2026-08-06T10:05:02.394Z / reuters.com
华盛顿，8月6日 路透社电 —— 联邦法官们接连指责美国总统唐纳德·特朗普领导下的美国司法部存在大量不当行为，包括作出虚假陈述、不遵守法院命令，以及不当利用法律系统骚扰政治对手。
这类批评本应触发司法部内部负责监督这个美国最强大执法机构的两名内部监督专员开展大量行动。
通过《每日案卷》（The Daily Docket）时事通讯将最新法律新闻直接发送到您的收件箱，开启您的晨间资讯。点击此处注册。
但路透社对四名前司法部工作人员的采访以及对司法部人事和调查数据的审查显示，人员编制缩减以及对政治报复的恐惧，已在很大程度上让这两个办公室陷入停滞，限制了针对本届政府的新调查。
政府记录显示，在特朗普第二任期内，职业道德责任办公室（OPR）近一半的工作人员已经离职，而监察长办公室约17%的人员已经离开。记录和三名熟悉离职情况的人士表示，许多人选择退休或接受了政府为精简联邦 workforce 提供的买断方案。
审查发现，尽管不当行为举报激增，但OPR新启动的调查数量已降至20年来的最低水平。一名去年离职的前司法部官员表示，政府监督机构“害怕开展任何监督工作”。
监督机构人员缩减和调查减少的细节此前从未被报道过。
OPR负责调查司法部律师的不当行为，而监察长办公室则负责调查全部门范围内的浪费、欺诈、滥用职权和其他不当行为。OPR不会披露其调查对象的身份，监察长办公室的大部分工作也秘密开展。但四名前司法部员工表示，人员流失和调查进度放缓表明，他们无法妥善处理针对司法部的大量新指控。
司法部发言人基尔斯滕·佩尔斯（Kiersten Pels）表示，OPR“仍致力于确保所有司法部律师都承担责任”，并会严格调查不当行为指控。司法部监察长办公室发言人约翰·拉文斯基（John Lavinsky）表示，该办公室致力于独立监督，不会“回避困难或有争议的调查或审查”。
司法部官员普遍否认法官认定的不当行为，并指责法院对特朗普抱有政治敌意。
被削弱的道德监督机构
部门政策要求律师将任何司法认定或实质性的不当行为指控上报给OPR。如果司法部领导层认定调查成立，OPR的调查可能导致律师被解雇，或移交州纪律当局审查其律师执照。
路透社通过公开信息申请获得的司法部数据显示，自特朗普再次就职以来，职业道德责任办公室的员工已从29人缩减至16人。本届政府还解雇了OPR主任杰弗里·拉格斯代尔（Jeffrey Ragsdale），且尚未任命继任者。
前司法部道德事务官员、现任哥伦比亚大学法学院讲师本杰明·格赖姆斯（Benjamin Grimes）表示，这种办公室动荡“向员工传递了一个信息，即道德并不重要，或者说道德从属于本届政治政府的意志或利益”。
路透社审查年度报告后发现，在截至9月的2025财年，OPR仅启动了7项新调查，为20年来最低水平，尽管该办公室收到了1666起举报，为2005年以来的最高年度数量。该办公室未披露本财年近期的工作情况。
相比之下，过去十年（包括特朗普第一任期），该办公室年均启动超过18项调查。
本周，联邦检察官透露，他们已就一名联邦法官对六名芝加哥地区移民活动人士已被驳回案件中的大陪审团不当行为的认定，向OPR上报。目前尚不清楚OPR是否已启动调查。
OPR通常只会调查其收到的极小一部分举报，认为大多数举报缺乏证据或超出其职权范围。
OPR最引人关注的调查之一针对杰克·史密斯（Jack Smith），他曾领导司法部对特朗普处理机密文件以及试图推翻2020年大选的起诉。该调查针对共和党议员的指控，即史密斯的团队试图损害特朗普2024年大选的机会，并试图不当胁迫特朗普的一名助手合作。
据两名知情人士透露，到去年春天，OPR调查人员已经约谈了史密斯——这一细节此前从未被报道过——并预计在去年夏天前完成调查。但一年后，该调查仍未结束。其中一名人士告诉路透社，政治任命官员要求暂停该调查。
司法部随后对史密斯展开了单独的刑事调查，史密斯否认存在任何不当行为。
司法部发言人拒绝回答有关该调查的问题。史密斯的发言人也拒绝置评。
监察长办公室的人员外流
根据美国人事管理办公室的记录，自乔·拜登政府结束以来，监察长办公室已流失99名员工，员工人数缩减至477人。
历史上，该办公室曾调查过政治敏感案件，包括联邦调查局对特朗普2016年总统竞选团队与俄罗斯之间联系的调查处理情况。
该办公室通常会向国会通报重大调查情况。然而在特朗普本届任期内，它仅公开披露了一项政治敏感调查——对司法部释放与杰弗里·爱泼斯坦相关文件的审计。司法部面临两党批评，称其未能完成国会授权的文件发布工作，大量删减了公众感兴趣的记录，却未删减可能暴露部分受害者身份的信息。
在另一起案件中，据路透社审查的信件显示，监察长办公室将一名举报特朗普高级官员不当行为的司法部举报人转交给了OPR，称该办公室更适合开展调查。路透社无法确认OPR是否已跟进此事。
一名去年年底离开监察长办公室的前官员表示，该办公室已开始避免调查“高调事件”。
法院的批评
随着法官们越来越多地公开指责政府律师的所谓不当行为，司法部监督机构的权力正在下降。去年，一名联邦法官在对前联邦调查局局长、特朗普对手詹姆斯·科米（James Comey）的两项起诉中的第一项中，认定存在他所称的令人不安的司法部错误模式，包括不当处理证据，以及向大陪审团对法律作出根本性错误陈述。该案件随后因其他理由被驳回。
上个月，美国地区法官凯瑟琳·威廉姆斯（Kathleen Williams）指责包括代理司法部长托德·布兰奇（Todd Blanche）在内的高级官员未能在特朗普针对国税局的100亿美元诉讼中妥善为政府辩护，反而达成了她所称的串通和解协议，给予特朗普及其家族企业全面的税收豁免。
布兰奇本周正式撤销了该协议中单独的一部分，该部分拨款18亿美元用于赔偿特朗普所称遭受政府不当对待的盟友。共和党对“反武器化基金”的反对，导致布兰奇担任司法部长的提名受阻。
联邦检察官表示，科米案中的认定是基于法官的错误解读。布兰奇驳斥了威廉姆斯命令中所谓的影射，特朗普的私人律师已就该命令提起上诉。
特朗普政府还采取行动，加大外部当局审查司法部律师行为的难度，起诉阻止针对一名前官员的一起道德案件，并寻求新的权力，以限制监管律师的州级机构开展的调查。
司法部官员指责州级调查具有政治动机，旨在恐吓执行特朗普议程的律师。
“我们看到法官们发表了许多批评政府律师的意见，但却看不到OPR有任何动静，”福特汉姆大学法律伦理学专家、法学教授布鲁斯·格林（Bruce Green）说道。“那么你怎么能信任他们呢？”
