To save you some effort, I’m breaking down the highlights here, along with some legal background and suggested action items and reforms.

Trump’s Stock Trading Disclosure

The report in question is called a Form 278-T, also known as a Periodic Transaction Report. Executive Branch officials, including the President, are legally required to complete Form 278-T every time they buy or sell a stock or bond worth more than $1,000. The form is submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, which reviews and publishes these disclosures in a searchable database.

On May 8, Trump signed a Form 278-T covering the first quarter of 2026. His filing was months late—the law requires reporting within 30 to 45 days of a transaction—and Trump was fined accordingly, but to some observers, the fact he filed at all was a surprise.

Trump’s disclosure spans 113 pages. It lists more than 3,600 stock trades between January and March of this year. The filing reveals that Trump bought and sold hundreds of millions of dollars in stocks, including big tech, defense contractors, media companies, crypto, and more. The form uses ranges, not exact amounts, so the precise value of Trump’s trades is not known, but the total is between $220 and $750 million.

This report provides only a partial picture of Trump’s trading activity, because it includes only his personal holdings. His corporate assets, including his many business interests under the Trump Organization umbrella, are not subject to disclosure.

Notable Transactions

What’s notable about this is not just that Trump is staggeringly wealthy. It’s that he is heavily invested in companies whose businesses are directly affected by policies he is making. He is actively trading in their stocks at the same time he is making decisions that influence the value of those stocks.

The form is filled with notable examples, of which I will highlight just a few.

Trump invested in both Paramount and Warner Brothers while his Justice Department is reviewing their highly controversial proposed merger.

He invested in Oracle at the same time he brokered their deal to buy TikTok, setting aside concerns about national security.

He invested in Palantir as they competed for and won major government contracts, worth billions of dollars, in defense and other sectors.

He bought numerous crypto stocks while pushing a bill called the Clarity Act, which would benefit the crypto industry (which is actively lobbying for its passage).

One of Trump’s biggest buys was millions of dollars in Nvidia stock. Nvidia makes advanced AI chips, which they have been trying to sell to China for years. The U.S. government has restricted the sale of these chips to protect our national security. But Nvidia’s CEO lobbied Trump for months to change that policy, and in December, Trump agreed—raising alarm among foreign policy and security experts.

Then Trump went a step further. This week, he took Nvidia’s CEO to China with him—on Air Force One—to sell their AI chips to the Chinese government. During the trip, the U.S. government for the first time cleared 10 Chinese companies to purchase the chips. Nvidia’s stock price has now climbed 26% since January, and 70% over the last 12 months.

This week, Trump also took the CEO of Boeing to China with him—after buying millions of dollars of Boeing stock. On the trip, they reportedly sold 200 Boeing airplanes to the Chinese government, with the potential to sell hundreds more.

An analysis by Fortune observes that Trump’s stock account has repeatedly “traded around” domestic and international events, as well as the President’s official actions and public statements. For example, in January, during a severe egg shortage, Trump “bought Cal-Maine Foods, the country’s largest egg producer”; he sold this stock in a substantially larger amount two months later. In February, Trump bought millions in Dell stock. He then urged the public to “go out and buy a Dell”—after which Dell’s stock price surged 24%.

When he began the Iran war, Trump sold large positions in American companies and “traded into safe-haven stocks like gold and treasuries, even as he said the war would end soon.” He later bought up energy, defense, and aerospace stocks: “the companies that stood to profit if the war dragged on.”

Ethics and Conflict of Interest Considerations

It’s impossible to look at Trump’s trading and not ask: Is Trump actually acting in the interests of the American people? Or is he placing his own financial interests first? At this point, it may be a chicken-or-egg question. Trump’s personal portfolio is so thoroughly intertwined with his presidential portfolio that it is impossible to judge whether his investments are influencing his policies, or his policies are influencing his investments, or both because they are one and the same.

An analysis by the Cato Institute observed:

The Trump administration has spent the past year treating policymaking like a series of business transactions. So, when the president can decide which firms receive export permission, tariff relief, merger approval, or even a direct government ownership stake, his personal investments become a public concern.

