The resignation of at least seven officials from the Justice Department after their refusal to dismiss charges against an ally of President Donald Trump represents a significant act of defiance against the president. This development intensifies the ongoing conflict between Trump and his critics, setting a new precedent for resistance within federal institutions.
These resignations have drawn comparisons to the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre, when Justice Department officials chose to step down rather than carry out President Richard Nixon’s order to dismiss the Watergate special prosecutor.
In the present case, the move signals the potential for further resistance if Trump directs officials to take actions they deem inappropriate or legally untenable.
“It’s obviously unprecedented, as far as I know. It’s a very big deal,” said Robert S. Litt, a former senior Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. He noted that attorneys typically do not resign simply over policy disagreements but rather when they are asked to do something they find ethically, morally, or legally improper.
The significance of these resignations is amplified by the conservative backgrounds of some of the officials involved. Their profiles contrast sharply with the “radical left lunatics” that Trump frequently portrays as his adversaries. These officials have articulated their reasons for resigning in precise legal language, reinforcing the gravity of their actions.
Danielle Sassoon, who stepped down as acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, previously clerked for conservative judicial figures, including Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III and the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
In a letter to acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove, Sassoon described the decision to drop charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams (D) as a “breathtaking and dangerous precedent.”
Hagan Scotten, the lead prosecutor in the Adams case, has a similarly distinguished background, having clerked for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, in addition to serving three tours in Iraq as part of the Army Special Forces.
Scotten was even more pointed in his resignation letter, condemning the notion that prosecutorial decisions could be manipulated to influence a defendant’s policy positions. His statement referenced Bove’s assertion that the criminal charges would hinder Adams’s focus on immigration policy in New York.
“If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion,” Scotten wrote. “But it was never going to be me.”
Trump has rarely encountered this level of resistance in his second term. Congressional Republicans have largely refrained from opposing his decisions, even when they appear legally questionable.
While street protests have not reached the scale of those seen in his first term, public officials have also been hesitant to resign in protest—until now. The primary recourse for many has been legal challenges, which, though sometimes successful, take considerable time to navigate the courts.
In one of his administration’s initial actions, Trump and his team have undertaken measures that test established norms, professional ethics, and legal boundaries. They have fired 17 inspectors general via email, bypassing a law requiring 30 days’ notice and justification.
Trump has also granted Elon Musk access to sensitive government intelligence, appointed himself chairman of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and expelled the Associated Press for refusing to use the term “Gulf of America” in place of “Gulf of Mexico.”
Adams, who was indicted in September on charges including wire fraud, bribery, and soliciting illegal campaign contributions, pleaded not guilty. On Monday, Bove directed prosecutors to withdraw the charges, citing concerns that the case could impede Adams’s collaboration with the administration on immigration issues.
To the prosecutors handling the case, this move appeared to be an outright quid pro quo—align with us on immigration, and your charges disappear—though Bove and Adams have both denied any such arrangement.
Donald Trump
Sassoon stated that she could not, in good conscience, request a judge to dismiss the charges against Adams.
“I understand my duty as a prosecutor to mean enforcing the law impartially, and that includes prosecuting a validly returned indictment regardless of whether its dismissal would be politically advantageous, to the defendant or to those who appointed me,” she wrote in her resignation letter.
Bove’s response to Sassoon’s resignation was striking in its tone. He emphasized that only the president and attorney general have the authority to interpret the Constitution and set policy, not career prosecutors.
“It is not for local federal officials such as yourself, who lack access to all relevant information, to question these judgments within the Justice Department’s chain of command,” Bove wrote in accepting her resignation.
Previously a seasoned federal prosecutor in New York, Bove also served as one of Trump’s defense attorneys during his criminal trial for falsifying business records related to a hush money payment. In January, Bove ordered the dismissal of about 30 federal prosecutors who had been involved in cases related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
The resignations prompted swift political reactions, especially from Democrats. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) described the situation as an “extraordinary development,” while Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) accused Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi of turning the Justice Department into a “cesspool of political corruption.”
Throughout his second term, Trump has sought to exert greater control over federal agencies that previously constrained his administration, including the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, and the Justice Department.
He has appointed leaders who are openly critical of these institutions’ traditional operations, including Bondi, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
However, the latest resignations suggest that Trump’s efforts to reshape these institutions could continue to meet resistance.
“They have now instigated a mass revolt at the professional level,” said Stanley Brand, a former House counsel who previously represented a co-defendant in Trump’s classified documents case.
“How far down the totem pole do they have to go before someone will sign a dismissal and go before a federal judge? Who will want to work in that office, or any of these offices, under those circumstances?”
Late Friday, Bove and other senior Justice Department officials in Washington took control of the Adams case from the New York office, filing a motion to dismiss the charges.
Bove had also convened the remaining members of the department’s public integrity section—whose leadership resigned over the dispute—and directed them to determine among themselves who would file the motion.
Litt pointed out that prosecutors appearing in court must affirm that they believe their cases are supported by the facts and law. This obligation likely made it particularly difficult for Sassoon and her colleagues to proceed with a motion they deemed illegitimate.
For many in Washington, the unfolding events have evoked memories of the Saturday Night Massacre, a defining moment in the Watergate scandal when Justice Department officials resigned rather than follow Nixon’s directive to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox.
That crisis ultimately led to the Supreme Court ordering Nixon to release secret Oval Office recordings, precipitating his resignation.
The current wave of resignations exceeds the three high-profile departures of 1973. However, the political landscape today is markedly different. Over the past several years, Trump and his supporters have actively framed the federal government as an institution working against him.
In his inaugural address, Trump pledged to restore “fair, equal, and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law,” a statement that resonated with his supporters in the Capitol.
However, Litt argues that the administration’s handling of the Adams case contradicts that pledge.
“The big deal was the sense that you take an oath to uphold the law without fear or favor, and this was being done as a political favor with a quid pro quo that ‘you will help us on immigration, and we’ll help you on your criminal case,’” he said. “That is not how the law should be.”
