Eight former U.S. Attorneys warn that political loyalty tests are destroying the integrity of Minnesota’s justice system.
For decades, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota stood for a simple, sacred mandate: “equal, nonpartisan justice under law.” Prosecutors were hired based on their skill and ethical standing, never their political leanings. They were asked to pledge loyalty to the Constitution—not to a President, not to an Attorney General, and certainly not to the personal whims of their supervisors.
That era of nonpartisan justice is under direct assault. This alarm was sounded recently in a rare, bipartisan statement signed by eight former U.S. Attorneys who served Minnesota across multiple decades and administrations. Their message is clear: the professional culture of this storied office has been destroyed in a single year.
The most chilling evidence of this decay is the implementation of a political litmus test for those seeking to serve the public. Reports from within the office indicate that applicants for Assistant U.S. Attorney positions are now being forced to explain, in writing, which of the President’s specific orders and policies they admire most. This is not a standard interview question; it is a loyalty oath. It transforms a role defined by objective legal judgment into one defined by ideological fealty.
When we begin screening the gatekeepers of our justice system for their political “admiration,” we lose the very thing that makes the system work: the presumption of integrity, candor, and fairness. The backbone of the office has always been career prosecutors who prioritize the law over the headlines. Today, those same lawyers are resigning in a “heartbroken” exodus, some leaving without another job in sight because their consciences will not allow them to participate in what they have seen.
The consequences of this shift are not merely academic. According to the former top officials, we are already seeing the fallout:
-
Halted Investigations: A joint federal-state civil rights investigation into a killing by a federal agent was abruptly forced to stop.
-
Resource Diversion: Critical investigators have been pulled away from local public safety to fuel “Operation Metro Surge,” an ill-conceived immigration initiative.
-
Stalled Justice: Work to keep Minnesotans and their tax dollars safe has “ground slowly,” frustrating victims and local justice partners.
-
Judicial Conflict: The office’s relationship with the federal bench is fraying as officials violate court orders and attack the character of judges without cause.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office is meant to be a bulwark for the Constitution, not a tool for retribution or a platform for political promotion. By demanding that new hires pass a political litmus test, the current leadership is trading long-term institutional credibility for short-term partisan alignment.
We must join these eight former leaders in demanding that our public officials—at the local, state, and federal levels—intervene to stop this damage. The rebuilding of the Minnesota office must begin immediately, and it must be rooted in a return to the truth and a singular fidelity to the Constitution. Justice cannot be served when the scales are weighted by a loyalty test.
Yikes. Thank you.
I agree that we should not be asking “which of the President’s specific orders and policies they admire most.” However, there is conceptually nothing new in asking people in appointed positions things like that – and I don’t think a lot of people realize that there is nothing new in this.
Years ago, I applied for a citizen position on a MN State Board – one where the Governor makes the appointments, but not one so elevated that it required any confirmation vote in the Legislature. There are literally hundreds of these positions, for everything from the board that licenses barbers to the one that licenses psychologists to the ones that regulate all manner of “trades”. So, in my application letter, I emphasized beliefs and experiences I had regarding the subject matter that particular board was concerned with. I was contacted by someone who selects these people for the governor and informed I was a finalist. (People also don’t realize that, No, the Governor himself does not read all the applications and select the one person for each of the hundreds of seats… They “have people” for that!) This was during the Pawlenty administration, and I was sent a second-round form to fill out which, among other things, wanted me to state one particular action (in any subject matter field) of the Pawlenty administration I was particularly happy about. I was as stunned to be asked this as the attorneys of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for MN apparently were, more recently. But I knew a few people who were already on boards or had been, all of whom had been appointed by Jesse Ventura, an Independent, Arne Carlson, a “maverick” centrist Republican, or Rudy Perpich, a DFLer – the previous three governors, and I was told that it was more unusual for someone not personally known to the Governor and “his people” NOT to be asked this question. The only unusual thing about it, I was told, was that it was more typical for the winnowing from “finalist” to “appointee” to be done via telephone interview, not an additional paper form, so the question was more typically oral, and the whole point was to see if you were non-partisan enough to come up with something fast while “thinking on your feet”.
I suspect that the real reasons for resignations in the U.S. Attorney’s Office has more to do with orders given – or even implied – and less to do with “loyalty questions” on the way in the door. Any good attorney ought to be able to come up with something to say on that front, and if not, perhaps they are not quite the versatile “advocate” they think they are.