Richard Painter, a leading presidential ethics expert and White House ethics counsel under George W. Bush, analyzed Trump’s trades during the Iran war. As reported by Fortune:

Painter said this is exactly the kind of trading a president shouldn’t do, because the president has both confidential information about overseas developments and the power to move commodities markets through his own decisions. Even with no one in the family directing the trades, he said, it misses the point. “He has no control over the accounts? That’s beside the point. He certainly has the control over the decision about whether we went to war or not.”

Contrast with Other Presidents

Other presidents have chosen to sell off their stocks or place them in a blind trust before assuming office to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. Painter, the ethics expert, told Fortune: “I’ve gone through every President. I don’t think we’ve had any President trade in the stock market.”

Unlike other Presidents, Trump has persistently refused to divest his stocks or employ a blind trust. As Fortune reported:

Since Lyndon Johnson pioneered the use of a presidential blind trust in 1963, every modern president has either placed their assets in a blind trust managed by independent trustees, held them in index funds and Treasuries, or, in Jimmy Carter’s case, liquidated all their assets (notoriously, his peanut farm). None have actively traded individual securities while in office. Until recently.

Trump’s son Eric has claimed that his father’s holdings are in a blind trust and that he does not trade individual stocks. This is clearly false. Trump’s Form 278-T lists hundreds of individual stock trades. Moreover, the form is personally signed by Trump; a defining feature of a blind trust is that the owner does not know what assets it holds.

Personal Profit and Corruption

The New York Times estimated that Trump pocketed at least $1.4 billion during the first year of his second term. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump family has generated at least $4 billion in profits from new business ventures since Trump was reelected. The Trump family is profiting from a staggering array of new business ventures, including drone manufacturing, a golf club in Qatar, a resort in Saudi Arabia, and crypto deals with foreign billionaires—as well as sales of bibles, sneakers, and guitars. The Associated Press recently reported that Trump’s net worth is now $6.3 billion, as estimated by Forbes—an increase of 60% since he returned to office.

When asked about potential conflicts of interest, Trump responded: “I found out that nobody cared, and I’m allowed to.”

The definition of corruption is using official power for private gain. By that measure, Trump is hands down the most corrupt President in history. His Form 278-T is a roadmap to the ways he is personally profiting from the powers of the presidency.

Legal Framework and Potential Reforms

After Watergate, Congress enacted the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as a measure to enhance transparency and accountability for public officials and to restore public trust in government. The Act created the Office of Government Ethics, which oversees compliance with federal ethics laws and the financial reporting requirements imposed on public officials.

In 2012, Congress enacted the STOCK Act, which prohibits Members of Congress and their staff from trading stocks based on nonpublic information learned through their official positions. The Act also created new disclosure requirements for a range of federal employees—including the President and Vice President—such as the stock trade reporting requirement reflected on Form 278-T, among others.

However, these rules have limited effect as far as the President is concerned. Most Executive Branch officials are expressly prohibited from participating in official matters in which they have a financial conflict of interest. Failure to disclose and avoid conflicts can result in criminal penalties. But the President and the Vice President are specifically exempted from that rule.

Dating back to his first presidency, Trump has repeatedly claimed that “the President can’t have a conflict of interest.” As a factual matter, that is incorrect. But as a legal matter, there is no enforcement mechanism in place that restricts the President from acting under conflicts of interest.

Congress can and should revisit the existing rules, which rely on the President to do the right thing voluntarily—a quaint aspiration in the era of Trump. The Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling may eliminate the possibility of criminal penalties. But monetary penalties—such as fines and disgorgement of profits—may be better suited anyway to deter a person motivated principally by personal gain.

Congress should also act to further restrict stock trading by government officials. Both Democrat and Republican voters broadly support a total ban on stock trading by Members of Congress. Legislation to enact such a ban has been proposed many times, including a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Ashley Moody (R-Fla.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) in January. Their bill, however, would not apply to the President.

