Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Hours After She Refuses to Defend His Muslim Ban

Yates Had Said She Is Not Convinced Trump’s Executive Order Is Lawful

Accusing her of playing politics after she refused to defend his immigration executive order by ordering Justice Department lawyers not to defend the order, President Donald Trump fired Acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Q. Yates Monday evening. Yates was an Obama appointee serving in place until the Senate confirms Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama as Attorney General.

“At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful,” Yates wrote in a letter to the Justice Department’s lawyers. 

In a statement released by the White House, Trump said that Yates had “betrayed” his administration and indicated he believed Yates was trying to obstruct his agenda for political reasons. 

According to the White House, the president appointed Dana J. Boente, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as acting attorney general.

The New York Times reported:

The extraordinary legal standoff capped a tumultuous day in which the White House confronted an outpouring of dissent over Mr. Trump’s temporary ban on entry visas for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, went so far as to warn State Department officials that they should leave their jobs if they did not agree with Mr. Trump’s agenda, after State Department officials circulated a so-called dissent memo on the order.

“These career bureaucrats have a problem with it?” Mr. Spicer said. “They should either get with the program or they can go.”

Ms. Yates’s decision effectively overruled a finding by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which had already approved the executive order “with respect to form and legality.”

Ms. Yates said her determination in deciding not to defend the order was broader, however, and included questions not only about the order’s lawfulness, but also whether it was a “wise or just” policy. She also alluded to unspecified statements that the White House had made before signing the order, which she factored into her review.

Some responses via Twitter: