Justice Department Challenges D.C. Attorney’s Anti-Trump Actions

The Justice Department is claiming that a Washington, D.C. attorney has launched an “overtly partisan” campaign to disbar and discipline lawyers from the Trump administration, notably including former senior official Jeffrey Clark.

On Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Stanley Woodward stated that both the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the D.C. Court of Appeals Committee on Professional Responsibility have sided with Mr. Clark. He argued that this situation could “legitimize state lawyer discipline” internationally.

In a detailed complaint, Woodward emphasized that permitting such proceedings would effectively allow the state attorney general’s office to exert control over the executive branch, which he insists contradicts the law.

The Department of Justice is requesting that a D.C. court dismiss the negligence ruling against Clark, place an injunction against the disciplinary panel, and require him to pay the fees incurred by federal attorneys.

Woodward asserted that “President Trump has vowed to end the weaponization of the legal process,” further asserting that this lawsuit against the D.C. attorneys is a step toward fulfilling that commitment.

“D.C. courts should not be allowed to probe into sensitive executive branch discussions or pursue action against executives based on political disagreements, allowing federal prosecutors to offer frank legal advice to their chiefs and peers again,” he noted.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche echoed Woodward’s sentiments, stating, “D.C. lawyers have historically acted as overt advocates for left-leaning causes. That ends now.”

Clark, who was an assistant attorney general in 2020, advised Trump on probing claims of voter fraud post-election. In turn, a D.C. attorney initiated disciplinary actions to revoke his law license.

In a letter he provided in December 2020, Clark suggested that a state-level inquiry into election fraud be undertaken.

As of now, a preliminary ruling from the D.C. Bar Professional Responsibility Committee indicated that Clark’s license might face a two-year suspension. This verdict has been appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals, which has yet to make a ruling.

Notably, three former U.S. attorneys general—including Bill Barr, who served under Trump—submitted a brief in September 2025, asserting that Clark’s legal proposals were “never meant for public dissemination.” They warned that penalizing him would create a dangerous precedent.

In a post dated May 4, Clark mentioned the potential for the D.C. attorney’s tactics against him to be used as a weapon against other officials within the Justice Department.

The Justice Department’s filing named D.C. Bar members such as Hamilton Fox and Jack Metzler, the latter of whom allegedly shared numerous ideological messages reflecting bias and indiscretion.

Additionally, it was claimed in the filings that engaging with anti-vaccine advocates and debating birthright citizenship—topics previously addressed by Trump’s Justice Department—was deemed unethical.

Ed Martin, a former acting D.C. federal prosecutor now overseeing pardons, also faced scrutiny from D.C. courts for merely sending a letter criticizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures in a Georgetown Law School class.

Requests for comments from representatives of the D.C. Bar have gone unanswered.