When Pam Bondi was sworn in, one of the first things she did was to address the practice of DOJ lawyers during Trump 1.0 of refusing to participate in cases, sign briefs, and even throw cases they disagreed with. "It is the job of an attorney privileged to serve in the Department of Justice to zealously defend the interests of the United States," she wrote, "Those interests, and the overall policy of the United States, are set by the Nation's Chief Executive, who is vested by the Constitution with all '[E]xecutive Power.' More broadly, attorneys are expected to zealously advance, protect, and defend their client's interests. Department of Justice attorneys have signed up for a job that requires zealously advocating for the United States."

Only a week ago, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche suspended the attorney arguing the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the accused Salvadoran gangbanger who was deported to El Salvador's CECOT prison (see the latest: New: Supreme Court Issues Order on the Removal of Salvadoran National Kilmar Abrego Garcia). The suspended attorney effectively argued on behalf of the plaintiff, and his statements were quoted at length in the presiding judge's adverse ruling; see Bondi Suspends Attorney Who Threw the Trump Administration Under the Bus at Deportation Hearing – RedState). For good measure, they placed his boss on administrative leave for "failing to supervise a subordinate." Four years ago, that would not have happened.

That has thrown the status quo for a loop, but what is particularly revealing is how some parts of the Department of Justice see themselves as an independent branch of government.

Traditionally, all of the lawyers in the office except two — the solicitor general and the principal deputy — are nonpartisan career employees who span administrations, rather than political appointees. When the office takes legal positions, it has historically taken a long view about what is best for the U.S. government.

The hubris in this statement is simply breathtaking. No one in the federal bureaucracy has the remit of taking "a long view about what is best for the U.S. government." That is a political, not a professional judgment. It implies that unelected bureaucrats are supposed to act as a brake, or even an anchor or land mine, to keep an administration from going in a direction it doesn't like. That is wrong, and it is the essence of the Third World style Deep State that President Trump railed against during his first term.

A great example of this is the restoration of Mel Gibson's right to own a firearm.

At the hearing this week organized by Democratic lawmakers, Elizabeth Oyer — the Justice Department’s former pardon attorney, who was fired last month — accused Trump officials of removing her because she refused to restore the gun ownership rights of actor and Trump supporter Mel Gibson, who has a domestic violence conviction.

<>“It should alarm all Americans that the leadership of the Department of Justice appears to value political loyalty above the fair and responsible administration of justice,” Oyer said.

Gibson had a misdemeanor conviction in 2011. He received three years' probation, and the conviction was vacated in 2014 after he successfully completed the probation. Not only was Oyer's refusal to restore his gun rights a petty exercise of power, but the power she exercised was to administratively comply with the president's directions on pardons. She placed her desire for vengeance, or so it seems, above her duty to justice and to the president she served. Common sense and good manners would have dictated that there was no purpose in continuing to punish a man for a decade-old misdemeanor.

Even more concerning were views on who should serve in these positions.

Those people said the exodus raises questions about whether the department will be able to recruit attorneys from top law schools with clerkship experience and diverse backgrounds at a time when the administration is rapidly filing emergency requests at the high court.

Again, this is an example of the Deep State inadvertently revealing itself. If the Department of Justice values those things and thinks it will not be able to find them if it loyally serves the president, it is making a strong case that its offices are both partisan and elitist. There is no reason that the DOJ needs to recruit from "top law schools." Let's not fool ourselves, they aren't talking about a state university, they are talking Harvard, Stanford, Yale, etc. They are really saying they want highly credentialed leftists who want to run the country rather than practicing in "Big Law."

Fortunately, the Trump administration is rising to the challenge of finding lawyers who are willing to work to further the Trump agenda.

The Justice Department is building a roster of lawyers willing to defend in court the most controversial parts of President Donald Trump’s agenda, firing career attorneys whom leaders view as standing in their way and hiring dozens of political appointees to carry out the president’s agenda.

The new hires are already appearing on behalf of the government to defend Trump’s efforts to remake immigration policy and the federal workforce and to expand the powers of the presidency. They sometimes sit in front of judges alone, without the cadre of veteran attorneys who typically show up for big cases.

Some have prestigious conservative credentials, clerking for Supreme Court justices and top federal judges, according to a review of the new hires’ professional bios posted on LinkedIn. Others are fresh out of law school, taking on influential positions. Many honed their legal skills working for conservative state attorneys general during the Biden administration.

Their hiring reflects the Trump administration’s broad attempt across the executive branch to weaken the power of career staffers and build a workforce in the president’s ideological mold, according to a review of public statements and executive orders and interviews with current and former Justice Department officials, who, like some others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel decisions.

Hmmm. So, there are top-quality lawyers out there willing to work in the Department of Justice who aren't offended by the idea of working to further Trump's agenda? 

Battles like these are happening across the federal government: in the Department of Health and Human Services, at the Environmental Protection Agency, and even in the Armed Forces; see Top US Commander in Greenland Disavows Trump's Position to US and Danish Troops (Updated). The idea that only long-serving, ideologically driven elite law school graduates can adequately represent the United States in court is ridiculous, and you need only look at past performance for the proof.