Carol Leonnig on the Justice Department and the Erosion of Independence
JUDJ-Prepared Summary from February 11, 2026 | Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America’s Justice Department. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the speaker.
In a recent America at a Crossroads discussion, investigative journalist Carol Leonnig examined the growing threat to the independence of the U.S. Department of Justice and what that means for American democracy. A Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and co-author of Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America’s Justice Department, Leonnig joined Warren Olney to discuss how political pressure, fear, and institutional breakdown have reshaped one of the country’s most important public institutions.
A Tale of Two Justice Departments
The conversation began with a telling contrast. When President Joe Biden introduced Merrick Garland as attorney general, he emphasized that Garland’s loyalty would be to the law, the Constitution, and the American people, not to the president. Leonnig contrasted that with remarks by Pam Bondi, who described herself as serving at Donald Trump’s direction.
For Leonnig, those two moments reflect two very different understandings of the Justice Department’s role. One sees the department as an independent institution charged with pursuing justice fairly. The other sees it as an extension of presidential power.
From Public Mission to Political Loyalty
Leonnig argued that the Justice Department has historically depended not only on law, but also on norms. Since Watergate, presidents of both parties generally recognized that prosecutorial decisions were supposed to remain insulated from direct political control. That expectation helped preserve public trust in the department’s integrity.
What alarms Leonnig is her view that those guardrails are being dismantled. She described a Justice Department increasingly shaped by loyalty tests, where career officials are expected to serve the president’s wishes rather than follow the evidence wherever it leads. In that environment, the mission of equal justice under law becomes harder to sustain.
Shockwaves Inside the Building
One of the most striking themes in the discussion was the reaction of career Justice Department staff. Leonnig described prosecutors and other public servants as deeply shaken by the changes they were witnessing. The symbolism mattered. At a major Justice Department event, rank-and-file staff were excluded while political allies and donors were welcomed. To many longtime employees, that sent a clear message about who mattered and who did not.
For people who entered public service out of a sense of duty, this was more than disappointing. It was disorienting. Leonnig noted that many have resigned or begun looking for work elsewhere, not because they lost faith in the rule of law, but because they feared the institution itself was being transformed.
Fear as a Tool of Control
Leonnig also emphasized the role of fear. She described a culture in which officials understood that resisting politically motivated directives could cost them their jobs. According to her reporting, some were told directly that the president was the real boss and that they needed to “get with the program.”
That atmosphere has consequences beyond staffing. Fear can discourage dissent, weaken internal safeguards, and make it easier for political pressure to distort legal decision-making. When experienced prosecutors leave, they take with them not only expertise, but also the institutional memory that helps protect against abuse.
Why It Matters
Leonnig framed the stakes in broad democratic terms. The Justice Department is not just another federal agency. It is one of the institutions that helps ensure Americans are treated equally before the law. If it becomes a tool for rewarding allies and punishing critics, that principle is at risk.
Still, Leonnig ended on a note of guarded hope. She said many current and former public servants remain committed to restoring the department’s integrity and rebuilding the norms that once protected it.
Her message was sobering but clear: the crisis at the Justice Department is not only about one administration or one attorney general. It is about whether the country can preserve the independence of institutions that are essential to democracy itself.
The Bottom Line
Brownstein concluded that if the 2026 election proceeds under normal conditions, Democrats are well-positioned to make gains—particularly in the House. The Senate remains more competitive, but still within reach depending on shifts in key voter groups.
Ultimately, the election will not be decided by strategy alone, but by how voters feel about their lives. As Brownstein made clear, in today’s political environment, perception is reality—and right now, that reality is being shaped at the checkout line as much as at the ballot box.
About America at a Crossroads
Since April 2020, America at a Crossroads has produced weekly virtual programs on topics related to the preservation of our democracy, voting rights, freedom of the press, and a wide array of civil rights, including abortion rights, free speech, and free press. America at a Crossroads is a project of Jews United for Democracy & Justice.
