Unprecedented Resignations Expose DOJ Turmoil
A quiet tension at the heart of the justice system broke into the open this spring, as three seasoned federal prosecutors resigned over what they called the politicization of a high-stakes corruption case. Celia Cohen, Andrew Rohrbach, and Derek Wikstrom didn’t just leave their jobs—they left behind a battleground scarred by unprecedented administrative pressure and an emboldened willingness by senior officials to override career legal ethics for apparent political gain. Their decision follows the forced dismissal of federal bribery and fraud charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, triggering a mass exodus making this the largest wave of DOJ attorney resignations since Watergate.
The Justice Department’s demand was as clear as it was chilling: admit wrongdoing for refusing to drop the Adams case—despite a lack of credible cause—or face indefinite suspension. When these prosecutors chose neither to comply nor to retreat quietly, they forced a rare public airing of a crisis inside an institution vital to the U.S. rule of law.
“We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none,” they wrote in a pointed resignation letter, drawing a line in the sand regarding prosecutorial independence. The backdrop to their revolt offers a lesson in how fragile that independence can be.
The Shadow of Political Influence: Quid Pro Quo Allegations Rock Prosecutorial Integrity
The drama unfolds against the fractious landscape of Trump-era politics, where the walls dividing justice and politics are increasingly porous. According to multiple accounts, including a story reported by Reuters, the DOJ—under Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche—pushed to dismiss the Adams case allegedly not on the merits but on its supposed value as a bargaining chip. In exchange for Adams’ acquiescence to Trump administration immigration priorities, the legal sword over his head would be quietly sheathed.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Hagan Scotten minced no words, calling the rationale for dropping the case “so weak as to be transparently pretextual.” The accusation? That the DOJ appeared more interested in transactional outcomes than legal truth. For Cohen, Rohrbach, and Wikstrom—veterans who had prosecuted cases through both Democratic and Republican administrations—this was a bridge too far. The House of Justice, they implied, had become a market.
Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, a frequent critic of creeping executive encroachment, warned recently that, “When career prosecutors are forced out for following the law, the only winners are those who wish to turn justice into a political weapon.”
Yet, the most damning criticisms came from within. Acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon reportedly prepared new, evidence-based charges against Adams, only to resign rather than squelch her own investigation—or silence her team under administrative threat. A closer look reveals a (growing rift between DOJ leadership and the backbone of American law enforcement).
“The role of a career prosecutor is not to set policy. But a prosecutor must abide by the oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the rules of professional ethics set by the bar and the courts.” — Joint letter from Cohen, Rohrbach, and Wikstrom
The rapidly drawn curtain over the Adams prosecution left questions, not convictions. U.S. District Judge Dale Ho, who dismissed the case entirely in April, asserted there was no evidence of misbehavior by the prosecutors—but the evidence of executive interference lingered in plain sight.
The Stakes: DOJ Independence, Rule of Law, and Democratic Trust
The resignation of over ten DOJ lawyers in this single episode signals a coordinated internal stand against what they view as ethical compromise. It also casts a long shadow over any claim that American justice can operate above partisan fray. History tells us that when prosecutors walk away en masse, democracy itself should take notice. The last time federal legal professionals resigned in such numbers—during the Watergate scandal—the episode marked the beginning of a national reckoning with executive overreach and the imperative for impartial justice.
What does all this mean for the public? For citizens weary from years of bitter partisanship and mounting distrust in institutions, the Adams case feels alarmingly familiar. It’s another object lesson in how corrosive “politics above principle” can be—how deeply it can undermine faith in our collective systems. As Harvard political scientist Theda Skocpol observes in her analysis of institutional decay, erosion rarely starts with a single, headline-grabbing event. Instead, it’s incremental: one pressurized resignation here, one dismissed case there, until the public wonders whether the law means anything at all.
This scandal lands amid longstanding progressive calls for restoring real accountability in America’s justice system. If the federal bar can be compelled to bend to executive will, rather than the Constitution, what chance does an everyday American have? History makes clear that two-tiered justice is no justice at all—and the only way forward is public vigilance and structural reform. Experts, including Norm Eisen of the Brookings Institution, urge the next administration to prioritize safeguards against political interference and foster a culture of transparency within the DOJ—a move long overdue.
Beyond the legal intricacies and competing media spin, this moment demands attention: When defending the rule of law costs a career, what remains of democracy’s promise? The answer depends on holding all public actors—prosecutors, presidents, and mayors alike—to standards rooted not in power, but principle.
