🚨 POWER PLAY SHOCKER: TRUMP’S AUDACIOUS NEW GRAB LEAVES PAM BONDI STUNNED — Betrayal Rumors Swirl as Inner Turmoil Escalates, Teasing Epic Fallout and Secret Maneuvers 😲
Washington — The Trump administration is moving toward dismantling a century-old Justice Department ethics standard that has long required federal prosecutors to step aside from cases in which they have a conflict of interest, a shift that legal scholars and former officials warn could fundamentally alter the balance between law enforcement and political power.
According to reporting cited by advocacy outlet Midas Touch News, the proposal would give the attorney general sole authority to determine whether Justice Department lawyers must recuse themselves from cases involving personal, financial, or political conflicts. The change would reverse a deeply embedded norm designed to insulate prosecutors from both actual bias and the appearance of impropriety.
The move comes as Donald Trump and his allies increasingly argue that institutional safeguards within the federal government have been weaponized to obstruct his policy agenda. Administration officials speaking anonymously described the recusal requirement as an unnecessary constraint that empowers what the president has frequently labeled the “deep state.”
“This rule ensures that the people hired to do a job actually do it,” one official said, according to the report, echoing a broader administration argument that ethics standards have been used selectively to slow-walk or block presidential priorities.
A Shift in the Justice Department’s Internal Firewall
Under current Justice Department policy, attorneys are required to withdraw from cases that present even the appearance of a conflict of interest — a principle codified in federal statute and reinforced through decades of internal guidance. The rule has been viewed as a cornerstone of prosecutorial independence, ensuring that legal decisions are driven by evidence and law rather than personal loyalty or political pressure.
The proposed change would upend that presumption. Instead of recusal being mandatory, it would become discretionary, with the final decision centralized in the office of the attorney general.
That office is currently led by Pam Bondi, a longtime Trump ally. Bondi has previously argued that nationwide court rulings and internal Justice Department checks have undermined the will of voters, a position that aligns with the administration’s broader campaign to curb judicial and bureaucratic constraints on executive power.
Legal experts say the shift would mark one of the most significant internal transformations of the department in decades.
“This is not a technical adjustment,” said one former senior Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid professional repercussions. “It is a structural change that concentrates power at the top and weakens one of the last remaining internal guardrails.”
Concerns Over Conflicts and Political Influence
The proposal has drawn heightened scrutiny because of the backgrounds of several senior Justice Department officials, including Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s personal defense attorney. Blanche has been publicly praised by the president for his loyalty and strategic judgment during Trump’s legal battles.
Critics argue that allowing political appointees or former personal lawyers to remain involved in sensitive cases without mandatory recusal could erode public trust in federal law enforcement.
“The legitimacy of the Justice Department depends on the perception — and the reality — that justice is administered impartially,” said a constitutional law professor at a major East Coast university. “Once that perception collapses, the damage is extremely difficult to undo.”
The issue has also intersected with renewed debate over high-profile cases involving figures connected to the Trump orbit, including matters related to Ghislaine Maxwell and the late Jeffrey Epstein, further amplifying concerns about conflicts of interest.
A Broader Pattern of Centralization
The ethics proposal fits into a broader pattern of governance under Trump, in which traditional checks on executive authority — from independent inspectors general to judicial oversight — have been portrayed as obstacles rather than safeguards.
In recent months, administration officials have openly discussed using federal funding as leverage against state and local governments that resist White House directives, and Trump has repeatedly criticized judges who issue nationwide injunctions against his policies.
Democratic lawmakers and voting rights groups warn that weakening internal Justice Department norms could have implications beyond the department itself, particularly as the country approaches critical midterm elections.
“This isn’t about one rule,” said a senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill. “It’s about whether the institutions that enforce the law can remain separate from the political interests of the person in power.”
What Comes Next
If the administration proceeds, the change would trigger a mandatory public comment period, during which legal organizations, former prosecutors, and civil liberties groups are expected to mount vigorous opposition. Court challenges are also likely, though their outcome would depend on how the rule is formally implemented.
For now, the proposal has reignited a familiar debate in Washington: whether efficiency and loyalty should outweigh independence and restraint — and how much of the Justice Department’s credibility can be altered before the consequences become irreversible.
As one former official put it, “Democracy doesn’t usually collapse in a single moment. It erodes when the rules meant to protect it are quietly rewritten.”
