The internal agencies responsible for monitoring misconduct inside the US Justice Department are facing a crisis of their own. Even as complaints against government lawyers and officials have climbed to their highest levels in two decades, the watchdog bodies tasked with investigating those allegations have been weakened by staff departures and a sharp fall in new inquiries.
Federal courts across the United States have repeatedly reprimanded the Justice Department during President Donald Trump’s second term, accusing government lawyers of submitting inaccurate information, disregarding judicial directives and, in some cases, misusing legal mechanisms against political opponents.
Ordinarily, such accusations would trigger intense scrutiny from the department’s two principal oversight units — the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which examines misconduct by Justice Department attorneys, and the Office of Inspector General, which investigates fraud, waste and abuse across the agency.
Instead, both offices have seen substantial reductions in manpower.
Records show that nearly half of the OPR’s workforce has exited since Trump’s return to office, while the inspector general’s office has lost roughly one-sixth of its staff. Many employees either retired or accepted buyout offers introduced as part of broader efforts to reduce the size of the federal government.
The staffing decline has coincided with a dramatic slowdown in investigations. During the 2025 fiscal year, the OPR launched just seven new probes — the lowest number in twenty years — despite receiving 1,666 complaints, the highest figure recorded since 2005.
Former Justice Department officials say the situation has created anxiety within the oversight system itself. Some believe concerns about political repercussions and institutional instability have discouraged investigators from pursuing sensitive cases.
The Office of Professional Responsibility, which once employed 29 people, now operates with only 16 staff members. The administration also removed its director, Jeffrey Ragsdale, and no permanent successor has been appointed.
Benjamin Grimes, a former ethics official at the department who now teaches at Columbia Law School, said the turbulence sends a troubling signal about the place of ethics within government institutions.
Justice Department representatives have rejected suggestions that oversight has weakened. Spokesperson Kiersten Pels said the OPR remains committed to holding department lawyers accountable and continues to investigate allegations rigorously. Officials from the inspector general’s office have similarly insisted that politically sensitive cases are not being avoided.
The Justice Department has also challenged several judicial findings, arguing that some courts have displayed political hostility toward the Trump administration.
Department policy requires government attorneys to report judicial findings of misconduct or major allegations to the OPR. Confirmed violations can lead to disciplinary action, dismissal or referrals to state bar authorities.
One recent controversy involved allegations of misconduct before a federal grand jury in a now-dismissed case against six immigration activists from the Chicago area. Prosecutors confirmed that the judge’s findings were referred to the OPR, though it remains unclear whether a formal investigation was opened.
Another high-profile inquiry focused on special counsel Jack Smith, who oversaw prosecutions related to Trump’s handling of classified documents and efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. Investigators reportedly interviewed Smith last year as part of a review examining accusations from Republican lawmakers that his team improperly influenced the 2024 election and pressured a Trump aide.
Although investigators expected the matter to conclude months ago, the case remains unresolved. According to people familiar with the situation, political appointees requested that the inquiry be paused. Separately, the department has since initiated a criminal investigation into Smith, who denies wrongdoing.
The inspector general’s office has also experienced a major personnel drain, losing 99 employees since the end of former President Joe Biden’s administration and reducing its staff to 477.
Historically, the office has handled politically explosive investigations, including reviews of the FBI’s investigation into alleged links between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. During Trump’s current term, however, its only publicly disclosed politically sensitive review has concerned the Justice Department’s release of files connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
Critics from both political parties have accused the department of mishandling the release, arguing that documents of public interest were excessively redacted while information exposing some victims was insufficiently protected.
In another instance, the inspector general’s office reportedly redirected a whistleblower complaint involving senior Trump officials to the OPR, concluding that the ethics office was better positioned to investigate. Whether any formal inquiry followed remains unknown.
At the same time, judges have increasingly criticised Justice Department attorneys in court.
A federal judge last year pointed to what he described as serious errors in the prosecution of former FBI director James Comey, citing problems ranging from mishandled evidence to inaccurate legal arguments presented before a grand jury. The case was eventually dismissed on separate grounds.
Last month, Judge Kathleen Williams accused senior officials, including acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, of failing to properly defend the government in Trump’s multibillion-dollar lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. She alleged that the settlement reached in the case amounted to an improper agreement that granted broad tax protections to Trump and his family businesses.
Blanche and other officials have strongly rejected those accusations, arguing that the court’s conclusions misrepresented the facts.
Meanwhile, the administration has sought to limit outside scrutiny of Justice Department lawyers by challenging ethics investigations and pursuing greater authority to curb state-level inquiries into federal attorneys. Officials argue that many of those investigations are politically motivated and designed to obstruct the administration’s agenda.
Legal ethics experts say the growing disconnect between mounting judicial criticism and the apparent lack of visible action from internal watchdogs raises difficult questions about accountability within one of the country’s most powerful institutions.
As oversight offices shrink and complaints multiply, concerns continue to mount over who, if anyone, is watching the watchdogs.
