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 explored how decisions within the U.S. Department of Justice during the Biden administration may have undermined efforts to hold former President Donald Trump accountable. A Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and co-author of Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America’s Justice Department, Leonnig joined Warren Olney to examine how caution, institutional norms, and delayed action shaped one of the most consequential legal moments in modern American history.
A Commitment to Neutrality
Leonnig described Attorney General Merrick Garland as a highly respected jurist with a reputation for fairness, restraint, and intellectual rigor. Chosen in part to restore confidence in an apolitical Justice Department after the turbulence of the Trump years, Garland approached the role with a deep commitment to neutrality.
According to Leonnig, Garland believed it was not enough for the department to act impartially—it also had to appear impartial. That philosophy guided his decision-making, particularly when it came to investigating a former president and current political figure.
When Caution Becomes Consequence
However, Leonnig argued that Garland’s caution had unintended consequences. By delaying a full investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the Justice Department lost valuable time. Despite early signals and pressure from investigators, action did not begin in earnest until well into 2022.
In Leonnig’s view, the desire to avoid political perception ultimately produced a political outcome. By waiting, the department allowed the timeline to narrow, making it more difficult to bring a case to completion before the next presidential election cycle.
The Turning Point: Public Pressure
A key moment came when the House Select Committee investigating January 6 began revealing its findings. As details emerged publicly, it became increasingly clear that Congress—not the Justice Department—was leading the effort to uncover the scope of the events.
Leonnig noted that this created pressure on the Justice Department, which then accelerated its own investigation. But by that point, crucial time had already been lost, and the department was playing catch-up on a matter of national significance.
The Role of Fear and Institutional Memory
Another factor Leonnig highlighted was the lingering impact of Trump’s first presidency. During that time, Trump publicly targeted and criticized investigators, prosecutors, and FBI officials. According to Leonnig, this left behind what she described as “scar tissue” within federal law enforcement agencies.
That environment contributed to hesitation among officials, particularly when considering whether to pursue a case against Trump again. The fear of retaliation, public attacks, or career consequences may have further slowed decision-making at critical moments.
Jack Smith’s Rapid Push
When Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed in late 2022, the pace changed dramatically. Leonnig described Smith as moving with urgency, pushing investigative teams to gather evidence quickly and make charging decisions within months.
His work demonstrated that a faster timeline was possible. Yet, even with this accelerated effort, the earlier delays proved difficult to overcome, especially as legal challenges mounted.
The Supreme Court and the Closing Window
Leonnig pointed to the Supreme Court’s handling of Trump’s immunity claims as a decisive factor. While the Court expedited other politically sensitive cases, it declined to fast-track Smith’s request for clarity on whether Trump could be prosecuted.
That decision effectively slowed the legal process and contributed to the case stalling before it could reach trial. For Leonnig, this moment underscored how multiple institutional decisions—across branches of government—combined to close the window for accountability.
The Cost of Waiting
Ultimately, Leonnig framed this episode as a cautionary tale about the limits of institutional restraint in extraordinary circumstances. Garland’s approach was rooted in respect for norms and process, but those norms may not have been sufficient to meet the moment.
The result, she suggested, was a missed opportunity to test serious allegations in court before the political landscape shifted once again. For Leonnig, the broader lesson is clear: in times of democratic stress, delay can carry consequences just as significant as action.
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.