Last year, President Trump sharply attacked Republican Senator Josh Hawley after he advanced a bill that would ban stock trading by the President and Vice President as well as Members of Congress. Trump accused Hawley of “targeting” him, calling Hawley a “second-tier Senator.” Trump’s most recent Form 278-T leaves no doubt about why he was so angry about Hawley’s proposed bill.

Another issue is the limited ability of the Office of Government Ethics to enforce existing rules. The Office is not an investigative agency with subpoena power. Moreover, it lacks independence from the President. Within weeks of returning to office, Trump removed the Office’s Director, who had been confirmed by the Senate to serve a five-year term just two months earlier. Since then, the Office has been led by a “revolving door” of political loyalists who answer directly to the President. Like many other executive agencies, OGE needs reinforcement.

Action Items

I know many of you will want suggestions for actionable items. I have two.

First, share this information widely. Use your voice to raise public awareness and keep a spotlight on the abuse and corruption of official power.

Share

I know this might not feel much. But it is actually one of the most important things we can do right now. There is no legal remedy for the kind of corruption we are now witnessing. Our laws were not designed with a president like Donald Trump in mind. The framers of our Constitution did not conceive of the possibility that we could elect a president who would loot and pillage our country without a shadow of shame.

So it falls to us, the citizens, to push back and demand change. We cannot afford to elect another leader like Trump. Educating our fellow citizens is how we ensure that we do not continue to empower officials who will put their personal interests ahead of the interests of the American people.

Second, call your elected representatives. Tell them this kind of corruption is unacceptable. Ask them to enact legislation that does the following things:

• Bans stock trading by ALL government officials

• Eliminates the President and Vice-President’s exemptions from federal conflict-of-interest laws

• Imposes new financial penalties for violating conflict of interest laws

• Bolsters the resources and independence of the Office of Government Ethics

There is no quick fix to the mess we are in. But that doesn’t mean we should give up. These are small steps, but they are a path to change.

There has never been a more important time to be a lawyer.

For me, this became painfully clear on March the 7th of last year—the day I was fired from the Justice Department. It was a Friday afternoon, and I was in my last meeting of the day, with about 25 people from around the Department. My deputy burst in and pulled me out into the hallway. She told me that security officers were waiting in my office with termination papers.

When I got back to my office, they handed me a one-page memo from the Deputy Attorney General informing me that I was fired effective immediately. It gave no reason. They watched me pack my personal belongings into a grocery bag, and they walked me out of the building in front of my staff. Everyone was stunned. That was the last time I set foot inside the Justice Department.

There is a famously misunderstood line from Shakespeare about lawyers. In King Henry VI, the character Dick the Butcher converses with Jack Cade, the rebel leader who is plotting an uprising against the King. Dick says, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” This line has often been read as disparaging the value of lawyers. But in fact, its meaning is the opposite. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained in a 1985 opinion: “Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.”

****

Disposing of lawyers has been a major theme of the last sixteen months. Particularly inside the Justice Department. I was fired seven weeks into Donald Trump’s second presidency. Pam Bondi had been installed as Attorney General, and Todd Blanche as her deputy.

I had expected that these leadership changes would affect my work, but I had assumed my job was safe. I held a career position in the Senior Executive Service, which came with extensive statutory job protections.

And I did not plan to give this job up, because I believed in the work I was doing. As Pardon Attorney, my job was to review the thousands of applications for executive clemency that come through the Justice Department each year. I led a team of career staff who rigorously investigated and vetted these applications. Most came from incarcerated people seeking a second chance at freedom. In every case, we crafted a detailed recommendation to grant or deny relief, based on factors like rehabilitation and changes in law and policy.

My team and I took our work very seriously, because we understood that the stakes were extremely high for the applicants—as well as their loved ones. We got piles of mail, every day, from people whose hopes were resting on the possibility of clemency.

Even when the Administration changed, I believed there was a path forward for the work. I thought that if I stayed in my post, I would be able to help some deserving people get the second chances they had earned.

****

It took about half a day to be proven wrong. I was at home the evening of January 20th—Inauguration Day—watching television with my family, when a news alert popped up announcing that the President had pardoned all of the January 6 defendants. About 1,500 people in total. As Pardon Attorney, part of my job was to make sure the President’s clemency directives were carried out. Yet no one had consulted me. No one had even given me a heads up.

