17

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Gene Hamilton

T

he Department of Justice (DOJ) has a long and noble history. That history
began with the creation of the Office of the Attorney General pursuant to
the Judiciary Act of 17891 and has continued through the creation of thedepartment in 1870,2 the formation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in
1908,3 reforms following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and to the present day. Properly understood within the framework of a constitutional republicthat values ordered liberty, the Department of Justice has two primary functions:protecting public safety and defending the rule of law.
Unfortunately, the department has lost its way in recent years and has forfeitedthe trust of large segments of the American people. Large swaths of the department have been captured by an unaccountable bureaucratic managerial class andradical Left ideologues who have embedded themselves throughout its offices andcomponents. The department also suffers from institutional inattentiveness to its
core functions. Instead of being perceived as possessing the utmost impartiality
and fairness as it advances the national interest on behalf of the American people—
fighting crime and defending the rule of law—the DOJ has become a departmentthat 46.6 percent of Americans recently indicated is, in their view, “too political,
corrupt, and not to be trusted.”4
The weight of the publicly available evidence indicates that there are many reasons for this lack of trust. For example:l

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, knowing that claims of collusion
with Russia were false,5 collaborated with Democratic operatives to inject— 545 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

the story into the 2016 election through strategic media leaks, falsified
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications, and lied
to Congress.6
l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Personnel within the FBI engaged in a campaign to convince social media
companies and the media generally that the story about the contentsof Hunter Biden’s laptop was the result of a Russian misinformation
campaign—while the FBI had possession of the laptop the entire time andcould have clarified the authenticity of the source.7
The DOJ engaged in conduct to chill the free speech rights of parents acrossthe United States in response to supposed “threats” against school boards,8yet it failed to engage in any concerted campaign to protect the rightsof Americans who actually were terrorized by acts of violence like those
perpetrated against pregnancy care centers.9
The FBI tasked agents with monitoring social media and flagging content
they deemed to be “misinformation” or “disinformation” (not associatedwith any plausible criminal conspiracy to deprive anyone of any rights) for
platforms to remove.10
The FBI engaged in a domestic influence operation to pressure social media
companies to report more “foreign influence” than the FBI was actuallyseeing and stop the dissemination of and censor true information directly
related to the 2020 presidential election.11
The department has devoted unprecedented resources to prosecuting
American citizens for misdemeanor trespassing offenses or violations of the
FACE Act12 while dismissing prosecutions against radical agents of the Left
like Antifa.13
The department has consistently threatened that any conduct not aligningwith the liberal agenda “could” violate federal law—without actually taking
a position that the conduct in question is illegal—using the prospect of
protracted litigation and federal sanctions to chill disfavored behavior
such as with state efforts to restrict abortion14 or prevent genital mutilationof children.15
The department has sued multiple states regarding their efforts to enhanceelection integrity.16— 546 —

2025 Presidential Transition Projectll

The department has failed to do its part to stop the flood of fentanyl andother deadly drugs that are flowing across our borders and decimating
families and communities across the United States.17
The department has abdicated its responsibility to assist in the enforcementof our immigration laws and has engaged in wholescale abandonment of its
duty to adjudicate cases in the immigration court system.

These actions stand in stark contrast to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s
assertion before taking office that “there [must] not be one rule for Democrats andanother for Republicans, one rule for friends and another for foes.”18
While it is true, as it is with other federal departments and agencies, that there
are committed career personnel across the department who perform their duties
faithfully and with the best intentions, this small sampling of scandals illustrates
that the DOJ has become a bloated bureaucracy with a critical core of personnel who are infatuated with the perpetuation of a radical liberal agenda and thedefeat of perceived political enemies. It has become a Cabinet-level department
whose leadership appears to care more about how they are perceived in the next
Politico or Washington Post article, or their stature with any number of radical
leftist organizations, than they do about justice and advancing the interests of theAmerican people.
It is essential that the next conservative Administration place a high priority on
reforming the DOJ and its culture to align the department with its core purposes
and advance the national interest. Critically, this must include the FBI. Anythingother than a top-to-bottom overhaul will only further erode the trust of significant
portions of the American people and harm the very fabric that holds together ourconstitutional republic. At a practical level, not reforming the Department of Justice will also guarantee the failure of that conservative Administration’s agenda
in countless other ways.
Successful reform will require more than minor peripheral adjustments. It
will require a holistic, energetic, leadership-driven effort to remedy the damage
that has been done and advance the national interest. Additionally, some neededreforms will not be possible without legislative changes from Congress. While
it is true that certain offices and components—like the FBI or the Civil Rights
Division—will require more attention than others, committed direction from thedepartment’s political leadership can restore the department’s focus on its twocore functions: protecting public safety and defending the rule of law.
This chapter features prominently the things the department must do to restore
its focus on these functions. Of course, there are other important reforms that do
not necessarily fit within either of those core functions, so this chapter includes
an additional section to address those areas.

— 547 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

PRIORITIZING THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC SAFETY

Ordered liberty is at risk when our citizens lack physical safety, when career
criminals do not fear the law, when foreign cartels move narcotics and illegal
aliens into our nation at will, and when political leaders call citizens “domestic
terrorists” for exercising their constitutional rights. The Department of Justice—inpartnership with state and local partners—must recommit in both word and deed
to protecting public safety.
The overwhelming majority of crimes in the United States are properly handled
at the state and local levels,19 but the DOJ can provide critical technical support for
local law enforcement and play a critical agenda-setting role. With respect to the
Department’s core responsibilities—enforcing our immigration laws, combating
domestic and international criminal enterprises, protecting federal civil rights,
and combating foreign espionage—the federal government has primary authority
and, accordingly, accountability.
The evidence shows that the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice has
failed to protect law-abiding citizens and has ignored its most basic obligations. It
has become at once utterly unserious and dangerously politicized. Prosecution andcharging decisions are infused with racial and partisan political double standards.20
Immigration laws are ignored.21 The FBI harasses protesting parents (branded“domestic terrorists” by some partisans) while working diligently to shut downpolitically disfavored speech on the pretext of its being “misinformation” or “disinformation.”22 A department that prosecutes FACE Act cases while ignoring dozens
of violent attacks on pregnancy care centers and/or the coordinated violation oflaws that prohibit attempts to intimidate Supreme Court Justices by parading outside of their homes23 has clearly lost its way. A department that has twice engaged
in covert domestic election interference and propaganda operations—the Russian
collusion hoax in 2016 and the Hunter Biden laptop suppression in 2020—is athreat to the Republic.24lRestoring the department’s focus on public safety and a culture of respect
for the rule of law is a gargantuan task that will involve at minimum four
overriding actions:l

Restoring the FBI’s integrity.

lRenewing the DOJ’s focus on violent crime.

lDismantling domestic and international criminal enterprises.

lPursuing a national security agenda aimed at external state and non-state
actors, not U.S. citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

— 548 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

RESTORING THE FBI’S INTEGRITY

The FBI was founded in 1908 to “tackle national crime and security issues” when“there was hardly any systematic way of enforcing the law across this now broadlandscape of America.”25 It best serves the American people when it dedicates its
resources and energies to attacking violent crime,26 criminal organizations,27 childpredators,28 cyber-crime, and other uniquely federal interests.29
Revelations regarding the FBI’s role in the Russia hoax of 2016, Big Tech collusion, and suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020 strongly suggest that the
FBI is completely out of control. To protect the Constitution, fight crime effectively,
and protect the nation from foreign adversaries, the next conservative Administration should begin to restore the FBI’s domestic reputation and integrity andenhance its effectiveness in meeting actual foreign threats. To do so, the next conservative Administration should:llConduct an immediate, comprehensive review of all major active FBI
investigations and activities and terminate any that are unlawful
or contrary to the national interest.30 This is an enormous task, but it
is necessary to re-earn the American people’s trust in the FBI and its work.
To conduct this review, the department should detail attorney appointees
with criminal, national security, or homeland security backgrounds tocatalogue any questionable activities and elevate them to appropriate DOJ
leadership consistent with the new chain of command (discussed below).
The department should also consider issuing a public report of the findings
from this review as appropriate.
Align the FBI’s placement within the department and the federal
government with its law enforcement and national security
purposes. DOJ veterans often opine that the FBI views itself as anindependent agency—accountable to no one and on par with the Attorney
General in terms of stature—but the fact remains that “[t]he Federal
Bureau of Investigation is located in the Department of Justice.”31 It is
not independent from the department ( just as Immigration and Customs
Enforcement is not independent from the Department of Homeland
Security) and does not deserve to be treated as if it were.
The next conservative Administration should direct the Attorney General
to remove the FBI from the Deputy Attorney General’s direct supervision
within the department’s organizational chart and instead place it under
the general supervision of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal
Division and the supervision of the Assistant Attorney General for the
National Security Division, as applicable.32 This can be accomplished— 549 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

through a simple internal departmental reorganization and does not need tobe approved by Congress.
Such a structure would allow the FBI to play an important role in advising
the department’s leadership on emerging threats and updating notable
investigations through daily briefings conducted with the Criminal Division
and National Security Division leadership, but it would also place the FBI
under a politically accountable leader with fewer things to manage than the
Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General have. All notifications andapprovals that currently run to the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney
General should be evaluated and redirected in the first instance, whereappropriate, to the relevant Assistant Attorney General.
Such a move would better align the FBI with the mission of the divisions
with which it most often interacts and emphasize the need for the areas onwhich it should focus. In general, however, under no circumstances should
the FBI ever be able to go around the Attorney General or the department’s
leadership on any matter within its area of responsibility.
lProhibit the FBI from engaging, in general, in activities related
to combating the spread of so-called misinformation anddisinformation by Americans who are not tied to any plausible
criminal activity. The FBI, along with the rest of the government, needs
a hard reset on the appropriate scope of its legitimate activities. It must
not look to or rely on the past decade as precedent or legitimization forcontinued action in certain spaces. This is especially true with respect toactivities that the FBI and the U.S. government writ large claim are efforts tocombat “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation.”
The United States government and, by extension, the FBI have absolutely
no business policing speech, whether in the public square, in print, or
online. The First Amendment prohibits it. The United States is the world’s
last best hope for self-government,33 and its survival relies on the abilityof our people to have healthy debate free from government intervention
and censorship. The government, through its officials, is certainly able tospeak and provide information to the public. That is a healthy componentof an informed society. But government must never manipulate the scales
and censor information that is potentially harmful to it or its politicalleadership. This is the way of totalitarian dictatorships, not of freeconstitutional republics.

