About 200 former attorneys and staff from the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice are warning of the “near destruction of DOJ’s once-revered crown jewel,” and what they call Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “demand” for “loyalty to the President, not the Constitution or the American people.”

“For decades, the non-partisan work of the Civil Rights Division at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has protected all Americans—especially the most vulnerable—from unfair treatment and unequal opportunities,” they write in a letter dated Tuesday. They added that “after witnessing this Administration destroy much of our work, we made the heartbreaking decision to leave—along with hundreds of colleagues, including about 75 percent of attorneys.”

Bloomberg Law reported on Tuesday that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will now focus only on “intentional discrimination,” and not “policies that may appear neutral but disproportionately affect racial minorities and other protected classes.”

READ MORE: ‘Appearance of Quid Pro Quo’: Sotomayor Confronts GOP Lawyer in Campaign Finance Argument

In their letter, the former attorneys and staff specifically state that they left the Civil Rights Division “because this Administration turned the Division’s core mission upside down, largely abandoning its duty to protect civil rights,” and that it “achieved this goal by discarding much of the Division’s most impactful work.”

The group blasted Attorney General Bondi, who, they said, “issued a series of memos that subverted the Division’s mission in favor of President Trump’s political agenda.”

“One stood out: it insinuated that DOJ attorneys were Trump’s personal lawyers, an assertion that struck at the heart of the agency’s independence. Bondi’s demand to us was obvious: loyalty to the President, not the Constitution or the American people.”

In another scathing section, they charged that Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon “focused her efforts on ‘driving [the Civil Rights Division] in the opposite direction’ of its longstanding purpose.”

READ MORE: ‘Upend Political Map’: Trump Aides Expect Supreme Court Rulings to Help GOP in Midterms

They allege she issued mission statements “that included fighting diversity initiatives instead of race-based discrimination, investigating baseless allegations of voter fraud rather than protecting the right to vote, and dropping any mention of the Fair Housing Act, a landmark 1968 law that protects Americans from landlords’ racial discrimination and sexual harassment.”

And they charge that the administration “demanded that we find facts to fit the Administration’s predetermined outcomes.”

“Having no use for the expertise of career staff, the Administration launched a coordinated effort to drive us out,” they wrote. “The campaign to purge staff culminated in Dhillon encouraging everyone to resign after a period of paid leave while threatening layoffs if enough staff did not accept.”

Christine Stoneman, one of the letter’s signatories, told Bloomberg Law, “It is a sad commentary that in this anniversary of the Civil Rights Division, the Trump administration has chosen to eliminate a regulation that, for nearly 60 years has helped root out illegal race and national origin discrimination by recipients of federal funds.”

READ MORE: White House Tees Up Trump Speech With ‘Con Artists’ Blast at Democrats

Image via Reuters

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted loosened campaign finance rules during oral arguments in a case that would allow political parties to receive even more donations.

Calling it “the most consequential campaign finance-related dispute” since Citizens United, Axios explained that “the justices will decide whether to eliminate a federal law that limits the amount of money big-money party committees can spend in direct coordination with favored candidates.”

Appearing skeptical that the Court should rule in his favor, Justice Sotomayor walked Noel Francisco, the attorney for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, through some top donors to both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates while warning about the appearance of quid pro quo.

READ MORE: ‘Upend Political Map’: Trump Aides Expect Supreme Court Rulings to Help GOP in Midterms

“Your answer is suggesting to me that every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse,” Justice Sotomayor said. “You’re telling us that Citizens United and McCutcheon ended up, yes, in amplifying the voice of corporations, but diminishing another voice, that of the party.”

“Now, you want to now tinker some more and try to raise the voice of one party,” she explained. “Our tinkering causes more harm than it does good.”

Disagreeing, Francisco replied, “Your Honor, I personally never think free speech makes things worse. I think it virtually always makes it better.”

Without mentioning any donors’ names, Justice Sotomayor then said that “in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton set up a joint victory fund with the DNC, 32 state parties, which allowed a single donor to give up to $356,000.”

“In 2024, Donald Trump’s campaign launched a joint fundraising operation with his own leadership PAC, the RNC, and 40 State Republican Party committees, that saw donations of up to $814,600,” she said, noting, “I’m not picking on Donald Trump.”

READ MORE: White House Tees Up Trump Speech With ‘Con Artists’ Blast at Democrats

“Joe Biden’s victory fund, together with the DNC and the party committees of all 50 states, um, raised up to $1.3 billion,” the justice added.

She warned that “once we take off this coordinated expenditure limit, then what’s left? What’s left is nothing. No control whatsoever.”

Francisco disagreed again.

“You mean to suggest,” Justice Sotomayor replied, “that the fact that one major donor to the current president, the most major donor to the current president, got a very lucrative job immediately upon election from the new administration, does not give the appearance of quid pro quo?”

“Your Honor,” Francisco responded, “I’m not 100% sure about the example that you’re looking at, but if I am familiar, if I think I know what you’re talking about, I have a hard time thinking that his salary that he drew from the federal government was an effective quid pro quo bribery, which may be why nobody has even remotely suggested that.”

Sotomayor warned, “Maybe not the salary, but certainly, the lucrative government contracts might be.”

Justice Sotomayor: “You mean to suggest that the fact that one major donor to the current president, the most major donor to the president, got a very lucrative job immediately upon election from the new administration, does not give the appearance of quid pro quo?” pic.twitter.com/rgpXFz9QAz

— CSPAN (@cspan) December 9, 2025

READ MORE: ‘I Didn’t Say That You Said That’: Trump Backpedals as ‘Obnoxious’ Reporter Corners Him

Image: Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, Steve Petteway via Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

Two top Trump advisers expect rulings from the conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court to help Republicans during next year’s midterms — and for years to come.

Chris LaCivita and Tony Fabrizio, who are in charge of President Donald Trump’s political operation, “told donors at a Republican National Committee retreat over the weekend that rulings on political contribution limits and congressional redistricting could be transformational for Republicans — if they go the GOP’s way,” Axios reported.

Despite President Trump’s low approval rating and reports numerous House Republicans may be “running for the exits” after the new year, the two Trump advisers “told donors the decisions by the conservative-led high court ‘have the ability to upend the political map,’ a person in the session told Axios.”

READ MORE: White House Tees Up Trump Speech With ‘Con Artists’ Blast at Democrats

One of the two Supreme Court cases involves gutting the Voting Rights Act, which Chief Justice John Roberts’s court has been slowly weakening.

The second involves Trump’s efforts to push redistricting in red states, an effort to increase the GOP majority in the House of Representatives.

“Court watchers say a majority of the justices appeared poised to weaken the Voting Rights Act based on oral arguments in October,” Axios noted. “For years, Republicans have sought to weaken the law, arguing that it’s federal overreach and unfairly creates Democrat-friendly districts,” while “Democrats say the law prevents discrimination and ensures that minority voters are represented in Congress.”

In the redistricting case, oral arguments will be held Tuesday.

Calling it “the most consequential campaign finance-related dispute” since Citizens United, Axios explained that “the justices will decide whether to eliminate a federal law that limits the amount of money big-money party committees can spend in direct coordination with favored candidates.”

READ MORE: ‘I Didn’t Say That You Said That’: Trump Backpedals as ‘Obnoxious’ Reporter Corners Him

Image via Reuters