Frantic calls started coming in from the Bureau of Prisons. There were 400 people who needed to be released from facilities around the country THAT NIGHT. There were families showing up at prisons and banging on doors demanding the release of their loved ones. It was chaos.

Still, I didn’t give up all hope at that point. I thought, well, that was a campaign promise—and now that it’s fulfilled, we can get into the real work. But over the next few days, dozens more pardons were granted. And I was not consulted on any of them. My team was repeatedly surprised and left scrambling to implement directives that had never been shared with us.

By February, it was clear that we were not going to have a role in advising the president on clemency. Instead, we were given a different task. The Attorney General was establishing an initiative to begin restoring gun ownership rights to those who had lost the right to possess a firearm due to a criminal conviction. Over 25 million people would be eligible to apply for this relief. I was told that the project would be administered by my Office.

This was rather shocking given the magnitude of the task. But I rolled with it. What you have to understand about working as a federal employee at that time is the atmosphere of intense panic that had consumed the workforce. Out of nowhere, DOGE emerged and started slashing jobs. Agencies were directed to start planning for Reductions in Force. The “Fork in the Road” memo advised federal workers to consider taking a buyout and looking for work in the private sector. Elon Musk was making public appearances with a chainsaw.

Federal workers were terrified. I was holding on for my team. They were counting on me to lead us through this nightmare. This was growing harder every day. We had no guidance from DOJ leadership. Rumors and speculation were rampant. I held daily staff meetings that routinely ended with half the room in tears.

So, when we got this new assignment—the gun rights project—my team was relieved that we would have something to do, to justify our existence. I jumped in and got to work.

****

But almost immediately, things became extremely fraught. Early in the project, there was discussion of whether those with domestic violence convictions should be eligible for reinstatement of gun rights. DOJ’s own data highlighted the dangers of arming domestic abusers. Nearly half the women murdered in this country are killed by an intimate partner, usually with a firearm. An abuser’s access to a gun makes it five times more likely that a victim will be killed.

Despite this data, there was a seemingly urgent desire to reinstate the gun rights of a specific individual with a domestic violence history: the actor Mel Gibson—who had been named a “special ambassador to Hollywood” by Donald Trump. Gibson had lost his right to own a firearm when he was convicted of battering his girlfriend. After Trump returned to office, Gibson asked the Justice Department to reinstate his gun rights, citing his personal relationship with the president and his catalogue of famous films.

I, in turn, was asked to write a memo for the Attorney General recommending that she grant Gibson’s request. I could not do that. I had grave concerns about the public safety implications of arming a convicted domestic abuser. I voiced my concerns. And then I was invited to set them aside and make the recommendation anyway.

The Attorney General didn’t actually need me to make this recommendation. She could grant Gibson the relief he was seeking with or without my blessing. (In fact, she did so after I was fired.) But as a nonpolitical official, I understood that my recommendation would add a veneer of legitimacy to what could otherwise look like a political favor for a friend of the President.

This request came at a time when the loyalty of the Department’s career workforce was being vigorously tested. We were told that we should consider ourselves the President’s lawyers. We had been warned that if we failed to “faithfully” follow directions, and “zealously” carry out orders, we would be fired. Everyone was walking on eggshells.

So, I knew the Mel Gibson request was fraught. I knew there were possible consequences for my future. The afternoon before I was fired, I sent a message to my colleague asking, “Is Mel Gibson going to be my downfall?” And he was. But I have no regrets, because I left the Justice Department with my integrity intact.

****

I decided to speak out about my firing. I gave an interview to The New York Times a few days later. I went on CNN and MSNBC. Seeking publicity made me feel vulnerable and afraid. But I was more afraid of the consequences of staying quiet. I was afraid of what was happening inside the Department of Justice and the consequences it would have for our country.

I was right to be apprehensive about speaking out. The Deputy Attorney General immediately accused me of lying. I later learned that DOJ filed an ethics complaint against me with the D.C. Bar, where I am licensed. But I decided I wasn’t going to be bullied into silence.