— 550 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

The DOJ needs a hard firewall between its legitimate activities (monitoring
online activity for potential threats in its mission space, looking at social
media profiles for evidence of intent or other criminal activity, etc.) andthose in which it must not engage (asking or demanding public forums or
publishers to remove material based on the content and/or viewpoints
expressed or itself censoring speech).
lllStreamline the non–law enforcement functions within the FBI, suchas its Office of General Counsel, and obtain those services from otheroffices within the department. The next conservative Administration
should eliminate any offices within the FBI that it has the power toeliminate without any action from Congress.34 For example, few Americans
know that the FBI maintains a core of approximately 300 attorneys within
its Office of General Counsel, an office that has been involved in some of theFBI’s most damaging recent scandals.35 These attorneys are not necessary
to the functioning of the FBI in their current capacity. Legal advice shouldcome from attorneys at the DOJ, whether those attorneys are within the
Criminal Division, the National Security Division, the Justice Management
Division, or the Office of Legal Counsel. Moving legal review outside the FBI
would serve as a crucial check on an agency that has recently pushed pastlegal boundary after legal boundary. Similarly, the FBI does not need its own
Office of Congressional Affairs separate and apart from the DOJ Office ofLegislative Affairs, nor does it need its own Office of Public Affairs.
Emphasize, fund, and reward field offices while shrinking
headquarters staff. While the FBI has essential headquarters functions
that must be fulfilled and should likely be fulfilled by a team in Washington,
D.C., the next conservative Administration should make a priority of
deploying, funding, and rewarding the work of the field offices to thegreatest extent possible. The Department of Justice must value badges overbureaucracy, must rethink its internal reporting structures, and should aim
to realign the FBI’s resources accordingly.
Submit a legislative proposal to Congress to eliminate the 10-year
term for the Director. After J. Edgar Hoover’s decades-long term as FBI
Director came to an end following his death in 1972, and in light of oversightconducted by Congress into alleged Intelligence Community and FBI
abuses in the 1970s, Congress limited the Director’s tenure to one “tenyear term.”36 The realities of the FBI’s abuses and overreach in recent years
demonstrate that further reform is still necessary.

— 551 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

The Director of the FBI must remain politically accountable to the
President in the same manner as the head of any other federal department
or agency. To ensure prompt political accountability and to rein in perceived
or actual abuses, the next conservative Administration should seek alegislative change to align the FBI Director’s position with those of theheads of all other major departments and agencies.
RENEWING THE DEPARTMENT’S FOCUS ON VIOLENT CRIME

Despite the DOJ’s pronouncements that violent crime continues to be a top priority, it has increased across the United States. The department’s leadership must
make actually reducing violent crime a priority across the United States—and it
must do so in partnership with state and local officials in a manner that is tailoredto the needs and conditions in those states and localities.
Targeting Violent and Career Criminals, Not Parents. The next conservative Administration must ensure that the Department of Justice devotes significant
effort to reducing violent crime nationwide. The Attorney General should require
all U.S. Attorneys to develop a jurisdictional-specific plan—whenever possible incoordination with state and local law enforcement—to reduce violent crime withineach of their districts. Then the Attorney General should hold each U.S. Attorney
accountable for achieving actual results.
In recent years, federal and state officials have succumbed to calls fromanti–law enforcement advocates for so-called criminal justice reform. The pleasant-sounding terminology of reform masks the darker reality of this movement,
which is one that has supported dismantling effective federal, state, and local
law enforcement and stripped away some of the most fundamental tools that law
enforcement has long had at its disposal. This campaign is not just ill-advised; it
has clearly had real-world consequences in the form of catastrophic increases incrime—particularly violent crime—nationwide. As discussed in the next section,
the Department of Justice has a special obligation to restore law and order insuch districts.37
Juxtaposed against this increase in violent crime are things like Attorney General Merrick Garland’s October 4, 2021, memorandum directing the commitmentof significant resources and energies to combating imaginary, politically convenient threats of violence toward members of school boards and their staffs during
the heat of the Virginia gubernatorial race.38 There was no similar effort to investigate elected officials and other public officers who conspired with outside allies
to target and harass parents who were merely exercising their constitutional andstatutory rights.39 If we are to continue to have informed and civil dialogue in the
United States on issues of public concern, the DOJ must enforce applicable civilrights laws in an even-handed way when citizens’ livelihoods are threatened merely
because they have exercised their rights.

— 552 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

Enhancing the Federal Focus on and Resources in Jurisdictions with
Rule-of-Law Deficiencies. A disturbing number of state and local jurisdictions
have enacted policies that directly undermine public safety, leave doubt about
whether criminals will be punished, and weaken the rule of law. While the prosecution of criminal offenses in most jurisdictions across the country must remain
the responsibility of state and local governments, the federal government owes a
special responsibility to Americans in jurisdictions where state and local prosecutors have abdicated this duty.40
Jurisdictions suffering from deficiencies in the rule of law warrant, as appropriate within our federal system, greater attention and additional federal resourcesthat are sufficient to protect the rights of American citizens and federal interests.
In the next conservative Administration, the DOJ, acting primarily through its U.S.
Attorneys, should therefore:lll

Use applicable federal laws to bring federal charges against
criminals when local jurisdictions wrongfully allow them to evade
responsibility for their conduct.41 The department should also increase
the federal law enforcement presence in such jurisdictions and explore
innovative solutions to bring meaningful charges against criminals andcriminal organizations in such jurisdictions.
Where warranted and proper under federal law, initiate legal action
against local officials—including District Attorneys—who deny
American citizens the “equal protection of the laws” by refusing toprosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions. This holds true
particularly for jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the law against criminals
based on the Left’s favored defining characteristics of the would-be offender(race, so-called gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) or other politicalconsiderations (e.g., immigration status).
Pursue policies and legislation that encourage prosecution ofviolent crimes as well as appropriate sentences for such offenses.
The Biden Administration has adopted policies that do not prevent armed
career criminals, who actually commit violent crimes, from committing
those crimes. A recent U.S. Sentencing Commission report shows that
armed career criminals are consistently sentenced below their minimum
sentencing guidelines range.42
There are valid reasons for sentence reductions in particular cases (forexample, if the defendant has provided substantial assistance in prosecuting
other offenders). At the same time, the DOJ must ensure that its line

— 553 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

attorneys are consistently using the tools at their disposal in cases withviolent offenders, including pursuing mandatory minimum sentences underthe Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).43 The department should also
support legislative efforts to provide further tools, such as the Restoring theArmed Career Criminal Act, which Senators Tom Cotton (R–AR), Marsha
Blackburn (R–TN), and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R–MS) introduced in 2021 inresponse to U.S. Supreme Court decisions neutering the ACCA.44l

Enforce the death penalty where appropriate and applicable. Capital
punishment is a sensitive matter, as it should be, but the current crime
wave makes deterrence vital at the federal, state, and local levels. However,providing this punishment without ever enforcing it provides justice neither
for the victims’ families nor for the defendant. The next conservative
Administration should therefore do everything possible to obtain finality forthe 44 prisoners currently on federal death row. It should also pursue thedeath penalty for applicable crimes—particularly heinous crimes involving
violence and sexual abuse of children—until Congress says otherwise
through legislation.45

DISMANTLING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES

Criminal organizations are as old as crime itself, but are more extensive,
sophisticated, and dangerous today than at any other point in history. The
Department of Justice has a key role in tackling transnational criminal organizations like Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Mexican drug cartels as well as
purely domestic criminal organizations like those built on the more traditional
mafia crime model as part of its obligation to ensure the safety and security of
the American people.
The department’s primary directive under the next Administration should beto return to an unapologetic focus on dismantling these criminal organizations
and incarcerating their membership. Once this reprioritization occurs, the department’s political leadership should take concrete steps to use agency reach andresources to prevent these criminal organizations from operating and surviving.
Assaulting the business model of these criminal organizations—which are massive,
diversified enterprises with nationwide or international operations—is essential
for success. The next Administration will therefore need to:lRevitalize the DOJ’s use of the array of statutory tools that exist for
dealing with the threat of criminal organizations. The most potent
ones are the simplest. For example, the department should:— 554 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project1.

Rigorously prosecute as much interstate drug activity as possible,
including simple possession of distributable quantities.46 Recent efforts
to create the impression that drug possession crimes are not serious
offenses has contributed to the explosion of criminal organization
activities in the United States.

2. Aggressively deploy the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO),47 which Congress expressly created toempower the Department of Justice to treat patterns of intrastatelevel crimes, such as robbery, extortion, and murder, as federal
criminal conduct for criminal organizations and networks. The next
Administration can use existing tools while it works with Congress todevelop new tools.
lSecure the border,48 which is the key entry point for many criminalorganizations and their supplies, products, and employees. Mexico—
which is arguably functioning as a failed state run by drug cartels—is
the main point of transit for illegal drugs produced in Central and SouthAmerica, fentanyl precursors from the Chinese Communist Party–led
People’s Republic of China,49 weapons, human smuggling and trafficking,and other contraband. Mexican drug cartels, including the dominantSinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), are the main
drivers of fentanyl production and distribution in the United States. The
southwestern land border is sufficiently porous that Mexican drug cartels
have operational control of large sections of the border, which facilitateseasy movement of product and personnel. These cartels are also violent andnot afraid to demonstrate force on both sides of the border. Their conduct
represents a clear and present danger to the United States and its citizens.
In addition to finalizing the southwestern land border wall, the next
Administration should take a creative and aggressive approach to tacklingthese dangerous criminal organizations at the border. This could include
use of active-duty military personnel and National Guardsmen to assist
in arrest operations along the border—something that has not yet been
done. A new and forceful approach to interdiction will have a ripple effecton the operations of these criminal organizations, which currently operate
freely without concern for criminal prosecution, and will lay the necessary
groundwork for initial prosecutions of these organizations and their leaders.
It is critical that the federal government staunch the flow of drugs by
preventing the far-too-easy access to the United States that now exists.

