Since assuming leadership of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division last April, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has executed a sweeping transformation of the unit, dismantling its traditional workforce and redirecting its enforcement priorities to align with President Donald Trump’s political agenda. According to current and former division officials, the overhaul has involved the departure of hundreds of experienced attorneys and their replacement with ideological allies who lack extensive legal backgrounds.
Dhillon, who immigrated to the United States from India as a child, has publicly criticized the division’s historical focus on protecting the rights of people of color. Speaking to the conservative Federalist Society in November, she characterized previous enforcement strategies as a form of “benevolent racism” that punished individuals based on the perceived sins of their ancestors. She argued that the division’s mission had narrowed over time, prompting the need for the changes implemented since Trump’s return to office in 2025.
The shift in strategy has led to the dismissal of investigations into police departments regarding constitutional violations and the withdrawal of statements of interest in dozens of cases involving voting rights and racial discrimination. Conversely, the division has intensified its activity in voting and education sectors. It has filed lawsuits demanding voter data from multiple states and launched suits against the University of California, Berkeley; Duke University; the University of California, San Francisco; and George Washington University, alleging discrimination against white and Asian students in admissions processes.
Additionally, the department has pursued cases against UCLA and Harvard regarding antisemitism on campus, although a federal judge recently dismissed the lawsuit against Harvard, ruling that the alleged incidents were too isolated to constitute civil rights violations. While some sections, such as those handling housing and disability rights, have maintained their traditional operations—including a recent lawsuit against Uber for denying rides to passengers with service dogs—the overall direction of the division has shifted dramatically.
The personnel changes have been equally significant. Dhillon previously stated that the division’s role is to enforce federal civil rights laws rather than “woke ideology,” a comment that preceded a wave of resignations. Officials estimate that up to 80% of the staff departed, a figure exacerbated by broader Department of Government Efficiency cuts. Approximately 300 attorneys have left the division since Trump returned to office, with only around 130 new hires brought in to replace them.
These dynamics have resulted in a workforce where newly hired attorneys under the second Trump administration now outnumber those retained from previous terms. Critics argue that Dhillon has circumvented hiring protocols established after a scandal during the George W. Bush era, which mandated that career staff lead recruitment to prevent partisan influence. Current and former officials contend that political appointees have now taken control of the hiring process, resulting in the appointment of individuals with limited civil rights experience and connections to conservative legal organizations such as the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Only Citizens Vote Coalition.
A Justice Department spokesperson denied allegations of political bias in hiring, stating that career staff continue to hire career staff and that claims to the contrary are misrepresentations. However, former officials like Christy Lopez, a Georgetown Law professor and former division attorney, warn that the loss of institutional knowledge has severely depleted the division’s capacity. Dena Robinson, who left the division for the ACLU, noted that the new hires appear selected primarily for their alignment with presidential priorities rather than their ability to uphold the division’s traditional enforcement duties.
Leave a Reply