Former President Donald Trump has appointed at least five of his personal criminal defense lawyers to influential positions within the federal government, raising questions about the separation of personal legal defense from public service. Among these appointments are key roles within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and lifetime positions on federal appellate courts.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously defended Trump in multiple criminal cases, is currently leading the DOJ. Blanche's role as deputy attorney general, and subsequently acting attorney general, places him at the head of an institution responsible for prosecuting federal crimes. Blanche has overseen prosecutions of individuals perceived as Trump's adversaries and has been involved in decisions that critics argue have strained the independence of the Justice Department. His tenure has seen the DOJ pursue charges against figures like former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. In one instance, the DOJ confirmed that officers arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after consulting with Blanche, leading to misdemeanor trespassing charges that were later dismissed. A federal magistrate judge criticized the prosecution for "using the immense power of the government to pursue weak cases or to make examples without sufficient cause."
Blanche also initiated an unsuccessful proposal for a $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization fund." Intended to distribute funds to Trump allies, including those involved in the January 6 Capitol attack, the fund faced bipartisan opposition and appears to be defunct. A DOJ press release stated the fund was established by the attorney general and would be administered by individuals chosen by Blanche.
Another former Trump lawyer, Emil Bove, served as principal associate deputy attorney general, effectively Blanche's second-in-command, before being appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. During his brief tenure at the DOJ, Bove reportedly ordered the dismissal of corruption charges against then-New York City Mayor Eric Adams. This directive led to the resignation of seven federal prosecutors who objected to the order. A whistleblower complaint also alleges that Bove suggested the DOJ should disregard court orders halting deportations.
Bove's transition to the judiciary has also drawn scrutiny. He reportedly attended a Trump rally after joining the bench and, at one point, used an image of Trump as his phone's background. Judges are expected to maintain a nonpartisan stance, and Bove's actions have been described as highly unusual.
Solicitor General John Sauer, tasked with defending federal programs before the Supreme Court, is another former Trump attorney now in a high-profile government role. Sauer has argued cases before a Supreme Court now dominated by six Republican appointees, many of whom are seen as sympathetic to Trump's agenda. His work has included defending Trump's tariffs and an attempt to alter birthright citizenship laws.
Beyond the DOJ, three other former Trump criminal defense lawyers—Emil Bove, Justin Smith, and Matthew Schwartz—have received lifetime appointments as U.S. Court of Appeals judges. These positions place them one step below the Supreme Court. Smith was confirmed last month, having worked on the immunity case for Trump v. United States. Schwartz, who worked on the case leading to Trump's conviction for falsifying business records, joined the bench last week.
These appointments follow historical precedents, such as President John F. Kennedy appointing his brother as attorney general and President Lyndon B. Johnson appointing Abe Fortas to the Supreme Court. However, critics argue that Trump's pattern of placing former personal lawyers in positions of power, particularly within the Justice Department and the judiciary, represents a significant departure from post-Watergate norms designed to prevent the DOJ from being used as a political weapon. The appointments of individuals who have actively defended Trump against criminal allegations to roles overseeing justice or interpreting laws could reshape legal norms and potentially weaken constraints on executive authority.