— 555 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

There can be no serious dispute that the Biden Administration has opened
the southwest border to whomever wants to enter and that some of thoseentrants are smuggling fentanyl into the country. More than 100,000
Americans died in a one-year period from opioid overdoses, and many ofthem died specifically from having used fentanyl.50 The federal government
should treat this problem as aggressively as necessary. Enforcing thecustoms and immigration laws is a matter of life and death.
PURSUING A NATIONAL SECURITY AGENDA AIMED AT
EXTERNAL STATE AND NON-STATE ACTORS, NOT U.S.
CITIZENS EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTSThe Department of Justice plays a vital role in protecting our national security,and it must not refrain from engaging in public initiatives that identify our adversaries and educate the American people about their activities.
The DOJ’s China Initiative under President Trump reflected the department’s
priority of combating Chinese threats to our national security.51 Because China
was accountable for approximately 80 percent of all prosecutions for economic
espionage and approximately 60 percent of all thefts of trade secrets, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions set key goals for the China Initiative that included
development of an enforcement strategy concerning researchers in labs anduniversities who were being coopted into stealing critical U.S. technologies, identification of opportunities to address supply-chain threats more effectively, andeducation of colleges and universities about potential threats from Chinese influence efforts on campus.
In February 2022, the Biden Administration terminated the department’s China
Initiative largely out of a concern for poor “optics.”52 While the Biden Administration correctly identified China as America’s “only competitor with both the intent
to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic,
military, and technological power to do it,”53 it folded in the face of political correctness and sent the message that liberal sensitivities outweighed bringing justiceto threats from China. The next conservative Administration should therefore:lllRestart the China Initiative.
Pursue other programs to educate the American people about thereal and dangerous threats to our national security and economic
security that are posed by actors across the globe, most notably
China and Iran.
Ensure that it is agile enough to devote sufficient resources andattention to other emerging threats that involve federal interests— 556 —

2025 Presidential Transition Projectsuch as increases in “sextortion,” ransomware, and the continued
proliferation of child pornography.
DEFENDING THE RULE OF LAW

The DOJ’s actions over the course of the Biden Administration exhibit scorn for
its stated mission: “to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights.”54 The Biden Administration’s unprecedented politicization andweaponization of the department therefore demand a comprehensive response
from the next Administration.
Restoration of the department’s values of independence, impartiality, honesty,
integrity, respect, and excellence must serve as first principles for its efforts on all
fronts. Concretely, the DOJ must identify and address all individuals, policies, anddirectives that have fueled the destruction of these core values and the American
people’s loss of trust in the department and its officials. The next Administration
will need to exert significant energy to dismantle the two-tiered system of justicecurrently in place at the department while simultaneously applying the rule of law
evenly and with neutrality.
Specific examples of department corruption, such as the Russia collusion
hoax, will need to be tackled, exposed, and addressed head-on. This will require
not just winning in a court of law, but also demonstrating culpability to the public
and the media in a concrete and nonrefutable manner. These efforts will requirecommitment and willpower, but they will be essential to restoring the trust of theAmerican people.
Promptly and Properly Eliminating Lawless Policies, Investigations, andCases, Including All Existing Consent Decrees. Few things undermine the
DOJ’s credibility more than brazenly partisan and ideologically driven prosecutionof an Administration’s perceived political enemies, yet the department has readily
indulged in such misadventures during the Biden Administration. Before evenentering the Robert F. Kennedy building on January 20, 2025, the next Administration should:lll

Conduct a thorough review of all publicly available policies,
investigations, and cases.
In a manner consistent with applicable law, prepare a plan to end
immediately any policies, investigations, or cases that run contrary
to law or Administration policies.
Ensure that upon the next President’s inauguration, appointees atthe department obtain information about anything that was notlearned before taking office and conduct the same analysis.
— 557 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

An egregious example of the need for such a review is provided by the department’s use of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act55 to harass
pro-life demonstrators while not pursuing similar investigations of shocking actsof violence committed against pro-life pregnancy resource centers. On the morningof September 23, 2022, pro-life activist Mark Houck was arrested by more than
15 FBI agents at his home in Pennsylvania in front of his wife and small children.
Agents came to his door with guns drawn to arrest the 48-year-old father of seven
whose alleged crime involved a minor altercation with an activist who was harassing one of his children in front of an abortion clinic almost one year before Mr.
Houck’s arrest by the FBI.56 Similarly, Paul Vaughn, a 55-year-old father of 11, wasarrested at his home in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, by armed FBI agents for allegedly
participating in a peaceful protest at an abortion clinic one year earlier.57
These arrests stand in stark contrast to the department’s virtual silence on the
wave of vandalism and violence directed at religiously affiliated institutions, including pregnancy resource centers, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs
v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.58 The Catholic News Agency reported
more than one hundred such incidents as of September 2022.59
By engaging in disparate and viewpoint-based enforcement of an already controversial law like the FACE Act against pro-life activists, the DOJ has needlessly
undermined its credibility with law-abiding people of faith. The department shouldmake every effort to uphold equal protection of the law and avoid politically motivated and viewpoint-based prosecutions. Specifically, it should:
l

l

l

l

l

Ensure that its review extends beyond ending the absurd double
standards embodied in the ongoing campaign of FACE Act
prosecutions and instead be a thorough and holistic review of all DOJ
activities, including all consent degrees and settlement agreements
currently in force.
Seek to terminate any unnecessary or outdated consent decree towhich the United States is a party.
Consider pursuing intervention in other matters where consent
decrees or settlement agreements continue to bind parties years or
decades after the fact.
As its review concludes, and consistent with applicable law, takeappropriate action in all cases, including those on appeal.
Enact policies and regulations that prohibit settlement payments tothird parties.
— 558 —

2025 Presidential Transition ProjectEngaging in Zealous Advocacy for and Defense of the Constitution andLawful Administration Regulations and Policies. The Department of Justice has the exclusive responsibility for the “conduct of litigation in which theUnited States, an agency, or officer thereof”60 is involved and has been charged
with the supervision of “all litigation to which the United States, an agency, or
officer thereof is a party.”61 However, in politically contentious cases, AssistantUnited States Attorneys and other line prosecutors during conservative Administrations seek to influence outcomes of cases not because of any legal deficiency
in the case or policy being defended, but by refusing to take certain positions, by
writing public letters of protest, and by engaging in faux resignations from certain
internal appointments. This can cause the department to take positions that areinconsistent with the interests of the President and his appointees in other places
throughout the Administration.
While the supervision of litigation is a DOJ responsibility, the department falls
under the direct supervision and control of the President of the United States as acomponent of the executive branch. Thus, and putting aside criminal prosecutions
that can warrant different treatment, litigation decisions must be made consistent
with the President’s agenda. This can force line attorneys to take uncomfortable
positions in civil cases because those positions are more closely aligned with the
President’s policy agenda.
Ultimately, the department will have to make tough calls as it manages its litigation, but those calls must always be consistent with the President’s policy agenda
and the rule of law. A line attorney should never either directly or indirectly pursue
a policy agenda through litigation that is inconsistent with the agenda of his or her
client agency or the President. The department should also be cognizant of any
attempts to slow litigation and outlast the Administration to avoid finality. The
next conservative Administration should therefore:llIssue guidance to ensure that litigation decisions are consistent with
the President’s agenda and the rule of law.
Ensure that, consistent with this principle, the department’s
leadership is prepared to impose appropriate disciplinary action as
circumstances arise.

Affirming the Separation of Powers. Federal courts have jurisdiction to deal
with a wide array of issues in law and equity in the United States. The increasingly aggressive posture of federal courts does not change one constitutionallyimmutable fact: All three branches of the federal government retain not just theright, but the obligation to assess constitutionality. It is this obligation that is thefoundation of the separation of powers.

— 559 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

The next conservative Administration should embrace the Constitution andunderstand the obligation of the executive branch to use its independent resources
and authorities to restrain the excesses of both the legislative and judicial branches.
This will mean ensuring that the leadership of the Department of Justice and its
components understand the separation of powers, that pushback among thebranches is a positive feature and not a defect of our system, and that the federal
system is strengthened, not weakened, by disagreement among the branches.
One example includes potentially seeking the overruling of Humphrey's Executor v. United States.62 This case approved so-called independent agencies whose
directors are not removable by the President at will. The Supreme Court has
chipped away at Humphrey's Executor in cases like Seila Law v. Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau,63 but the precedent remains. The next conservative Administration should formally take the position that Humphrey's Executor violates theConstitution's separation of powers.
Zealously Guarding Other Constitutional Protections. The next conservative Administration must ensure that the DOJ zealously guards the constitutionalrights of all Americans in all that it does. This extends not only to rights implicatedin the department’s criminal activities, but to all rights enjoyed by the American
people—such as the First Amendment. The department should reject any invitation to limit these fundamental promises based on the political ideology of the
speech at issue.
A recent Supreme Court case illustrates the problems that arise when the DOJ
takes a cramped interpretation of the First Amendment in service of a political
ideology. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the department argued in favor of thegovernment’s ability to coerce and compel what the lower courts all found to be
pure speech.64 The oral argument made clear the department’s view that it was
the viewpoint expressed that gave the government power to censor and compel
speech. During oral argument, the United States took the remarkable position
that government can compel a Christian website designer to imagine, create, andpublish a custom website celebrating same-sex marriage but cannot compel anLGBT person to design a similar website celebrating opposite-sex marriage.65 In
the government’s view, declining to create the latter website was based on an objection to the message, while the former was based on status rather than message,
but this argument inevitably turns on the viewpoint expressed. It means that the
government gets to decide which viewpoints are protected and which are not—afrightening and blatantly unconstitutional proposition.
Just as troubling, the government’s arguments against free speech are not limited to the facts of 303 Creative. As Colorado admitted to the lower courts, all sorts
of artists and speakers like speechwriters, photographers, and videographers can becompelled to design custom messages that violate their most fundamental convictions as long as it serves a certain viewpoint that the government wants to promote.