安德鲁·古兹沃德（Andrew Goudsward）和布拉德·希思（Brad Heath）华盛顿报道；迈克尔·勒尔蒙特（Michael Learmonth）和理查德·瓦尔达马里斯（Richard Valdmanis）编辑
我们的标准：路透社信托原则。
At Trump’s DOJ, watchdogs gutted as misconduct complaints soar
2026-08-06T10:05:02.394Z / reuters.com
WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) – In one courtroom after another, federal judges have accused U.S. President Donald Trump’s Justice Department of an extraordinary spate of misconduct, including making false statements, failing to comply with court orders and improperly using the legal system to harass political opponents.
Such rebukes might be expected to trigger a flurry of activity within the department’s two internal watchdogs tasked with policing the government’s most powerful law-enforcement agency.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
But shrinking staffs and fears of political retribution have largely sidelined the offices, limiting new investigations into the administration, according to Reuters interviews with four former DOJ staffers and a review of department employment and investigations data.
Nearly half the workforce at the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has left during Trump’s second term, while about 17% have departed the Office of Inspector General, government records show. Many retired or took buyouts the administration offered to shrink the federal workforce, according to the records and three people familiar with the departures.
The number of new OPR investigations has declined to a 20-year low even as misconduct complaints soar, the review found. The government watchdogs are “afraid of doing any watching,” said one former DOJ official who left last year.
Details of the watchdogs’ diminished staffing and declining investigations have not previously been reported.
OPR investigates misconduct by department lawyers while the inspector general probes waste, fraud, abuse and other wrongdoing departmentwide. OPR does not disclose who it investigates and the inspector general conducts much of its work in secret. But the four former DOJ employees said the staff departures and the slower pace of investigations make clear that they are not adequately addressing the surge of allegations facing the department.
Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels said OPR “remains committed to ensuring accountability for all DOJ attorneys” and rigorously investigates misconduct allegations. John Lavinsky, a spokesperson for the DOJ Inspector General, said the office is committed to independent oversight and does not “avoid investigations or reviews that are difficult or controversial.”
DOJ officials have broadly disputed judges’ findings of misconduct and have accused courts of being politically hostile to Trump.