A few weeks after my firing, I was asked to testify in Congress. Democratic Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees were convening a spotlight hearing on threats to the rule of law. That’s when things took another ugly turn.

The hearing was scheduled to take place on a Monday. The Friday before, I got a phone call around 9:00 at night from a DOJ number. I was in the car with my husband and my parents, driving them home from an evening out. A very decent former colleague was calling to alert me that the Deputy Attorney General had sent armed U.S. Marshals to my home to deliver a warning letter about my expected testimony. The officers were on their way to my house as we spoke. The caller knew it would be very upsetting to my family when armed officers arrived at my doorstep late that night. When I told the caller that my teenage son was home alone, they helped to get the officers called off.

I eventually received DOJ’s letter by email. It warned me about the legal risks of proceeding with my congressional testimony. I then spent the entire weekend looking for a lawyer. My husband and I spent two days calling everyone in our network. Over a dozen lawyers and law firms turned us down before I found someone willing to help.

This was at the height of the Trump Administration’s use of Executive Orders to target law firms. Some of the most prominent defense firms in the country were facing retaliation for working on matters adverse to the Administration’s agenda—or for employing lawyers who the President considered enemies. Firms that had not been targeted sought to avoid it by keeping a low profile. In this environment, I quickly discovered that even the most lauded litigators in Washington were afraid to stand up for the rule of law.

The lawyers I spoke to thanked me for what I was doing. They praised my bravery and my integrity. They offered to help “behind the scenes.” But they did not want to sit behind me at a congressional hearing. No law firm wanted to put their name on a letter to the Department of Justice. I have never felt more vulnerable or more alone.

It never crossed my mind, though, not to testify. I showed up that Monday, and I sounded the alarm. Here’s part of what I said that day:

My experience is just one example of a much broader pattern of attacks on career experts across the Department of Justice. These pervasive assaults by the political leadership of the Department are terrorizing the career workforce. This is not by accident or oversight—it is by design. The very purpose of systematically forcing out career employees is to invoke fear, so that fear will give way to blind loyalty.

It is dangerous and wrong to prioritize political loyalty over the laws of this nation, the safety of its citizens, and the fair and responsible administration of justice.

Since my firing, things have gotten much worse. My former office has lost most of its staff. It is now managed by Ed Martin, a conspiracy theorist and election denier whose motto is “no MAGA left behind.” Clemency has become a cash industry. Pardons have been granted freely to donors and allies of the President, while the applications of ordinary Americans have been ignored.

****

What has happened to the pardon office is also happening across the Department of Justice.

Leadership has systematically removed career experts who present roadblocks to their political agenda. They have fired or forced out the senior officials responsible for enforcing institutional rules, including: the Director of the Ethics Office, the Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility, and the Director of the Office of Information Policy—which oversees compliance with FOIA.

Experienced prosecutors have been ousted for refusing to pursue political vendettas, like the prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Others have resigned amid pressure to take corrupt actions, like dismissing the prosecution of Eric Adams, the former New York City Mayor charged with taking bribes. Some quit over the Department’s refusal to investigate the killing of Renee Good by ICE agents in Minneapolis, and the directive to investigate her widow instead.

Even more prosecutors and FBI agents have lost their jobs simply because of the cases they were assigned to work on during the previous administration. The Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, recently boasted about “purging” hundreds of staff who worked on investigations of the President. Dozens more were fired over their work investigating the January 6 Capitol riot.

In total, the Department has lost over 11,000 employees since Donald Trump returned to office. That is about 10% of its workforce. Among those who have left are more than 4,000 federal law enforcement personnel and 3,400 lawyers. That is one quarter of DOJ’s entire attorney staff.

Offices that have been particularly hard hit include the National Security Division, which has lost 38% of its staff, and the Civil Rights Division, which has lost more than half its staff.

The Department’s reputation has become so degraded that it is struggling to fill these positions. It has hired fewer than 800 new attorneys to replace the 3,400 who have departed. DOJ is now offering signing bonuses of $25,000 to anyone willing to take the job. The lawyers coming in often have little or no relevant experience.