— 560 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

In fact, it was only a few years ago, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, that the government acknowledged the constitutional problems involved in compelling artists
to speak government-favored messages. In that case, the United States acknowledged “a basic First Amendment principle that ‘freedom of speech prohibits thegovernment from telling people what they must say.’”66 The department had it
right when it argued that the government may not “compel the dissemination of
its own preferred message,” because the First Amendment protects the “individual
freedom of mind.”67 It was also correct when it argued that “[a]n artist cannot beforced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced
to write.”68 The United States’ directly contrary position in 303 Creative is hard
to explain based on anything other than its support for the message the State ofColorado was attempting to compel.
It is black letter law that no official “can prescribe what shall be orthodox…orforce citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”69 Rather, the First
Amendment places “the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into thehands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce amore capable citizenry and more perfect polity.”70 As the Supreme Court has noted,
government officials have frequently sought to “coerce uniformity of sentimentin support of some end thought essential to their time and country.”71 In the faceof such attempts to coerce orthodoxy, the DOJ should maintain its commitment
to upholding the Constitution’s neutral principles of free speech, which commit
the government “to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth
will ultimately prevail.”72
Pursuing Equal Protection for All Americans by Vigorously Enforcing
Applicable Federal Civil Rights Laws in Government, Education, and thePrivate Sector. Entities across the private and public sectors in the United States
have been besieged in recent years by an unholy alliance of special interests, radicals in government, and the far Left. This unholy alliance speaks in platitudes
about advancing the interests of certain segments of American society, but that
advancement comes at the expense of other Americans and in nearly all cases violates long-standing federal law.
Even though numerous federal laws prohibit discrimination based on notable
immutable characteristics such as race and sex,73 the Biden Administration—
through the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and other federal entities—has enshrined
affirmative discrimination in all aspects of its operations under the guise of “equity.”
Federal agencies and their components have established so-called diversity, equity,and inclusion (DEI) offices that have become the vehicles for this unlawful discrimination, and all departments and agencies have created “equity” plans to carry out
these invidious schemes.74 To reverse this trend, the next conservative Administration should:— 561 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative PromisellEnsure that the DOJ spearheads an initiative demonstrating thefederal government’s commitment to nondiscrimination. The
department should also lead a whole-of-government recommitment tonondiscrimination and should be working with all other federal agencies,
boards, and commissions to ensure that they are both complying withconstitutional and legal requirements and using their authorities andfunding to prevent discrimination not only internally, but also at thestate, local, and private-sector levels. This will require particularly close
coordination with several key agencies, including such obvious candidates
as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; the Departmentsof Defense, Education, and Housing and Urban Development; and the
Securities and Exchange Commission. It will also require enforcing
contractual requirements that prohibit discrimination on federal
contractors.
Reorganize and refocus the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to serve as thevanguard for this return to lawfulness. The Attorney General and other
DOJ political leadership should provide the resources and moral support
needed for these efforts. The Civil Rights Division should spend its first year
under the next Administration using the full force of federal prosecutorial
resources to investigate and prosecute all state and local governments,
institutions of higher education, corporations, and any other private
employers who are engaged in discrimination in violation of constitutional
and legal requirements.

Announcing a Campaign to Enforce the Criminal Prohibitions in 18 U.S.
Code §§ 1461 and 1462 Against Providers and Distributors of Abortion Pills
That Use the Mail. Federal law prohibits mailing “[e]very article, instrument,
substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner
calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion.”75 Following
the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, there is now no federal prohibition on theenforcement of this statute. The Department of Justice in the next conservative
Administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against
providers and distributors of such pills.
Reassigning Responsibility for Prosecuting Election-Related Offenses
from the Civil Rights Division to the Criminal Division. The Attorney General in the next conservative Administration should reassign responsibility forprosecuting violations of 18 U.S. Code § 24176 from the Civil Rights Division to
the Criminal Division where it belongs. Otherwise, voter registration fraud andunlawful ballot correction will remain federal election offenses that are neverappropriately investigated and prosecuted.77— 562 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

Voter fraud includes unlawful practices concerning voter registration and ballot
correction. When state legislatures are silent as to procedures for absentee ballot
curing or provide specific rules governing that curing, neither counties nor courts
may create a cure right where one does not exist, may not modify the law on curing,and certainly cannot engage in creating consent orders with the force of law thatare inconsistent with the orders of other similarly situated counties.
The DOJ has ceded substantial discretion concerning voter suppression to
the Civil Rights Division. Since the Bush Administration, DOJ leadership hasdetermined that using the Election Crimes Branch to prosecute fraudulent voter
registration, including mail-in ballot fraud, was too politically costly.78 The Criminal Division’s Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses handbook advised that
schemes that violated equal protection constituted “voter suppression” prosecutable under 18 U.S. Code § 241 as part of the guidelines for which the department’s
criminal prosecutors were trained.79 State-based investigations of election crimes
are supposed to be referred to the Public Integrity Section for review. Historically,
18 U.S. Code § 241 (conspiracy against rights) was used as a basis for investigatingstate officials whose statements or orders violated the equal protection rights ofvoters or deliberately misinformed voters concerning the eligibility of their ballots.
Nevertheless, the Department of Justice has formalized the Civil Rights Division’s (as opposed to the Criminal Division’s) jurisdiction over 18 U.S. Code § 241
investigations and prosecutions. The Criminal Division is no longer involved inconsultation or review of 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations.80 The Criminal Division
has accordingly advised states that “[i]n the case of a crime of violence or intimidation,” they should “call 911 immediately and before contacting federal authorities”
because “[s]tate and local police have primary jurisdiction over polling places,”81
despite clearly applicable federal law.
This is a mistake. With respect to the 2020 presidential election, there were no
DOJ investigations of the appropriateness or lawfulness of state election guidance.
Consider the state of Pennsylvania. The Secretary of State sent guidance to thecounties stating that:
This revised guidance addresses the issuance, voting and examinationof provisional ballots under the Election Code. Provisional ballots wereoriginally mandated by section 302 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002
(HAVA). Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 77 of 2019 went into
effect for the 2020 Primary election. Provisional ballot amendments included
in Act 12 of 2020 go into effect for the first time on November 3, 2020.82

HAVA, however, mandates provisional ballots only for eligible voters who were
not on a state’s voter registration list.83 It does not apply to those who registeredfor mail-in voting but whose ballots were rejected due to some form of spoliation.

— 563 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

Pennsylvania Act 12 (amended in 2020) does not authorize curing by providing
provisional ballots for mail-in voters whose ballots were rejected. Act 12 requires,as part of the mail-in application process, an affidavit that:[The elector] shall not be eligible to vote at a polling place on election day
unless the elector brings the elector’s mail-in ballot to the elector’s pollingplace, remits the ballot and the envelope containing the declaration of theelector to the judge of elections to be spoiled and signs a statement subject
to the penalties under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification toauthorities) to the same effect.84

The law in Pennsylvania clearly states that no county may affirmatively provide
provisional ballots: The mail-in voter must vote in person and sign a new affidavit.
In the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that “the Election
Code contains no requirement that voters whose ballots are deemed inadequately
verified be apprised of this fact. Thus, unlike in-person voters, mail-in or absentee
voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects in a timely manner.”85 Given the Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s use of guidance to circumvent
state law, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State should have been (and still should be)investigated and prosecuted for potential violations of 18 U.S. Code § 241.
Investigations and prosecutions under 18 U.S. Code § 241 are currently within
the jurisdictional oversight of the Civil Rights Division, not the Criminal Division.86
Only by moving authority for 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions
back to the Criminal Division will the rule of law be appropriately enforced.
Rejecting Third-Party Requests for Politically Motivated Investigations
or Prosecutions. The DOJ should reject demands from third-party groups thatask it to threaten politically motivated investigation or prosecution of those engaging in lawful and, in many cases, constitutionally protected activity. By acceding tosuch demands, the department risks diminishing its credibility with the American
public. This risk is exacerbated by the fact that communications between government officials and third-party groups are generally unprotected by privilege andsubject to disclosure, whether via subpoena to the third-party group or via request
made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. These communications caneven be made public voluntarily by the third-party group.
A recent example illustrates the risks posed by such activity. On October 4, 2021,
Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum to the Director of theFBI, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the Assistant Attorney General,
Criminal Division, calling on the FBI to work with each U.S. Attorney to “convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders” to discuss
strategies for addressing “threats against school administrators, board members,
teachers, and staff.”87 Subsequent reporting and investigation revealed that the— 564 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

memorandum was prompted by a September 29, 2021, letter sent by the National
School Boards Association (NSBA) to President Biden demanding a federal law
enforcement response to perceived threats to school board members and public-school employees.
The NSBA letter made outlandish demands in response to protests that werethen occurring at school board meetings in response to COVID policies and revelations about the use of critical race theory–infused curricula in classrooms. Amongthe letter’s demands was a call for a federal investigation into parents’ actions (“heinous actions” that “could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism andhate crimes”) under a variety of federal laws including the “Gun-Free Zones Act,
the PATRIOT Act in regards to domestic terrorism, the Matthew Shepard andJames Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes and Prevention Act, the Violent Interference with
Federally Protected Rights statute, and the Conspiracy Against Rights statute”
and “an Executive Order to enforce all applicable federal laws for the protectionof students and public school district personnel, and any related measure.”88
Both the Attorney General’s memorandum and the NSBA letter drew swift
public condemnation, including from 14 sitting state Attorneys General.89 A subsequent internal investigation commissioned by the NSBA revealed that officials
at the White House had been in discussions with NSBA officials about the contentsof the letter weeks before it was issued. The investigation also revealed that WhiteHouse officials indicated they planned to raise the contents of the draft letter with
DOJ officials a full week before the NSBA’s letter was issued.90
This cooperation by a third-party group, the White House, and the DOJ to craft
and coordinate a response to an ill-advised and politically motivated letter undermines the department’s credibility as an impartial law enforcement agency. In thewords of the 14 state Attorneys General who wrote to oppose the department’s
memorandum, “potential collusion between the White House, the Department,
and the NSBA in the actual creation of the September 29 letter—as a pretext for
threats against parents—raises serious concerns.”91
The DOJ should carefully scrutinize all requests for law enforcement assistance and reject requests by third parties to engage in political grandstanding that
ignores the department’s traditional jurisdictional limits and that would trample
politically controversial but constitutionally protected activity.
Ensuring Proper Distribution of DOJ Grant Funds. DOJ grants are anunderutilized asset in most conservative Administrations. When used properly,
they can be highly effective in implementing the President’s priorities. The Officeof Justice Programs (OJP) is comprised of six components and is responsible formost DOJ grants to local law enforcement, juvenile justice, and victims of crime
as well as for criminal justice research and statistics. The opportunity to support
a President’s agenda may be greater through OJP grant funding than it is throughany of the federal government’s other grant-making components.

