Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Justice Department is stirring the pot with a plan to ease rules on prosecuting public officials. Unnamed DOJ sources say the Trump administration wants to ditch safeguards that critics claim are essential to prevent political witch hunts.
Breitbart reported that the Trump team, with Bondi at the helm, is mulling a proposal to let federal prosecutors indict elected officials without the Public Integrity Section’s approval.
This shift could bypass a decades-old DOJ manual requiring PIN consultation at key investigation stages. It’s a bold move that’s got tongues wagging and eyebrows raised.
Since Trump took office, the PIN has been gutted, shrinking from 30 prosecutors to fewer than five. Several PIN attorneys have quit, been reassigned, or been shown the door after locking horns with Bondi’s crew. Sounds like a department remake, but is it reform or a purge?
The proposal, reported by The Washington Post and Daily Beast, has sparked a firestorm. Critics warn it could open the door to politically driven prosecutions, targeting foes without oversight. Supporters, though, argue it’s a necessary fix for a DOJ they say was weaponized against Trump.
A DOJ spokesman admitted the proposals on the table but insisted no final call has been made. Three insiders dished to the Post anonymously, fearing payback for speaking out. Transparency’s great, unless you’re the one in the hot seat, apparently.
“The reason you have the section is exactly what this administration says they want, which is stop politicization,” said Dan Schwager, a former PIN attorney.
He argues PIN’s institutional know-how ensures fair treatment across party lines. But when the rules get rewritten, fairness might just be a suggestion.
Schwager’s point is that PIN’s experience keeps prosecutions consistent, not capricious. Without it, federal prosecutors in 93 U.S. attorneys’ offices could run wild, picking targets without a playbook. Turns out, actions have consequences, and so does scrapping oversight.
The Justice Department manual has long required PINs’ input on public corruption cases.
This rule was meant to keep investigations above board, not bogged down in partisan mud. Bondi’s plan might speed things up, but at what cost to impartiality?
Aaron Reitz, Assistant Attorney General, sees it differently: “AG Bondi assumed office with a monumental task: restoring a justice system rotted with left-wing weaponization.” He claims Bondi’s knocking it out of the park. Restoring justice or settling scores? That’s the million-dollar question.
Reitz’s cheerleading paints Bondi as a reformer, but critics aren’t buying it. They fear a DOJ unleashed could turn into a political cudgel, especially with PIN sidelined. A leaner DOJ might sound efficient, but efficiency without guardrails can veer into vendetta territory.
Vice President JD Vance weighed in, saying, “Being a member of Congress doesn’t give you a right to obstruct the law.” He’s got a point: no one’s above the law. But when the law’s enforcers skip oversight, who’s watching the watchers?
In early May 2025, Trump-appointed acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba launched a probe into a detention center riot. The case involves immigration activists, three Democratic lawmakers, and Newark’s mayor. It’s a high-profile test case that’s raising hackles about what’s coming next.
Habba’s investigation shows the DOJ’s new direction in action. Without PIN’s steady hand, such cases could multiply, targeting political opponents under the guise of justice. The line between accountability and overreach is getting blurry fast.