DEFANGED ETHICS WATCHDOG
Department policy requires attorneys to report any judicial finding or substantial allegation of misconduct to the OPR. Its investigations, if sustained by DOJ leadership, can lead to attorneys being fired or referred to state disciplinary authorities for review of their law licenses.
Since Trump returned to office, the Office of Professional Responsibility has shrunk from 29 employees to 16, according to Justice Department data Reuters obtained through a public-records request. The administration also fired OPR’s director, Jeffrey Ragsdale, and has yet to name a replacement.
Such office turmoil “sends a message to the workforce that ethics is not important or that ethics is subordinate to the wills or interests of the political administration,” said Benjamin Grimes, a former Justice Department ethics official who now lectures at Columbia Law School.
During the 2025 fiscal year, which ended in September, OPR opened seven new investigations, the lowest in two decades, even as the office received 1,666 complaints, the highest in any year since 2005, according to a Reuters review of annual reports. The office has not disclosed its more recent work this fiscal year.
By comparison, the office opened an average of more than 18 investigations annually during the past decade, including Trump’s first term.
This week, federal prosecutors revealed they reported to OPR a federal judge’s findings of grand jury misconduct in a now-dismissed case against six Chicago-area immigration activists. It was not immediately clear if OPR opened an investigation.
OPR typically investigates only a small fraction of the complaints it receives, finding most lack evidence or fall outside its remit.
One of OPR’s highest-profile probes examined Jack Smith, who led DOJ prosecutions into Trump’s handling of classified documents and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. The probe examined Republican lawmakers’ claims that Smith’s team tried to harm Trump’s chances in the 2024 election and sought to improperly coerce cooperation from a Trump aide.
By last spring, OPR investigators had interviewed Smith, which has not been previously reported, and expected to complete the investigation by last summer, according to two people familiar with the matter. But a year later, the probe has yet to conclude. One of the people told Reuters that political appointees asked for it to be suspended.
The department has since launched a separate criminal investigation into Smith, who denies any wrongdoing.
A department spokesperson declined to answer questions about the probe. A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment.
STAFF EXODUS AT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE
The inspector general’s office lost 99 employees since the end of President Joe Biden’s administration, reducing staffing to 477 people, according to Office of Personnel Management records.
Historically, the office has investigated politically sensitive matters including the FBI’s handling of its investigation into contacts between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.
The office routinely informs Congress about major investigations. During Trump’s current term, however, it has publicly disclosed only one politically sensitive inquiry – an audit of the DOJ’s release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. The department faces bipartisan criticism alleging it botched the congressionally mandated release of files, heavily redacting records of public interest while failing to redact information exposing some victims’ identities.
In another case, according to letters reviewed by Reuters, the inspector general’s office referred a DOJ whistleblower alleging wrongdoing by senior Trump officials to OPR, saying that office was better positioned to investigate. Reuters could not establish whether OPR has pursued the matter.
One former official who left the Inspector General’s office late last year said it had started to avoid investigating “the high-profile stuff.”
COURT REBUKES
The declining power of the DOJ watchdogs comes as judges increasingly call out the government’s lawyers for alleged misconduct. A federal judge last year found what he called a disturbing pattern of Justice Department errors in the first of two prosecutions of James Comey, the former FBI director and Trump foe, including improper evidence handling and fundamental misstatements of the law to a grand jury. The case was later dismissed on other grounds.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams accused senior officials including acting Attorney General Todd Blanche of failing to properly defend the government in Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and instead reaching what she described as a collusive settlement granting Trump and his family businesses sweeping tax immunity.
Blanche this week formally rescinded a separate portion of the agreement setting aside $1.8 billion to compensate Trump allies the president claims suffered government mistreatment. Republican opposition to the “anti-weaponization fund” had stalled Blanche’s bid to become attorney general.
Federal prosecutors said the findings in the Comey case were based on misinterpretations by the judge. Blanche has disputed what he called insinuations in Williams’ order and Trump’s personal lawyers have appealed it.
The Trump administration has also moved to make it harder for outside authorities to scrutinize the actions of DOJ attorneys, suing to block one ethics case against a former official and seeking new authority to restrict investigations by state agencies that regulate lawyers.
Justice Department officials have accused state-level investigations of being politically motivated and aimed at intimidating lawyers carrying out Trump’s agenda.
“We see all these opinions where judges are critical of the government lawyers, and then we’re not seeing anything coming out of OPR,” said Bruce Green, a legal ethics expert and law professor at Fordham University. “So how can you trust them?”
Reporting by Andrew Goudsward and Brad Heath in Washington; editing by Michael Learmonth and Richard Valdmanis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复