— 565 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

Consistent with appropriations from Congress, the OJP dispenses approximately $7 billion in various grants. Block grants are given to a state to be awarded
pursuant to federal regulations. Some funds to support law enforcement andvictims of crime are awarded pursuant to block grants. But most OJP funds areawarded through discretionary grants—specific programs written into the budget
by Congress.
Although Congress dictates the way in which many grant awards are to be
made, federal staff enjoy a tremendous amount of discretion in adding “conditions”
and “priority points.” Grants operate with a carrot and a stick. To receive grantfunding, a recipient must agree to certain conditions, which in many instances
include the President’s priorities. For instance, under an anti–human trafficking
grant during the Obama Administration (approximately $110 million in 2020), anawardee had to show a partnership with an LGBTQ organization and always havean interpreter on site. These conditions worked to change culture and overlayed
President Obama’s priorities: support for the LGBTQ community and for more of
the funding to go to areas with large immigrant populations.
During the Trump Administration, a condition added to grants stated that anawardee had to comply with all federal law (stock language), including federal law
regarding the exchange of information between federal and local authorities about
an individual’s immigration status. This condition prevented law enforcementin “sanctuary cities” from receiving grant awards. While the Trump Administration suffered a series of setbacks from several hostile courts, it obtained from theSecond Circuit Court of Appeals a decision upholding the department’s authority
to impose these conditions.92
To ensure that taxpayer-funded grants are prioritized and distributed properly,
the next conservative Administration should:llConduct an immediate, comprehensive review of all federal grant
disbursals to ensure not only that the programs are being properly
administered by the department, but also that the grant funding isbeing received and used properly by recipients.
Order an overhaul of the DOJ grant application process, to include
more rigorous vetting of state, local, and private grant applicants andinclusion of more pre-application criteria to ensure baseline fitness
and eligibility for federal grant dollars. This long-overdue enhancementof the grant application and issuance process will ensure that hard-earned
taxpayer dollars are going only to lawful actors who support federal law
enforcement and demonstrate the ability and willingness to engage inlawful activities.

— 566 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

Ensuring Proper Enforcement and Administration of Our Immigration
Laws. Although its role has changed over the years, most notably following thepassage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,93 the Department of Justice plays
a crucial role in the enforcement and adjudication of our immigration laws.94 Its
leadership and energy, however, have not always reflected the importance placed
by Congress on the execution of that crucial mission. With a few notable exceptions,
successful fulfillment of the department’s responsibilities with respect to immigration was largely neglected until the Trump Administration. The Departmentof Homeland Security may be the largest federal department with immigration
responsibilities, but successful fulfillment of the responsibilities prescribed by
the immigration laws is not possible without bold and dedicated action by the
Department of Justice.
The DOJ and its leadership must intentionally prioritize fulfillment of thedepartment’s immigration-related responsibilities in the next conservative Administration. This will be no small task, as these responsibilities play out across nearly
every DOJ office and component. If they hope to fulfill their responsibilities asassigned by Congress and deliver results for the American people, the department
and the Attorney General should:lllIssue guidance to all U.S. Attorneys emphasizing the importanceof prosecuting immigration offenses,95 and immigration-related
offenses. The brunt of these offenses is born by districts along thesouthwestern border with Mexico, but the simple fact remains that
immigration and immigration-related offenses are present in every
district across the country. Successfully pursuing the priorities outlinedin this chapter will require creative use of the various immigration andimmigration-related authorities in close partnership with the Departmentof Homeland Security, the Department of State, and other appropriate
federal entities depending on the situation.
Pursue appropriate steps to assist the Department of Homeland
Security in obtaining information about criminal aliens injurisdictions across the United States, particularly those inside“sanctuary” jurisdictions.
Examine and consider the appropriateness of withdrawing or
overturning every immigration decision rendered by Attorney
General Garland (and any successor Attorney General during
President Biden’s term). The Attorney General should pick up where theAttorneys General under President Trump left off and exercise his or her
authority to adjudicate cases and provide guidance in appropriate cases to— 567 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

correct erroneous decisions, provide clarity, and align Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR) decisions with the law.
l

l

l

l

l

l

At a minimum, pursue through rulemaking—and in partnershipwith the Department of Homeland Security where appropriate—the
promulgation of every rule related to immigration that was issued
during the Trump Administration. Such rulemakings include guidanceon continuances in immigration court cases, eligibility for asylum, andother related matters. However, the DOJ should not stop there: It should
continually evaluate its authorities and operational reality within theimmigration court system and promulgate regulations accordingly.
Commit sufficient resources to the adjudication of cases in theimmigration court system in different environments (for example, inthe context of the Migrant Protection Protocols).
Pursue proactive litigation to advance the federal government’s
interests in areas where erroneous precedent curtails authorities
provided by Congress (for example, by pursuing the overturning of
the Flores Settlement Agreement).
Pursue aggressive enforcement of the immigration laws within the
Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division
to ensure that no American citizen is discriminated against in theemployment context in favor of a temporary or foreign worker.96
Ensure the deployment and use of appointees throughout the
department who are committed to successful achievement of thedepartment’s immigration-related missions. This includes personnel inor overseeing not only the EOIR, but also the Office of the Attorney General,
Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Associate Attorney
General, Office of the Solicitor General, and nearly every other component/
office throughout the department.
Pursue a more vigorous anti-fraud program within the EOIR. In
perhaps no other area of law are there more attorneys who commit actsof fraud against their clients—advancing completely meritless arguments
in exchange for exorbitant fees—than there are in the area of immigration.
Fraud and unethical behavior are rampant in the immigration system andmust be addressed—not only to ensure that the federal government is
operating in a proper manner, but also for the sake of the aliens involved in— 568 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

the process as well as the integrity/credibility of the members of the private
immigration bar who do not engage in such conduct.
ADDITIONAL ESSENTIAL REFORMS

Aligning Departmental Resources with Leadership Priorities Across All
Components and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices. As the next Administration pursues
its objectives, it should use the department’s resources efficiently in a mannerthat delivers results for the American people. To accomplish this goal, it will benecessary to:lEnsure the assignment of sufficient political appointees throughout
the department. Ensuring adequate accountability throughout the DOJ
requires the intentional devotion of sufficient resources by the Administration—not simply replicating what was done under prior Administrations andreflected in the Plum Book.97 The number of appointees serving throughout
the department in prior Administrations—particularly during the Trump
Administration—has not been sufficient either to stop bad things from happening through proper management or to promote the President’s agenda.
It is not enough for political appointees to serve in obvious offices like the
Office of the Attorney General or the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.
The next conservative Administration must make every effort to obtain the
resources to support a vast expansion of the number of appointees in every
office and component across the department—especially in the Civil Rights
Division, the FBI, and the EOIR.

ll

End all nonessential details of department personnel—particularly
those detailed to congressional offices—until the department canconduct a thorough review of its personnel needs. Considering all of
the many challenges facing the DOJ, the next conservative Administration
should terminate and recall all details of DOJ personnel shortly after the
President’s inauguration. After a thorough analysis of the department’s
resources and priorities is completed, details to other portions of theexecutive branch and to Congress can resume.
Ensure accountability for personnel sanctioned or referred fordiscipline after a finding of misconduct. The next conservative
Administration should complete a thorough review of any sanctions
or findings of misconduct issued over the four years preceding theinauguration to ensure that the Biden Administration acted appropriately
in response to any such sanctions or findings.

— 569 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative PromiselUndertake a comprehensive review of DOJ hiring practices. The next
conservative Administration should conduct a holistic review of hiring
practices employed across all DOJ offices and components to ensure thatthose practices comply with applicable law and policy. All hiring committees
associated with hiring for career positions across the department should beassessed for impartiality to ensure that individuals are hired based on merit,
aptitude, and legal skill and not based on association with or membership in
certain ideologically aligned groups or based on illegal considerations suchas race, religion, or sex.

Eliminating Redundant Offices and Consolidating Functions to Increase
Efficiencies. The next conservative Administration should explore the possibilityof consolidating and aligning the functions of the DOJ’s various components andoffices in human resources, legal counsel, public relations, and other related areas.
While local access to appropriate personnel and resources is important, there are
inefficiencies and redundancies across the department that result in a bureaucratic,
Rube Goldberg–style design that ultimately hinders the department’s mission.
From IT infrastructure to management functions to public relations, DOJ leadership should explore consolidation and intradepartmental efficiencies to obtain
the best possible support for its critical missions.
For example, the Department of Public Affairs has a dual structure of public
information officers in which there are some political appointees who lead theoffice and provide support, but also career appointees who serve as public information officers for individual divisions (Criminal Division, National Security
Division, etc.). The career officials handle the day-to-day work of the division,
which entails monitoring important cases, assisting in editing, and distributing press releases, and the political appointees will step in for larger issues that
advance the Administration’s initiatives. This could be made more efficient by
having political appointees for each division under the supervision of the Director of Public Affairs.
Additionally, given the interplay of function between the Office of Legislative
Affairs (OLA) and the Office of Public Affairs, as well as the fact that the AssistantAttorney General for the OLA is a Senate-confirmed position, the two offices should
be folded into one for more efficiency and proper coordination. Under an Officeof Public and Legislative Affairs, the Assistant Attorney General’s portfolio would
encompass both, with one Director/Deputy for Public Affairs and one Director/
Deputy for Legislative Affairs.
Pursuing Other Changes in Reporting Chains to Ensure Consistency with
the Law and Administration Priorities. The next conservative Administration
should undertake a comprehensive review of the DOJ’s current organizational
chart and make decisions about its structure—consistent with any authority to do— 570 —

2025 Presidential Transition Projectso outside of congressional action—to ensure the most efficient accomplishmentof the department’s missions. For example:lll

Is the current reporting structure for the Associate Attorney General’s Office
the best and optimal for the achievement of the department’s mission?
Should all of the Deputy Attorney General’s direct reports continue to be
direct reports, or would a different structure achieve a better, more efficient
outcome in fulfilling the department’s mission?
What should the Office of Legal Policy’s role be in the next conservative
Administration? Should it continue to be responsible for assisting with
judicial nominations, or should that function be assigned to the Office ofLegislative Affairs, which interacts with Congress on a daily basis?

