Key Points
- At least a dozen of President Donald Trump’s second-term picks for U.S. attorney positions have never prosecuted a case in federal court .
- These inexperienced appointees have been disqualified, reprimanded by judges for inappropriate conduct, or seen their cases fall apart .
- U.S. attorneys are the most powerful prosecutorial posts in the country, deciding which criminal investigations to pursue .
- In May 2025, three Wyoming judges tossed nine indictments after finding U.S. attorney Darin Smith committed “many known instances of misconduct” .
- In April 2026, a New York appellate court committee found John Sarcone committed professional misconduct .
- Sigal Chattah in Nevada, disqualified from the top job, ordered a last-minute cancellation of an approved plea deal .
- Dan Bishop in North Carolina, a former Republican lawmaker who voted against certifying Biden’s 2020 win, is pushing the FBI to revisit concluded election fraud inquiries .
- Three inexperienced U.S. attorneys have exited their posts: Lindsey Halligan, Alina Habba, and Ed Martin .
- Halligan was disqualified and her indictments against James Comey and Letitia James were tossed .
- Habba was criticized by a federal judge for the “hasty arrest” of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka .
- Martin faces disciplinary charges from the D.C. Bar for threatening to withhold funding from Georgetown Law over DEI practices .
- A DOJ spokesperson claimed “prior federal prosecution experience is not the only qualification that makes someone a good U.S. Attorney” .
What Is Happening to Trump’s Inexperienced U.S. Attorneys in Court?
Washington (King County Insider) June 13, 2026. Trump’s inexperienced federal prosecutors are running into trouble in court, with at least a dozen of President Donald Trump’s second-term picks for U.S. attorney posts having been disqualified, reprimanded, or seen their cases fall apart because they have never prosecuted a case in federal court . U.S. attorneys are the most powerful prosecutorial posts in the country, deciding which criminal investigations to pursue and who must face off against the federal government in court, yet Trump has repeatedly filled those jobs with people who have never worked as prosecutors .
Why Are So Many Trump-Selected U.S. Attorneys Being Disqualified or Reprimanded?
As reported by the journalist at POLITICO, Trump has appointed at least a dozen people since the beginning of his second term who have never prosecuted a federal case to lead offices full of federal prosecutors . Many of these people have either been disqualified, reprimanded by judges for inappropriate conduct, or seen their cases fall apart . “This administration seems to think of U.S. attorneys as messenger boys for the president and his people at the top of the Justice Department, rather than independent actors of substance,” said Dan Richman, a Columbia Law School professor and former federal prosecutor .
What Consequences Have arose from Lack of Prosecutorial Experience?
In recent months, the lack of prosecutorial experience by some Trump-selected U.S. attorneys has had serious consequences . In May 2025, a trio of judges in Wyoming tossed nine indictments after finding the U.S. attorney, Darin Smith, committed “many known instances of misconduct” by addressing a panel of grand jurors with “inflammatory and inappropriate” commentary . Smith told prospective grand jurors that defendants were “bad guys” and “murderers” who “did what you are going to hear about,” and the judges also found that Smith handed out business cards to grand jurors inviting them to reach out . “Abusing this special position of trust, the U.S. Attorney impaired the grand jury’s integrity as an independent body,” the judges wrote .
In April 2026, a committee of New York state’s appellate court system found that John Sarcone, the embattled federal prosecutor leading the U.S. attorney’s office for the Northern District of New York, committed professional misconduct . The nature of the misconduct and sanctions were not clear .
How Have Inexperienced U.S. Attorneys Taken Unusual Steps?
Some U.S. attorneys who have never worked in a federal prosecutor’s office have taken steps considered unusual for anyone familiar with Justice Department customs . In Nevada, Sigal Chattah, leading the U.S. attorney’s office as first assistant after a federal judge disqualified her from holding the top job, ordered the last-minute cancellation of a plea deal directed and approved by the supervising attorney in the office’s criminal division . Bloomberg News first reported Chattah’s order, and the defendant is seeking to disqualify Chattah from the prosecution .
The U.S. attorney for the middle district of North Carolina, Dan Bishop, is a former Republican lawmaker who voted against certifying that Joe Biden won the 2020 election . Bishop is also a special prosecutor tasked with pursuing election fraud, and his early efforts reportedly included pushing the FBI to revisit inquiries it had already concluded were fruitless .
