President Donald Trump's Justice Department has become so consumed by controversy that experts are describing the cabinet-level agency as being in a "full-on meltdown."

"There's a full-on meltdown going on at the DOJ," The Bulwark's Sarah Longwell told Andrew Weissman, a former assistant U.S. attorney, during a Thursday conversation streamed on YouTube. Weissman responded by noting that, with Trump's Republicans having lost overwhelmingly in the 2026 midterm elections, the pressure on the department was only intensifying.

"Now reality sets in. People have expectations. So there's a lot to talk about. Okay. DOJ, what do you want to... Shoot. Bring it on," Weissman said.

Longwell then said she wanted to talk about the "high-profile firings and resignations. We've got Harmeet Dhillon out as the head of the Civil Rights Division; Jason Reding Quiñones — am I saying that right? Yes — the U.S. attorney in Miami who was heading up the grand conspiracy investigation; John Eisenberg, the head of the National Security Division; and Brett Shumate — pronounced 'Shomate,' so I pronounced it wrong, but my notes say it's 'Shomate' — who's the head of the Civil Division."

The roles named sit at the core of the department's litigation work: the Civil Rights Division enforces federal anti-discrimination law, the National Security Division handles counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases, the Civil Division represents the federal government in court, and U.S. attorneys serve as the chief federal prosecutors in their districts — offices filled through presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.

She added that this past week, Akash Singh, the principal assistant to the deputy attorney general, "had a call with all the U.S. attorneys, seemingly threatening their jobs if they're not ready to go to battle with the administration. So what is going on? Is this normal? What's happening?"

Weissman noted that other officials had also departed from what he called "lesser positions, but still quite senior positions." He added that Quiñones, the U.S. attorney in Florida, "might be the fourth or fifth person to lead the so-called grand conspiracy case who has left. Yeah. Resigned."

Longwell and Weissman are not alone in observing that Justice Department personnel are leaving over fears that the administration's actions could force them to engage in illegal conduct. James Sample, a professor at Hofstra University Law School, made a similar point on Wednesday.

"We have seen examples of individuals getting fired or individuals leaving because either they wouldn't pursue and therefore got fired or wouldn't pursue, and therefore were faced with the pressure to resign if they weren't willing to pursue those cases that were crossing the line and were going after retribution," Sample argued.

He cited the events surrounding Lindsey Halligan as an example. "You forget that before Lindsey Halligan, there was Eric Siebert declining to engage in that prosecution. Then Lindsey Halligan, with no experience and an unlawful appointment, and then a grand jury failed to indict as well. So, you're right there in that little microcosm, you have all three stages," he said.

That sequence traces how the department's internal checks typically operate: a line prosecutor can decline a case, an appointee can be installed in their place, and a grand jury — a citizens' panel weighing whether probable cause supports charges — can decline to return an indictment. Those episodes sit against a long-standing norm that prosecutorial decisions are insulated from political direction, a principle central to the department's stated mission of fair and impartial justice.

Despite the mounting controversies, the Justice Department shows no signs of altering its approach. After Democrats won the midterms, department officials ordered employees to prepare for "war." Whether the department installs permanent successors for the departed officials, and whether further departures follow, are the immediate markers to watch in the wake of the midterm results.