Pursuing Legislative Changes for Assistant United States Attorneys’
Compensation. To ensure that the department can attract and retain top legal
talent away from Washington, D.C., the next conservative Administration shouldseek congressional reform of the pay scale used for Assistant United States
Attorneys in the field. At a minimum, that reform should include a proposal to compensate Assistant United States Attorneys on at least the same basis as attorneys
employed by Main Justice who are compensated under the GS scale. Ensuring thatthe department can attract and retain top legal talent outside of the D.C. market isessential and will help to emphasize the importance of the field’s work in achieving
the department’s various missions.
Protecting the Integrity of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National
Institute of Justice. The DOJ’s statistical and research arms should serve the American people and not special interests. The Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics
should focus the BJS on producing the statistics of greatest interest to everyday
Americans, and hence of policymakers, rather than those of particular interest to criminal-justice academics. The Director should insist that such statistics be as accurate
as possible and presented as clearly as possible. The intellectually engaged, everyday
American citizen should be able to read and understand the BJS’s published statistics
and reports rather than having to trust “experts” because the statistics are not clear.
The BJS should focus on the core statistics involving crime and punishment,such as those relating to serious crimes committed, imprisonment, time served,
recidivism, and the like. It should not pursue the niche political agendas of academics or advocates. Moreover, a clear line should be maintained between official
government statistics and third-party contractor reports. There should be noreports that look like official BJS reports but are authored by private entities suchas the Urban Institute as happened under the Obama Administration.

— 571 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

Research funded by the National Institute of Justice should follow similar
principles. The NIJ should fund high-quality, unbiased research on the topics
of greatest interest to everyday Americans and policymakers rather than agenda-driven research desired by advocates or academics.
The National Crime Victimization Survey, which is the nation’s largest crime
survey and predates the BJS (it dates to the Nixon Administration), is of particularimportance, and the department should prioritize and sufficiently fund it. Thissurvey provides the only comprehensive and credible alternative to police reports
for showing who commits crimes. The demographic information that crime victims
provide through the survey about who commits crimes against them enables suchreports as “Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018,”98
which was published in January 2021 and finds that police are arresting those who,
according to victims, actually commit crimes.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter involved contributions from members of the 2025

Presidential Transition Project. Most contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume—and in
the perfect cancel-proof world, all contributors of ideas would be listed—but the staff at America First Legal
Foundation deserves special mention for their assistance while juggling other responsibilities. The author alone
assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any
other individual.

— 572 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project
ENDNOTES

1.

Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73 (1789), https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/docs/Judiciary_
Act_1789.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023).
2. An Act to Establish the Department of Justice, Public Law No. 41-97, 16 Stat. 162 (1870), https://www.justice.
gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/10/23/act-pl41-97.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023).
3. John F. Fox, Jr., “The Birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, “History,” July 2003, https://bit.ly/3G4LmD0 (accessed February 3, 2023).
4. Trafalgar Group, “Nationwide Issues Survey August 2022,” pp. 19, 22, and 25, https://www.thetrafalgargroup.
org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/COSA-FBI_DOJ-Opinion-Full-Report-0824.pdf (accessed
February 3, 2023).
5. John Solomon, “FBI Email Chain May Provide Most Damning Evidence of FISA Abuses Yet,” The Hill, December
5, 2018, https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/419901-fbi-email-chain-may-provide-most-damning-evidence-of-fisaabuses-yet/ (accessed February 3, 2023); Post Editorial Board, “The FBI Knew RussiaGate Was a Lie—But Hid
That Truth,” New York Post, June 11, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/06/11/the-fbi-knew-russiagate-was-a-liebut-hid-that-truth/ (accessed February 3, 2023).
6. John Solomon, “Collusion Bombshell: DNC Lawyers Met with FBI on Russia Allegations Before Surveillance
Warrant,” The Hill, October 3, 2018, https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/409817-russia-collusion-bombshell-dnclawyers-met-with-fbi-on-dossier-before/ (accessed February 3, 2023); Eric Tucker, “Ex-FBI Lawyer Admits toFalse Statement During Russia Probe,” AP News, August 19, 2020, https://apnews.com/article/election-2020b9b3c7ef398d00d5dfee9170d66cefec (accessed February 3, 2023).
7. Jesse O’Neill, “FBI Pressured Twitter, Sent Trove of Docs Hours Before Post Broke Hunter Laptop Story,” NewYork Post, December 19, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/19/fbi-reached-out-to-twitter-before-post-brokehunter-biden-laptop-story/ (accessed February 3, 2023).
8. Memorandum from Attorney General Merrick Garland to Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Directorof the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys; Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division; and United States
Attorneys, “Subject: Partnership Among Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Law Enforcement toAddress Threats Against School Administrators, Board Members, Teachers, and Staff,” October 4, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download (accessed February 3, 2023) (cited hereafter as Garland
Memorandum, October 4, 2021).
9. Dillon Burroughs, “25 States Have Now Left National School Boards Association as Nebraska Departs,” Daily
Wire, June 13, 2022, https://www.dailywire.com/news/25-states-have-now-left-national-school-boardsassociation-as-nebraska-departs (accessed February 3, 2023).
10. Brianna Herlily, “FBI Met Weekly with Big Tech Ahead of the 2020 Election, Agent Testifies,” Fox News,
December 3, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agenttestifies (accessed February 3, 2023); Allie Griffin, “Latest ‘Twitter Files’ Show FBI Bullied Executives Over Not
Reporting ‘State Propaganda’ Enough, New York Post, December 18, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/18/
latest-twitter-files-show-fbi-questioned-executives-over-users-spouting-state-propaganda/ (accessed
February 3, 2023).
11. Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD), “In the end, the FBI's influence campaign aimed at executives
at news media, Twitter, & other social media companies worked: they censored & discredited the Hunter
Biden laptop story. By Dec. 2020, Baker and his colleagues even sent a note of thanks to the FBI for its work,”
Twitter, December 19, 2022, 1:35 PM), https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604908212628598784(accessed February 3, 2023).
12. Press release, “Eleven Charged with FACE Act Violations Stemming from 2021 Blockade of Mount Juliet
Reproductive Health Clinic,” U.S. Department of Justice, United States Attorney’s Office, Middle District ofTennessee, October 5, 2022, https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdtn/pr/eleven-charged-face-act-violationsstemming-2021-blockade-mount-juliet-reproductive (accessed February 3, 2023); Kaelan Deese, “DOJ
Official Touts Prosecution of Anti-Abortion Advocates While Vandalized Pregnancy Centers Await Justice,”
Washington Examiner, December 14, 2022, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/doj-officialadmits-to-prosecuting-pro-life-advocates (accessed February 3, 2023); S. 636, Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act of 1994, Public Law No. 103-259, 103rd Congress, May 26, 1994, https://www.congress.gov/103/
statute/STATUTE-108/STATUTE-108-Pg694.pdf (accessed February 5, 2023).

— 573 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
13. Aruna Viswanatha and Sadie Gurman, “Almost Half of Federal Cases Against Portland Rioters Have Been
Dismissed,” The Wall Street Journal, updated April 15, 2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/almost-halfof-federal-cases-against-portland-rioters-have-been-dismissed-11618501979 (accessed February 3, 2023);
Just the News Staff, “Antifa-led Portland Rioter Charged with Assault Police [sic] Has Case Dismissed After
Community Service,” Just the News, updated December 30, 2021, https://justthenews.com/government/
courts-law/antifa-led-portland-rioter-charge-assault-police-has-case-dismissed-after (accessed
February 3, 2023).
14. Press release, “Justice Department Sues Texas Over Senate Bill 8: Complaint Alleges Senate Bill 8 Violates theConstitution by Effectively Banning Most Abortions,” U.S. Department of Justice, September 9, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-texas-over-senate-bill-8 (accessed February 3, 2023).
15. Dorian Geiger, “DOJ Warns States Over Blocking Access to Gender-Affirming Treatment,” Axios, March
31, 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/03/31/doj-warns-states-blocking-gender-affirming-care (accessed
February 3, 2023).
16. Joyce White Vance, “The Justice Department Is Suing Georgia. Don’t Expect Garland to End There,” The
Washington Post, June 29, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/29/merrick-garlandsuing-georgia-voting/ (accessed February 3, 2023); David Nakamura and Devlin Barrett, “Justice Dept.
Sues Texas Over State Redistricting Maps, Citing Discrimination Against Latinos,” The Washington Post,
December 6, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/texas-maps-garland-latinosjustice/2021/12/06/4011ce78-56aa-11ec-9a18-a506cf3aa31d_story.html (accessed February 3, 2023); Holmes
Lybrand and Paul LeBlanc, “Justice Department Sues Arizona Over New Election Law Requiring Proof of
Citizenship,” CNN, updated July 5, 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/05/politics/arizona-election-lawjustice-department/index.html (accessed February 3, 2023).
17. Zachary Pottle, “America’s Fentanyl Crisis Is Getting Worse,” Addiction Center, August 26, 2022, https://www.
addictioncenter.com/news/2022/08/americas-fentanyl-crisis/ (accessed February 3, 2023).
18. Emily Jacobs, “Merrick Garland Speaks at DOJ Before Swearing-in by VP Kamala Harris,” New York Post,
updated March 11, 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/03/11/merrick-garland-speaks-at-doj-before-swearing-inby-kamala-harris/ (accessed February 3, 2023).
19. Eliot H. Lumbard, “State and Local Government Crime Control,” Notre Dame Law Review,Vol. 43, Issue 6 (1968), pp. 899–907, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?httpsredir=1&article=3119&context=ndlr (accessed February 3, 2023).
20. Emma Colton, “Chip Roy Demands DOJ Explain Light Sentence for Floyd Riot Arsonist Who Killed Father of5,” Fox News, February 10, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chip-roy-light-sentence-george-floydarsonist-riots-2020 (accessed February 3, 2023); Chris Enloe, “DOJ Asked for Lenient Sentence for 2020
Rioter Who Burned Down Pawn Shop, Killing One Man. Prosecutors Even Cited MLK,” Blaze Media News,
January 29, 2022, https://www.theblaze.com/news/doj-lenient-sentence-rioter-arson#toggle-gdpr (accessed
February 3, 2023); Chris Pandolfo, “House Republicans Release 1,000-Page Report Alleging Politicization in
the FBI, DOJ,” Fox News, November 4, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-republicans-release1000-page-report-alleging-politicization-fbi-doj (accessed February 3, 2023); Brooke Singman, “Cruz Slams‘Politicized’ Biden DOJ for Appointing Trump Special Counsel: ‘Absolutely Disgraceful,’” Fox News, November19,
2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cruz-slams-biden-doj-appointing-special-counsel-investigatetrump-absolutely-disgraceful (accessed February 3, 2023).
21. 8 U.S. Code § 1324 (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324(accessed March 9, 2023); 8 U.S. Code § 1325 (Improper entry by alien), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 (accessed February 5, 2023); 8 U.S. Code § 1326 (Reentry of removed aliens), https://www.law.
cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1326 (accessed February 5, 2023); 8 U.S. Code § 1327 (Aiding or assisting certain
aliens to enter), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1327 (accessed February 5, 2023); 8 U.S. Code § 1328
(Importation of alien for immoral purpose), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1328 (accessed February
5, 2023; press release, “In Brief Filed with Supreme Court, AFL Hammers Biden Administration’s Terminationof MPP—Cites Alarming Statistic That Biden Administration Has Already Released More Than 750,000 Illegal
Aliens into the United States from the Border,” America First Legal Foundation, April 14, 2022, https://aflegal.org/
in-brief-filed-with-supreme-court-afl-hammers-biden-administrations-termination-of-mpp-citing-alarmingstatistic-that-biden-administration-has-already-released-more-than-750000-ille/ (accessed February 5, 2023).