In fact, DOJ is now explicitly recruiting lawyers on the basis of political affiliation rather than experience. The former Chief of Staff to Pam Bondi has urged lawyers who “support President Trump” to reach out to him on X about working at DOJ. The head of the Civil Rights Division shared a post on X saying: “if you are remotely rightwing” “you can go straight into DOJ” from law school. This is unprecedented.

****

The staff who remain are making difficult calculations every day. Employees have been directed to “vigorously defend” presidential policies or face termination. That has forced many lawyers to choose between obeying their bosses and honoring their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Those who have chosen the Constitution have been ousted. In one instance, a lawyer was fired after he admitted to a judge that the United States had wrongly deported Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. That prompted a federal appeals court to take the unusual step of reminding government attorneys that “the duty of zealous representation is tempered by the duty of candor to the court … and the duty to uphold the rule of law.”

That admonition had little effect on the Department’s conduct. A recent analysis by Just Security documents dozens of cases in which federal courts have found that government lawyers presented false and misleading information. Federal judges have documented hundreds of cases in which the government failed to comply with court orders. Judges around the country have questioned whether the government still deserves the “presumption of regularity”—which is a doctrine of implicit trust and good faith from which government attorneys have benefitted for generations.

These are extraordinary rebukes. But Department leaders have been unmoved. They have continued to sow disrespect and mistrust for the judiciary. They have derided and vilified judges who rule against them. The Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, has said that DOJ is at “war” with the courts.

This is not a political issue. The erosion of respect for the rule of law is an existential threat to our Republic. In the Abrego Garcia case, the noted conservative jurist J. Harvie Wilkinson called the Administration’s attacks on the Judiciary “a losing proposition all around.” He wrote:

The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.

****

I have spent a lot of time reflecting on how we got here. How could an institution as fundamental as the Department of Justice collapse so quickly? How could it fall so far, so fast? The answer, I think, is that too many of us took it for granted. Too many of us became complacent.

Alums of DOJ often speak about the “norms” and “traditions” of the Department. They are referencing a code of conduct that the Department imposed on itself long ago. Generations of government lawyers adhered to this code without question, because it reflected shared values that were deeper and more enduring than politics.

Until recently, those values were self-reinforcing. They were so entrenched that they seemed to be immutable. We did not even consider the possibility that those values could be attacked. As a result, we were not prepared to come to their defense.

But all is not lost. Judge Wilkinson warned that we are facing “an incipient crisis.” But this moment, he noted, “may present an opportunity as well.” The rule of law is “vital to the American ethos,” he wrote, and we now have a “unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.”

While there is still time. As lawyers, we have taken an oath to uphold the law and support the Constitution. We must consider what our oath requires of us right now. We cannot be complacent. We cannot be bystanders. We have a duty to act while there is still time.

****

As lawyers, we are trained to be deliberative and cautious. But the moment for cautious deliberation has passed. What is needed from us now is action. The rule of law is fighting for its life, and we lawyers are the only ones who can save it.

The stakes could not be higher. Our fellow Americans are counting on us to fight for their constitutional rights. Our neighbors are counting on us to keep them safe and free. Our children are counting on us to protect their futures.

Every single one of us has a role to play. It doesn’t matter where you practice. It doesn’t matter what your specialty is. You have something to contribute.

Many of us want to help but aren’t sure how. So I want to suggest four things that each one of us can do to meet this critical moment.

Number One: Invest in community. Communities like this one. State Bar Associations are uniquely positioned to be leaders in defending the rule of law. You have a platform right here. You have a tremendous amount of talent and brainpower, right here in this room. You can shape conversations. You can educate the public. You can mobilize your community into action.

Lawyers don’t always like to collaborate. Sometimes we’re territorial. Sometimes we’re competitive. Sometimes we are adversaries. But right now, we are all on the same team. This is the time to come together to defend our shared values. We are stronger together. We are more powerful together. We are more effective together. This is the time to lean into our community.

Number Two: Try new things. This is a moment like no other. The challenges we are facing are unprecedented. There is no tried and tested playbook to turn to. So we must be creative. We must think outside the box. My personal mantra is: Be brave and try new things.

