The Trump administration has terminated at least three prosecutors from the Justice Department who were involved in criminal cases concerning the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, as reported by two individuals familiar with the matter.
These dismissals represent the latest instance in a wider trend of removals aimed at attorneys who have prosecuted cases against Trump supporters or the former president himself, according to Fox13, which cites sources that communicated with The Associated Press.
The dismissed prosecutors reportedly include two supervisory attorneys who managed Capitol riot cases at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, along with a third attorney who was involved in prosecuting individual defendants.
As per the Associated Press, a termination letter sent to one of the attorneys—signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi—did not specify a reason for the dismissal, merely referencing the administration’s constitutional authority under Article II, according to the reports.
The firings were corroborated by two individuals who requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of internal personnel issues. A spokesperson for the Justice Department chose not to comment, as noted in the reports.
These dismissals follow a series of similar actions taken in recent months. In February, interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin reassigned several key members of the department’s Capitol Siege Section, including prosecutors who had played a role in securing seditious conspiracy convictions against extremist leaders Stewart Rhodes and Enrique Tarrio.
Earlier, in January, then-acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove dismissed approximately two dozen prosecutors who had been appointed under the Biden administration for temporary roles related to the January 6 investigations but were subsequently made permanent after Trump’s anticipated 2024 victory. Bove accused the previous administration of conducting “subversive personnel actions.”
The Department of Justice has not offered a formal explanation regarding the recent firings, nor has it suggested whether additional dismissals are imminent, according to reports. It remains uncertain if these decisions were preceded by any internal evaluations or if other prosecutors involved in Capitol riot cases are currently under investigation.
These firings occur in the context of Trump’s extensive pardons for over 1,500 individuals convicted in relation to the January 6 Capitol riot. On his first day back in office, Trump granted pardons or commuted sentences for a variety of offenses, including trespassing, seditious conspiracy, and assaults on law enforcement personnel.
The effect of the dismissal of key prosecutors on the remaining open cases related to January 6 is still unclear. While most individuals charged have either been sentenced or pardoned, several ongoing investigations—especially those concerning broader networks or financial ties—officially remain active.
Earlier this week, the Department of Justice initiated a lawsuit against all 15 federal district court judges in Maryland, contesting an order that imposes a 48-hour pause on any deportations that are under legal challenge within the state.
This lawsuit represents an extraordinary and unprecedented action, although numerous legal challenges to the Trump administration’s policies have been filed in Maryland federal courts.
“The complaint asserts that Chief Judge George L. Russell III of the U.S. District Court in Maryland issued an ‘unlawful, antidemocratic’ order in May that provides a two-day stay of deportation to any detainee in immigration custody who submits a petition for habeas corpus, which is a legal action claiming wrongful detention,” reported the Washington Post.
In his standing order, Chief Judge George Russell III articulated that the increase in habeas petitions submitted on behalf of detained migrants has led to expedited judicial rulings.
“The recent surge of habeas petitions regarding alien detainees … which have been submitted after standard court hours, as well as on weekends and holidays, has caused scheduling challenges and resulted in rushed and unsatisfactory hearings, as acquiring clear and definitive information about the location and status of the petitioners remains difficult,” the chief judge stated, as reported by the Post.
The Justice Department remarked that a “sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not grant Defendants the authority to disregard the law.”