— 574 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project
22. Editorial Board, “About Those Domestic-Terrorist Parents,” The Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2021, https://www.
wsj.com/articles/about-those-domestic-terrorists-national-school-boards-association-merrick-garland-memofbi-11635285900 (accessed February 3, 2023); John Malcom, “Are Parents Being Tagged as ‘Domestic Terrorists’by the FBI? Justice Department Needs to Show Its Cards,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 18, 2021,
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/are-parents-being-tagged-domestic-terrorists-thefbi-justice (accessed February 3, 2023); Victor Nava, “FBI Treated Twitter as a ‘Subsidiary,’ Flagged Tweets andAccounts for ‘Misinformation,’” New York Post, updated December 16, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/16/fbitreated-twitter-as-subsidiary-flagged-tweets-for-misinformation/ (accessed February 3, 2023).
23. Mary Margaret Olohan, “DOJ’s Kristen Clarke: A Pro-Abortion Activist Enforcing the Law Against Pro-Lifers,”
The Daily Signal, October 26, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/10/26/dojs-kristen-clarke-proabortion-activist-enforcing-law-pro-lifers/ ; Josh Gerstein, “DOJ Official Pressed on Targeting of Supreme
Court Justices,” Politico, July 28, 2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/28/doj-official-pressed-ontargeting-of-supreme-court-justices-00048506 (accessed February 3, 2023).
24. Solomon, “FBI Email Chain May Provide Most Damning Evidence of FISA Abuses Yet”; Post Editorial Board,“The FBI Knew RussiaGate Was a Lie—But Hid That Truth”; O’Neill, “FBI Pressured Twitter, Sent Trove of Docs
Hours Before Post Broke Hunter Laptop Story.”
25. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “History: The Nation Calls, 1908–1923,” https://www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history/the-nation-calls (accessed February 3, 2023).
26. Press release, “FBI and Law Enforcement Partners Arrest Nearly 6,000 Violent Criminals This Summer,” U.S.
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 13, 2022, https://www.fbi.gov/news/
press-releases/press-releases/fbi-and-law-enforcement-partners-arrest-nearly-6000-violent-criminals-thissummer (accessed February 3, 2023).
27. See, for example, Joseph Goldstein, “As Seen in ‘Goodfellas’: Arrest Is Made in ’78 Lufthansa Robbery,” The
New York Times, January 23, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/nyregion/arrests-in-cold-caseinvestigation-including-78-lufthansa-heist.html (accessed February 3, 2023).
28. Danielle Wallace, “FBI Nationwide Operation Locates 121 Actively Missing Kids, Child Sex Trafficking Victims,”
Fox News, August 15, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-nationwide-operation-locates-actively-missingkids-child-sex-trafficking-victims (accessed February 3, 2023).
29. Adam Shaw, “FBI Stepped in After Suspected Chinese Spy Got Close to Swalwell, Other Politicians, Report
Finds,” Fox News, December 8, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-chinese-spy-swalwell-otherpoliticians (accessed February 3, 2023).
30. The precise scope and contours of this review warrant special consideration. A review of all ongoing drugtrafficking investigations or specific violent crime investigations may not warrant the department’s attention
in the same way as high-profile, politically sensitive investigations likely will. Nevertheless, the goal should be
as comprehensive a review as possible.
31. 28 U.S. Code § 531, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/531 (accessed February 3, 2023).
Emphasis added.
32. The same could be said to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and potentially to the U.S.
Marshals Service, although the USMS’s mission protecting the federal courts could present compelling reasons
why the department should maintain it as a direct report to the Deputy Attorney General.
33. See, for example, Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 1, October 27, 1787, https://founders.archives.
gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0152 (accessed February 3, 2023).
34. An argument could also be made that the upper echelons of the FBI’s leadership should physically relocate
back to the Robert F. Kennedy building to ensure proper accountability and to emphasize organizational
reality: The FBI is a component of the department, not its equal, as outlined above.
35. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Roles and Responsibilities of theFederal Bureau of Investigation’s Office of the General Counsel in National Security Matters, Report No. 22-116,
September 2022, https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/22-116.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023).
36. S. 2212, Crime Control Act of 1976, Public Law No. 94-503, October 15, 1976, § 203, 90 Stat. 2427 (codified as
amended at 28 U.S. Code § 532), https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg2407.
pdf (accessed February 3, 2023).
37. See “Enhancing Federal Focus and Resources in Jurisdictions with Rule-of-Law Deficiencies,” infra.

— 575 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
38. Garland Memorandum, October 4, 2021; press release, “America First Legal Seeks Two Federal Investigations
on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Infamous Oct. 4th Memo Siccing the FBI on Concerned Parents,”
America First Legal Foundation, March 14, 2022, https://aflegal.org/america-first-legal-seeks-two-federalinvestigations-on-attorney-general-merrick-garlands-infamous-oct-4th-memo-siccing-the-fbi-on-concernedparents/ (accessed February 3, 2023).
39. Luke Rosiak, “In Aftermath of Enemies List, School Committee Pledges to ‘Silence the Opposition,’” Daily Wire,
March 27, 2021, https://www.dailywire.com/news/after-enemies-list-school-body-pledges-to-silence-theopposition (accessed February 3, 2023).
40. The language of the Equal Protection Clause “reflects that ‘achieving equal protection against lawbreakers
was at the core of the Clause’s objectives.’” Lefebure v. D’Aquilla, 15 F.4th 650, 669 (5th Cir. 2021) (Graves, J.
dissenting) (quoting Lawrence Rosenthal, “Policing and Equal Protection,” Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol.
21, No. 53 (2003), p. 70) cert. denied, 212 L. Ed. 2d 791, 142 S. Ct. 2732 (2022)), https://casetext.com/case/lefebure-v-daquilla-2 (accessed February 3, 2023).
41. See, for example, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler’s actions in 2020 calling on federal officials—executing their
mission to protect federal property and officials—to leave the city, saying, “They’re not wanted here” despite
the fact that local reports found that “[o]ut of more than a thousand arrests reported by the Portland Police
Bureau and other local law enforcement since late May 2020, only about 8.4% of the cases are still open”
and that the “rest have been dismissed or listed as no complaint, which means authorities are not currently
pursuing charges.” BBC News, “Portland Protests: Mayor Demands Federal Officers Leave City,” July 20, 2020,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53466718 (accessed February 3, 2023), and Hannah Lambert,“91% of Portland Protest Arrests Not Being Prosecuted,” Portland Tribune, January 5, 2021, https://archive.ph/OSDbz (accessed February 3,2023).
42. Figure 4, “Trend in Average Guideline Minimum and Average Sentence Imposed for Armed Career Criminals
Fiscal Years 2010–2019,” in U.S. Sentencing Commission, Federal Armed Career Criminals: Prevalence, Patterns,
and Pathways, March 2021, p. 26, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2021/20210303_ACCA-Report.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023).
43. 18 U.S. Code § 924(e), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924 (accessed February 3, 2023).
44. S. 1586, Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act, 117th Congress, introduced May 12, 2021, https://www.
congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1586 (accessed February 6, 2023).
45. This could require seeking the Supreme Court to overrule Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), in
applicable cases, but the department should place a priority on doing so.
46. 21 U.S. Code § 801 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/chapter-13/subchapter-I/part-A(accessed February 3, 2023).
47. 18 U.S. Code §§ 1961–1968, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96 (accessed
February 3, 2023).
48. For more on this topic generally, see “Ensuring Enforcement and Administration of Our Immigration Laws,” infra.
49. See Paul J. Larkin, “Twenty-First Century Illicit Drugs and Their Discontents: The Scourge of Illicit Fentanyl,”
Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum No. 313, November 1, 2022), https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/
files/2022-11/LM313.pdf.
50. Jessica Rendall, “100,000 People Died from Drug Overdoses in the US in One Year, a Record,” CNET,
November 18, 2021, https://www.cnet.com/health/medical/100000-people-died-from-drug-overdoses-inthe-us-in-one-year-a-record/ (accessed February 3, 2023).
51. U.S. Department of Justice, National Security Division, “Information About the Department of Justice’s
China Initiative and a Compilation of China-Related Prosecutions Since 2018,” last updated November 19,
2021, https://www.justice.gov/archives/nsd/information-about-department-justice-s-china-initiative-andcompilation-china-related (accessed February 3, 2023).
52. Ronn Blitzer and Jake Gibson, “Biden DOJ Ending National Security Initiative Aimed at Countering China amid
Complaints About Bias,” Fox News, February 23, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-ending-chinainitiative-national-security-program-bias (accessed February 3, 2023).
53. National Security Strategy, The White House, October 2022, p. 23, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf (accessed February 3,2023). See also ibid., p. 8.

