy and federal oversight could face significant strain. Some local leaders are emphasizing the importance of protecting citizens’ constitutional rights, regardless of their immigration status. They are also urging those in the community to understand their rights and stand firm in the face of federal overreach.

“They have due process under the 14th Amendment,” Santelle said. “We’ve got equal protection under the Constitution. And those are the kinds of things that our courts and yes, indeed, the United States Department of Justice and U.S. attorneys nationwide are obliged to enforce and uphold. That’s the oath all U.S. attorneys take. Local and state authorities and frankly, as citizens, residents, whether in Wisconsin or around the country, should recognize and hopefully embrace this notion that the Constitution protects all of us.”

And as this directive moves forward, it remains to be seen if the DOJ’s independence will hold or whether the country is headed toward a more politically charged era of law enforcement. 

“At a minimum, the facts in particular need to be addressed,” Santelle explains. “I’m very troubled by the tone, the content, the messaging to the U.S. attorneys, many of whom are still (former President Joe) Biden’s U.S. attorneys out there.”