After I was fired, I did something I never in a million years would have imagined myself doing. I got on TikTok. I started making short videos about threats to the rule of law. Now I post them a few times a week on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. I try to explain legal concepts in a way that everyone can understand.

When I first started doing this, I had no experience whatsoever with social media. But it has turned out to be a really great way to use my legal expertise to help my fellow citizens. My videos started getting thousands and then millions of views. People write me all the time now to ask questions and to share how grateful they are to have an expert they trust helping them understand the challenges we are facing.

This is not something I ever expected to be doing. But by trying something new, I found a way to meet the moment and continue my public service.

Number Three: Support those on the front lines. Some of us have been personally affected by the policies and practices of this administration. Some of us perhaps have not. But we are all a stone’s throw away from someone whose life has been turned upside down by the assault on due process and the rule of law in our country.

We have seen colleagues face personal and professional retaliation. We have seen career public servants discarded like garbage. We have seen immigrants treated like animals. We have seen protesters assaulted and even killed for exercising their rights.

Those who are out there on the front lines defending the Constitution—standing up for themselves and others—need our support. Judges are being terrorized for doing their jobs. Whistleblowers are facing retaliation. Our neighbors are taking risks and feeling vulnerable. They need to know that we have their backs.

A low point of my career was the weekend before my congressional testimony when I struggled to find a lawyer. I think we’ve come a long way since then. I have several great lawyers helping me now. And that’s what has allowed me to continue fighting for what’s right.

I believe we will get through this. But there are many others who will need your help and your support along the way.

Number Four: Use your voice. This one is simple, because there are so many ways to do it. If you see something that alarms you, say something about it. Write an op-ed, make a TikTok video, file an amicus brief, give a speech, teach a class, host a webinar, sign a petition. There are so many different ways to make your voice heard.

As lawyers, we are stewards of the rule of law. We are defenders of the Constitution. Our voices are needed now more than ever.

****

Many of us were ashamed by the way our profession responded initially to the assault on the rule of law. The law firms that cut deals with the administration made it so much harder for the rest of us to fight for the values and ideals of our profession.

But it is not too late to turn things around. If we lean into this community, if we pool our talents and use our voices, bravely—lawyers will be the heroes of this story.

Legally, the proposal is dubious. For over 25 years, federal law has required DOJ lawyers to adhere to the professional ethics rules of both the state where they are barred and the state(s) where they practice. State bars play a vital role in policing misconduct by federal lawyers, including through their authority to impose disciplinary sanctions such as suspension and disbarment from the practice of law. Bondi’s rule—which asserts her supremacy in a domain long entrusted to states—is sure to be subject to legal challenges from multiple quarters.

If it withstands scrutiny, the new rule promises to eviscerate the last remaining safeguard against corruption and abuse of power by lawyers representing the United States. Bondi has already meticulously eradicated the internal guardrails that have operated as the moral compass of the Justice Department across political administrations. Last year, she ousted the Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility, which was created after Watergate to “ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the high professional standards expected of the nation’s principal law enforcement agency.” She fired the Director of the Departmental Ethics Office, which oversees compliance with federal ethics-in-government rules. The senior official who supervised both Directors was also forced out. No replacement has been named for any of these experienced career professionals. DOJ has also been without an Inspector General—the independent official responsible for investigating fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement—since last July. As a result, independent oversight by state bar associations is all that remains to enforce the rules of professional conduct that govern the lawyers responsible for upholding our nation’s laws.

Bondi claims her intervention is needed to end the “unprecedented weaponization” of the bar complaint process against current and former Justice Department lawyers. She complains that “political activists” have filed misconduct complaints against senior DOJ officials—including Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, Ed Martin, and others—and she condemns “the willingness of some State bar disciplinary authorities to give credence to such complaints.” Investigations by state bars, Bondi contends, risk “chilling the zealous advocacy by Department attorneys on behalf of the United States, its agencies, and its officers.”