— 576 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project
54. U.S. Department of Justice, “About DOJ: Our Mission,” https://www.justice.gov/about (accessed February 4, 2023).
55. 18 U.S. Code § 248, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248 (accessed February 4, 2023).
56. Danielle Wallace and Jake Gibson, “Pro-life Activist Mark Houck Pleads Not Guilty to Federal Charges After FBI
Arrest,” Fox News, September 27, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/us/pro-life-activist-mark-houck-pleadsnot-guilty-federal-charges-fbi-arrest (accessed February 4, 2023).
57. Patty Knap, “Paul Vaughn, Pro-life Father of 11 Arrested by FBI Speaks Out,” National Catholic Register,
October 18, 2022, https://www.ncregister.com/news/paul-vaughn-pro-life-father-of-11-arrested-by-fbi-speaksout (accessed February 4, 2023).
58. 597 U.S. ___ (2022), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/19-1392/case.pdf (accessed
February 4, 2023).
59. Jonah McKeown, “TRACKER: Pro-Abortion Attacks in the U.S. Continue (Updated),” Catholic News Agency,
last updated September 22, 2022, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251553/map-vandalismattacks-continue-at-pro-life-centers-across-us (accessed February 4, 2023).
60. 28 U.S. Code § 516, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/516 (accessed February 4, 2023).
61. 28 U.S. Code § 519, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/519 (accessed February 4, 2023).
62. 295 U.S. 602 (1935), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/602/ (accessed February 6, 2023).
63. 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_new_0pm1.pdf (accessed
February 6, 2023).
64. See Brief for the United States, 303 Creative v. Aubrey Elenis, No. 21-476, August 2022, https://www.
supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-476/234119/20220819182151542_21-476%20303%20Creative%20LLC%20
v.%20Elenis%20FINAL.pdf (accessed February 4, 2023).
65. Oral Argument Transcript, 303 Creative v. Aubrey Elenis, No. 21-476, December 5, 2022, https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2022/21-476_8n59.pdf (accessed
February 4, 2023).
66. Brief for the United States, Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111,
September 2017, p. 9, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-111-tsac-USA.pdf(accessed February 4, 2023) (quoting Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open SocietyInternational, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321, 2327 (2013), quoting in turn Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional
Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006)).
67. Ibid., p. 10.
68. Ibid., pp. 10–11.
69. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943), https://tile.loc.gov/storageservices/service/ll/usrep/usrep319/usrep319624/usrep319624.pdf (accessed February 4, 2023).
70. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24 (1971), https://constitutionallawreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/
Cohen-v_-California.pdf (accessed February 4, 2023).
71. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 640.
72. McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 476 (2014), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/12-1168/
case.pdf (accessed February 4, 2023) (quoting FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U. S. 364,
377 (1984)).
73. See, for example, 42 U.S. Code § 2000d, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000d (accessed February
4, 2023); 42 U.S. Code § 2000e, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e (accessed February 4,2023); 20 U.S. Code § 1681, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1681 (accessed February 4, 2023)
74. See “Advancing Equity and Racial Justice Through the Federal Government,” The White House, https://www.
whitehouse.gov/equity/ (accessed February 4, 2023).
75. 18 U.S. Code § 1461, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 (accessed February 6, 2023). See also 18
U.S. Code § 1462, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1462 (accessed February 6, 2023).
76. 18 U.S. Code § 241, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 (accessed February 6, 2023).
77. A similar argument could be advanced for the department’s other criminal law enforcement responsibilities
such as those within the Environmental and Natural Resources Division.
78. See, for example, Paul Kiel, “Controversial USA Delivered ‘Voter Fraud’ Indictments Right on Time,” TPM
Muckraker, May 1, 2007, https://web.archive.org/web/20070503021505/http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/
archives/003107.php (accessed February 4, 2023).

— 577 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
79. See Craig C. Donsanto and Nancy L. Simmons, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, 7th Edition,
U.S. Department of Justice, May 2007 (revised August 2007), pp. 61–63, https://www.justice.gov/sites/
default/files/criminal/legacy/2013/09/30/electbook-rvs0807.pdf#page=79 (accessed February 4, 2023).
See also Richard C. Pilger, ed., Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, 8th Edition, U.S. Department ofJustice, December 2017, pp. 56–58, https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download (accessed
February 4, 2023).
80. See U.S. Department of Justice, “Capital Eligible Statutes Assigned by Section,” https://www.justice.
gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-71-capital-eligible-statutes-assigned-section (accessed
February 5, 2023).
81. See U.S. Department of Justice, “Contact List: District Election Officers,” October 31, 2022, p. 1, https://www.
justice.gov/criminal/file/1329606/download (accessed February 4, 2023).
82. Pennsylvania Department of State, “Pennsylvania Provisional Voting Guidelines,” October 21, 2020, Version 1.1,
p. 2, https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/PADOS_ProvisionalBallots_
guidance_1.0.pdf#page=2 (accessed February 4, 2023).
83. 52 U.S. Code § 21082, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/21082 (accessed February 4, 2023).
84. Pennsylvania General Assembly, SB 422, Pennsylvania Election Code—Omnibus Amendments, Act ofMarch 27, 2020, P.L. 41, No. 12, Section 1302-D, https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/LI/uconsCheck.
cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=2020&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=12 (accessed February 4, 2023).
85. In re November 3, 2020 General Election, 240 A.3d 591 (Pa. 2020), https://www.leagle.com/decision/
inpaco20201026a01 (accessed February 4, 2023).
86. U.S. Department of Justice, “Enforcement of Civil Rights Criminal Statutes,” https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm8-3000-enforcement-civil-rights-criminal-statutes (accessed February 4, 2023); U.S. Department of Justice,“Capital Eligible Statutes Assigned by Section,” updated January 17, 2020, https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/
criminal-resource-manual-71-capital-eligible-statutes-assigned-section (accessed February 4, 2023).
87. Garland Memorandum, October 4, 2021.
88. See Viola M. Garcia, President, NSBA, and Chip Slavin, Interim Executive Director and CEO, to President
Joseph R. Biden, “Re: Federal Assistance to Stop Threats and Acts of Violence Against Public Schoolchildren,
Public School Board Members, and Other Public School District Officials and Educators,” September 29, 2021,
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21098209/nsba-letter-to-president-biden-concerning-threats-topublic-schools-and-school-board-members-929211.pdf (accessed February 4, 2023). Emphasis in original.
89. See letter from Todd Rokita, Indiana Attorney General; Steve Marshall, Alabama Attorney General; Treg R.
Taylor, Alaska Attorney General; Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General; Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney
General; Christopher M. Carr, Georgia Attorney General; Derek Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General; Daniel
Cameron, Kentucky Attorney General; Eric S. Schmitt, Missouri Attorney General; Austin Knudsen, Montana
Attorney General; John M. O’Connor, Oklahoma Attorney General; Alan Wilson, South Carolina Attorney
General; Jason R. Ravnsborg, South Dakota Attorney General; and Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General to
President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., and Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, “Re: NSBA’s Fraudon the American People,” October 26, 2021, https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/global/
images/DOJ%20Letter%20based%20on%20NSBA%20Apology%20Letter%20%2010.26.21%20final.pdf(accessed February 4, 2023). Cited hereafter as Rokita et al. Letter, October 26, 2021.
90. Philip G. Kiko, Final Report on the Events Surrounding the National School Boards Association’s
September 29, 2021, Letter to the President, n.d., https://www.nsba.org/-/media/Files/NSBA-Report.
pdf?la=en&hash=A001354D23C9AE88B54D398270C9790D91B01FF9 (accessed February 4, 2023); news release,“NSBA Announces Completion of Independent Review; Takes Action Based on Findings,” National School Boards
Association, May 20, 2022, https://www.nsba.org/News/2022/independent-review#:~:text=In%20February%20
2022%2C%20the%20National%20School%20Boards%20Association,and%20assistance%20with%20events%20
at%20school%20board%20meetings. (accessed February 4, 2023).
91. Rokita et al. Letter, October 26, 2021.
92. State of New York, State of Connecticut, State of New Jersey, State of Washington, Commonwealthof Massachusetts, Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Rhode Island, City of New York v. United States
Department of Justice, 964 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2020), https://casetext.com/case/new-york-v-us-dept-of-justice-1(accessed February 4, 2023).

— 578 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project
93. H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-296, 107th Congress, November 25, 2002, 116
Stat. 2135, https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ296/PLAW-107publ296.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023).
94. See, for example, 8 U.S. Code §§ 1103(a)(1) and 1103(g), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1103(accessed February 3, 2023).
95. See, for example, 8 U.S. Code §§ 1324–1326, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/
subchapter-II/part-VIII (accessed February 3, 2023).
96. Press release, “Justice, Labor Departments Reach Settlements with Facebook Resolving Claims ofDiscrimination Against U.S. Workers and Potential Regulatory Recruitment Violations,” U.S. Departmentof Justice, October 19, 2021, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-labor-departments-reach-settlementsfacebook-resolving-claims-discrimination-against (accessed February 3, 2023).
97. “Every four years, just after the Presidential election, the ‘United States Government Policy and Supporting
Positions,’ commonly known as the Plum Book, is published, alternately, by the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.” Senate Committee Print No. 114-26, United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions,
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 114th Cong., 2nd Sess., December
1, 2016, p. iii, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2016/pdf/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2016.pdf(accessed February 5, 2023).
98. Allen J. Beck, “Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018,” U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Statistical Brief No. NCJ 255969, January 2021, https://
bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023).

— 579 —