What Do Legal Experts Say About Trump’s Hiring Pattern?
It isn’t unprecedented for a president to choose someone for a U.S. attorney job who has never worked as a prosecutor — President George W. Bush appointed Chris Christie as New Jersey U.S. attorney — but legal experts say doing it with such frequency is unusual and likely reflects Trump’s tendency to value loyalty over professional qualifications . Without having worked as a line prosecutor, “they don’t have anything to compare it to,” said Mimi Rocah, a former federal prosecutor who is writing a book on the justice system during Trump’s presidency . “It’s much harder for them to say why” the office should decline to pursue a case, she said . Though U.S. attorneys often seek the assessment of prosecutors working for them, “I think a U.S. attorney is more likely to ignore the advice of career people … if they don’t have the experience themselves,” Rocah said .
Which Inexperienced U.S. Attorneys Have Exited Their Posts?
Three people who lacked prosecutorial experience have since exited their U.S. attorney posts: Lindsey Halligan, Alina Habba, and Ed Martin . Halligan, who served as interim U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, was disqualified by U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie, who also tossed indictments Halligan obtained against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James . Another federal judge suggested Halligan had likely made procedural missteps during the grand jury process .
Like Halligan, Habba became U.S. attorney after working as one of Trump’s personal lawyers . Habba served in New Jersey, where a federal judge criticized her for the “hasty arrest” and speedy dismissal of charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, a Democrat detained following an incident at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility . U.S. Magistrate Judge André M. Espinosa said the episode “suggests a worrisome misstep” by Habba’s office .
And Martin, who was U.S. attorney for Washington, is facing disciplinary charges from the D.C. Bar for several steps taken while he led the office, including threatening to withhold funding from Georgetown University’s Law Center and barring his staff from hiring its students to punish the institution for its DEI practices, which the Bar called a First Amendment violation .
What Is the DOJ’s Response to These Criticisms?
A spokesperson for DOJ said “prior federal prosecution experience is not the only qualification that makes someone a good U.S. Attorney,” adding that the 12 people identified by POLITICO aren’t a large number of the appointees for the 94 U.S. attorneys offices . “Their experience both inside and outside the government is on par with — if not superior to — those who served in previous administrations,” the spokesperson said .
Background of This Development: Trump’s Second-Term U.S. Attorney Appointments
This development stems from President Donald Trump’s second-term strategy for filling U.S. attorney positions, which has prioritized loyalty and personal connection over traditional prosecutorial experience . Since the beginning of his second term, Trump has repeatedly appointed individuals who have never worked as federal prosecutors to lead offices full of experienced federal prosecutors . U.S. attorneys hold the most powerful prosecutorial posts in the country, with authority to decide which criminal investigations to pursue and who faces the federal government in court . This hiring pattern differs from previous administrations, where presidents typically selected candidates with substantial federal prosecutorial backgrounds . Legal experts characterize this frequency of inexperienced appointments as unusual and reflective of Trump’s tendency to value loyalty over professional qualifications .
Prediction: How This Development Can Affect American Citizens and the Federal Justice System
This development can significantly affect American citizens and the federal justice system in multiple ways . First, inexperienced U.S. attorneys are more likely to ignore advice from career prosecutors, potentially leading to poorly pursued cases that waste federal resources and unfairly target defendants . Second, the frequency of disqualifications, reprimands, and tossed indictments undermines public confidence in the integrity of federal prosecutions . Third, defendants face increased risk of misconduct during grand jury processes, as seen in Wyoming where Smith’s inflammatory commentary impaired the grand jury’s integrity . Fourth, the pattern of inexperienced appointees pushing for investigations already concluded as fruitless — such as Bishop’s election fraud efforts — can divert FBI resources from legitimate criminal work . Finally, the Justice Department’s institutional reputation may suffer as judges repeatedly criticize inappropriate conduct by Trump-selected U.S. attorneys, potentially affecting future cooperation between federal courts and prosecutors . For ordinary Americans, this means a federal justice system that may be less predictable, less professional, and more susceptible to political influence than in previous administrations .
