The New York Times reported that the "Justice Department struggles" with President Donald Trump's demands that it prosecute his political enemies. But the question of who exactly is struggling remains largely unaddressed in media coverage, writes Robert Reich, former secretary of labor and professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

Reich argues that the ambiguity surrounding decision-makers extends across the administration. When outlets report that the "White House" wants a particular action, or that the "Department of Homeland Security" is undertaking some initiative, or that the "Department of the Interior" is reversing a prior policy, the actual individuals behind those decisions remain obscured.

"These are buildings and departments, not people. We need to know who," Reich writes.

Reich, who headed a federal department during the Clinton administration, notes that in normal times these institutions contain career professionals guided by decades of expertise and institutional norms. The independence of those norms traces to reforms enacted after Watergate, when Congress and the Justice Department itself established internal guardrails — including guidelines restricting White House communications with DOJ prosecutors on specific cases — designed to insulate federal law enforcement from political direction. Under Trump, Reich argues, those professional standards are being systematically dismantled.

The $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund

News reports have consistently characterized the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund — at the center of the controversy over whether to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general — as "the Justice Department's" fund. NPR reported on Blanche's rescission of the order that created it.

Reich contends this framing conceals a critical detail: the fund was never an official product of the Justice Department. According to Reich, it emerged from meetings between Trump's personal lawyers and acting attorney general Todd Blanche — who previously served as a personal lawyer for Trump — over how to resolve Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. Reich characterizes it as Trump's fund from its inception, along with a related deal to shield himself from IRS audits.

Blanche's transition from personal defense counsel to acting attorney general has no clear modern parallel, and well-established conflict-of-interest principles in legal ethics bar attorneys from overseeing matters involving former clients without proper safeguards — a dynamic that sits at the heart of the Senate confirmation fight.

When the media reports that the "Justice Department" is "formally rescinding the order that created the fund," Reich argues the coverage obscures the fact that Blanche personally rescinded it. Trump himself has stated he "wasn't involved" in the revised plan, raising questions about whether a future attorney general would be bound by Blanche's order.

The Reflecting Pool Case

The same pattern of institutional opacity, Reich argues, is evident in the controversy surrounding damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, a case the Wall Street Journal reported is "far from over."

The damage gained national attention when the pool's bottom surface began peeling and algae blooms turned the water from blue to green. Trump had publicly insisted for months that vandals were to blame.

D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office charged David Hearn, a former Olympian, with "a violent effort to rip up the sealant from the bottom of the pool." Hearn was indicted for felony destruction of government property, a charge carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

According to Yahoo News reporting, Pirro "blamed the Department of Interior" for the failed prosecution.

In a Friday court filing, Pirro conceded that the problems with the newly renovated pool were caused by a "botched installation not vandalism" and stated that had the Department of the Interior "been forthcoming with the information clearly in its possession, the government would not have sought a grand jury indictment."

Reich raises unanswered questions: Did Interior Secretary Doug Burgum mislead Pirro about Hearn's alleged conduct? Or did Trump instruct Burgum to attribute the damage to a vandal rather than acknowledge a failed renovation? The public still does not know who was responsible for the decision to prosecute Hearn, Reich notes.

The Need for Individual Accountability

Reich argues that the press bears responsibility for naming specific officials rather than attributing actions to institutions.

"Buildings and departments are not destroying the rule of law and undermining American democracy. Individuals are. The media must tell us whom to hold responsible," Reich writes.

He warns that a "reckoning" will eventually come for those who enabled or collaborated with the Trump administration, and emphasizes that maintaining a clear record of individual responsibility is essential for that future accountability. The post-Watergate era demonstrated how documented records of official conduct became the foundation for congressional investigations, special prosecutor inquiries, and systemic reform — a precedent that underscores the stakes of Reich's appeal.

---

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and former U.S. secretary of labor. His writings are available at