Federal courts across the country have issued a string of sharp criticisms of Justice Department conduct - citing false statements, failures to follow court orders and the improper use of legal tools against political opponents. Those judicial rebukes might normally prompt vigorous activity from the department's internal oversight bodies. Instead, both offices responsible for policing the department - the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) - have experienced substantial staff reductions and, according to former department employees, heightened reluctance to pursue sensitive inquiries.
Government employment records and interviews with former Justice Department staff indicate a notable shrinkage in personnel at both watchdog offices during the current administration. OPR's headcount dropped from 29 to 16 employees since the president returned to office, a decline captured in departmental data obtained through public records. Separately, records from the Office of Personnel Management show that the inspector general's office lost 99 employees since the end of the previous presidential administration, leaving the office with 477 staffers.
Officials familiar with the departures say many employees retired or accepted buyouts offered by the administration as part of broader efforts to reduce federal headcount. The departures have included senior leadership at OPR: the administration dismissed OPR's director, Jeffrey Ragsdale, and no permanent replacement has been named.
Those changes have occurred even as complaints and judicial findings against the department's lawyers have surged. Department policy requires that judicial findings and substantial allegations of misconduct by prosecutors and other DOJ attorneys be reported to OPR. An investigation by OPR, if sustained by department leadership, can lead to disciplinary actions including termination or referral to state licensing authorities.
Despite that mandate, OPR opened only seven new investigations in the fiscal year that ended in September - the fewest in two decades - even as it received 1,666 complaints during the same period, the highest annual total since 2005. Over the previous decade the office opened an average of more than 18 investigations per year, a figure that included the department's first term under the current president.
"They are afraid of doing any watching," said one former Justice Department official who left the department last year, summarizing concerns among ex-staff about the offices' diminished activity. The official and three other former employees interviewed said the combination of headcount losses, a leadership vacancy at OPR and a perception of political risk have constrained the watchdogs' willingness to pursue new matters, particularly those touching on the most consequential and politically charged cases.
Department spokespeople have defended the offices' work. A Justice Department spokesperson said OPR "remains committed to ensuring accountability for all DOJ attorneys" and rigorously investigates misconduct allegations. A separate spokesperson for the inspector general said that office is committed to independent oversight and does not avoid difficult or controversial reviews.
But former Justice Department ethics officials and legal scholars warn that the reduction in active investigations and the hollowing out of professional staff sends a damaging signal about the priority accorded to legal ethics inside the department. "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 department ethics official who now teaches at Columbia Law School.
OPR typically opens investigations into only a fraction of the complaints it receives, often finding many lack evidence or fall outside the office's remit. Still, the drop to seven new investigations in the fiscal year ending in September contrasts sharply with the surge in complaints. The office has not publicly disclosed its activity during the current fiscal year.
Some ongoing matters highlight the strained oversight environment. One high-profile probe examined Jack Smith, the prosecutor who led cases related to the handling of classified documents and an effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. OPR investigators interviewed Smith and expected to complete that inquiry by the previous summer, according to people familiar with the matter. A year later the probe remains open, and one of those people said political appointees requested the investigation be suspended. The department has also opened a separate criminal inquiry into Smith; he denies wrongdoing. Department and Smith spokespeople declined to answer or comment on questions about the probe.
At the inspector general's office, sources said the loss of nearly 100 staffers has limited capacity to pursue major, politically sensitive investigations. Historically the inspector general has probed contentious subjects, including prior examinations of the FBI's handling of investigations. During the current term, however, the inspector general has publicly disclosed only one politically sensitive inquiry - an audit of the department's release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. That audit examined claims the department mismanaged the congressionally mandated release by both over-redacting material of public interest and failing to protect victims' identities in some cases.
In at least one instance the inspector general's office referred a whistleblower's allegation of wrongdoing by senior officials to OPR, saying that office was better positioned to investigate the personnel allegations. It could not be established whether OPR has since pursued the matter.
Former employees say the office also began to steer away from some "high-profile stuff," a shift that underscores the broader reluctance former staff describe.
The apparent weakening of internal oversight has unfolded as federal judges have increasingly rebuked Justice Department lawyers in court. In the prosecution of James Comey, a federal judge last year described a troubling pattern of errors in the government's handling of evidence and in legal representations to a grand jury, including misstatements of law. That case was later dismissed on other grounds. In another recent ruling, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams accused senior Justice Department officials, including acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, of failing to properly defend the government in a $10 billion lawsuit brought by the president against the Internal Revenue Service, and of reaching what she characterized as a collusive settlement that granted the president and his family businesses broad tax immunity.
Acting Attorney General Blanche later rescinded a separate element of that agreement - an allocation of $1.8 billion intended to compensate individuals the president has said suffered mistreatment by the government. Republican opposition to what has been called the "anti-weaponization fund" had previously complicated Blanche's bid to be confirmed as attorney general.
Justice Department officials have disputed judges' characterizations and in some filings and statements accused courts of partisan hostility toward the administration. Federal prosecutors argued that the judge's findings in the Comey matter were based on misinterpretations. The department has also pursued legal moves that would limit external scrutiny: it sued to block an ethics case against a former official and has sought broader authority to restrict investigations by state agencies that regulate lawyers, saying some state-level probes are politically motivated and intended to intimidate lawyers implementing the administration's priorities.
Legal ethics experts question how the public can rely on oversight institutions that appear to be scaling back. "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 law professor and expert in legal ethics. "So how can you trust them?"
Former watchdog staff and ethics specialists say the combination of reduced staffing, leadership vacancies and a decline in new investigations has left two of the department's main check mechanisms impaired at a moment when judicial criticism and serious allegations are on the rise. The offices' spokespeople emphasize ongoing commitments to accountability, but the staffing and activity data, along with former employees' accounts, point to a department where oversight faces significant constraints.
Summary
Judicial findings of misconduct by Justice Department lawyers have climbed, yet the department's internal watchdogs - OPR and the inspector general - have experienced significant staff losses and a slowdown in new investigations. OPR's workforce fell from 29 to 16 employees, and it opened only seven investigations in the fiscal year that ended in September despite receiving 1,666 complaints. The inspector general's office lost 99 employees since the end of the previous administration, leaving 477 on staff. Former officials and legal ethics experts say the combined effect of departures, buyouts and a reluctance to pursue politically sensitive matters has reduced oversight capacity at a time of heightened judicial scrutiny.
Key points
- Staffing declines at both watchdogs - OPR declined from 29 to 16 employees; the inspector general's office lost 99 employees, leaving 477 - have corresponded with a drop in new investigations. Impacted sectors: government oversight and legal services.
- OPR opened only seven new investigations in the fiscal year ending in September while receiving 1,666 complaints, the highest annual total since 2005. Impacted sectors: judiciary and legal ethics monitoring.
- Federal judges have issued multiple rebukes of DOJ conduct in major cases, even as probes by internal oversight offices have slowed or remain unresolved. Impacted sectors: federal litigation and public trust in legal institutions.
Risks and uncertainties
- Reduced oversight capacity may mean fewer investigations of alleged misconduct by department lawyers, posing a risk to enforcement of professional standards. Sectors affected include legal services and government accountability.
- Leadership vacancies and staff exits could delay or stall probes into politically sensitive matters, leaving substantive allegations unresolved and increasing legal uncertainty in high-profile cases. Sectors affected include federal litigation and regulatory bodies.
- Ongoing disputes between the department and the courts over allegations of misconduct, combined with moves to limit outside scrutiny, raise uncertainty about the balance between prosecutorial discretion and external accountability. Sectors affected include judicial oversight and state-level legal regulatory agencies.