Donald Trump has discovered a new way to bend the justice system to his will: simply ignore it.
Across the country, the president is quietly exploiting legal loopholes to sidestep both the Senate and federal judges, installing unconfirmed loyalists as U.S. attorneys — the chief prosecutors in 93 districts whose power shapes everything from corruption probes to civil rights enforcement.
The strategy, described by legal experts as a “perversion” of constitutional intent, has already reshaped U.S. attorney’s offices in Los Angeles, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, and upstate New York.
Here’s how it works: when Trump’s nominees can’t get confirmed by the Senate, his administration names them “interim” U.S. attorneys, who can serve for 120 days. When that term expires, district judges are supposed to step in and appoint a replacement. But if judges reject Trump’s pick — as they have in several states — the White House has simply voided those decisions and reinstated its choice as “acting” U.S. attorneys, who can then serve another 210 days.
In some cases, the administration has gone further still: preempting judicial votes entirely, stripping judges of their 160-year-old appointment power.
“This is alarming because it eliminates the vetting process Congress designed,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. “It’s a complete perversion of what the Constitution seems to require.”
The New Jersey Showdown
Nowhere has the fight been more visible than in New Jersey. Earlier this year, Trump installed Alina Habba — his former personal attorney and a staunch defender — as interim U.S. attorney. Habba had never worked as a prosecutor but quickly launched politically charged cases, including the failed trespassing charge against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and an assault indictment against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), who was overseeing an immigration facility visit. Habba also opened an investigation into Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, over immigration policies.
It quickly became clear she had no path through the Senate. So when her interim term expired, New Jersey’s federal judges voted to replace her with career prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace. Trump responded by firing Grace and reinstating Habba as acting U.S. attorney — after withdrawing her stalled Senate nomination to skirt federal law.
The move sparked outrage and a pending court challenge from a criminal defendant, who argues Habba’s authority is illegitimate.
Patterns Across the Map
New Jersey isn’t alone. In upstate New York, Trump’s interim choice, John Sarcone III, had his term expire without judicial reappointment. Instead of respecting the vacancy, the Justice Department gave him an indefinite title as “special attorney,” keeping him in power despite his lack of prosecutorial experience.
In New Mexico, district judges rejected Trump’s interim pick, Ryan Ellison. Within days, Trump’s DOJ converted him into “acting” U.S. attorney under vacancies law. Democratic senators Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján blasted the move as “this administration’s continuing willingness to trample the role of the Judiciary and Congress.”
Meanwhile, in California and Nevada, Trump bypassed judges entirely to keep Bill Essayli and Sigal Chattah in office. Chattah’s reappointment came despite more than 100 retired judges warning that her inflammatory, racially charged statements disqualified her from the post.
Weaponizing Prosecution
The risk, critics say, is not only constitutional but practical. U.S. attorneys are supposed to operate at arm’s length from political power, accountable to both the Senate and the courts. Trump’s maneuvers eliminate those safeguards, raising fears that prosecutions will increasingly serve political ends.
Habba’s early moves in New Jersey — charging Democratic officials, targeting a Democratic governor, and pursuing oversight lawmakers — have already fueled those concerns.
Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor and former federal prosecutor, said forcing loyalists into offices over judicial objections erodes the credibility of the DOJ itself. “When you start ramming people down into these offices without any consideration of local communities or the district court bench, bad things happen,” Richman said. “Judges are going to view prosecutors as extensions of Washington rather than as local actors.”
He pointed to a recent ruling in Manhattan, where a judge blocked Trump’s DOJ from unsealing secret Epstein-Maxwell materials, as an early sign of judicial pushback.
A System Bent, Not Broken
The long-term effect may be that U.S. attorneys installed over judicial objections lose the trust of the very courts they must work with. Retired Judge John S. Martin warned: “It means that when the government comes in and asserts something a little bit unusual, it’s going to get a very skeptical view from the court.”
For Trump, the goal is clear: a network of loyal prosecutors unencumbered by Senate checks or judicial oversight. For critics, it is something darker — the transformation of America’s federal prosecutors into instruments of political retribution.
And for the justice system itself, it is a test of resilience. How much precedent can be shredded before the public no longer believes in its independence?