That is exactly the point. Rules of ethics and professional responsibility exist precisely for the purpose of defining the limits of zealous advocacy. Lawyers have a duty of loyalty to their client, but they also have a duty of candor to the court. Even if it serves your client’s interests, you can’t lie to a judge. You can’t hide material facts. You can’t present false evidence. This is basic stuff—rules of fair play that protect the integrity of the legal system. The rules are not hard to follow, and they have not been controversial until now.

But Pam Bondi’s Justice Department does not want to play by anyone else’s rules. Time and again, this DOJ has found that rules and laws present inconvenient obstacles to achieving the President’s political agenda. Bondi’s deputy, Todd Blanche, has declared “a war” on the courts. He and Bondi have loudly and repeatedly villainized judges who rule against them. Meanwhile, Department lawyers have deceived, misled, and disobeyed courts in staggering numbers. The pattern of malfeasance is so extensive that many courts have ceased to give the Department the “presumption of regularity” that has long favored government lawyers appearing in federal court.

Freeing the Justice Department from independent ethics oversight would be extremely problematic in any administration. But it is especially so in this one. Past generations of Justice Department attorneys have understood that their job is not to win but to do justice. A quote inscribed in the rotunda outside the Attorney General’s office reads: “The United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts.” Bondi’s DOJ has abandoned this historical norm in favor of a thoroughly outcome-oriented approach to law enforcement. The very fact she has proposed to eliminate independent ethics oversight proves how much it is needed. Moreover, all of the Department’s top officials came in the door with webs of conflicts of interest, stemming from prior representation of Donald Trump, other client relationships, financial interests, and familial ties. These unresolved conflicts have infected administration of justice and diminished the integrity of a once-revered institution. The proposed rule would eliminate the only viable avenue for accountability and effectively license DOJ lawyers to break the rules in service of the President’s political objectives or their own personal interests.

Before it can take effect, the rule must go through a public comment process. Anyone can submit a comment registering their opinion on the rule. It’s easy to do so online at this link. The comment period ends April 6. DOJ is required to consider and respond to the comments submitted. They may not prevent the rule from taking effect, but they will be part of the official record when the rule is (inevitably) challenged in court. Please consider taking this small step in defense of the rule of law and submitting an objection. I’m sharing below some sample text you can use and adapt, or feel free to write your own.

I am a concerned citizen who cares deeply about preserving the rule of law and upholding the integrity of our justice system. I strongly oppose this new rule, because it will diminish accountability for misconduct by government lawyers. I believe that lawyers representing the United States should be held to the highest standards of ethics and professionalism. They must be subject to oversight by independent authorities like state bar associations; the Justice Department cannot be trusted to police itself. This proposed rule would allow the Attorney General to interfere with independent state bar investigations. That will greatly harm the integrity of our justice system and allow misconduct to go unpunished.

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with . And thank you to all of my Lawyer Oyer subscribers and supporters!

Get more from Liz Oyer in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

I’ll be posting here about notable features of Trump’s first-term pardons, focusing today on the financial consequences. Trump’s pardons have been unprecedented in many ways, including the amount of debt they have erased for their beneficiaries. Criminal sentences often include financial penalties, including restitution, fines, and forfeiture. A few notes on terminology:

• Restitution refers to money lost by crime victims that, by law, must be repaid.

• Fines are financial punishments, imposed by a judge, that are paid to the U.S. Treasury (i.e., to taxpayers).

• Forfeiture refers to criminal proceeds (money or property) that, by law, must be surrendered to the U.S. government (for return to the rightful owners or to taxpayers) upon conviction.

• Each of these is a distinct component of a criminal sentence that may accompany a term of imprisonment and/or probation, depending on the circumstances.

Trump’s first-year clemencies have wiped out an unprecedented amount of financial penalties owed by the recipients. To calculate an estimated total, I have reviewed the information publicly available through the Office of the Pardon Attorney, plus the additional information available in relevant court records. Based on all available information, I have calculated that Trump’s clemency grants have forgiven financial penalties (including fines, restitution, and forfeitures) totaling approximately $1.56 billion. Yes, that’s billion with a “B.”

[Note: I have included in this total those commutations, as well as pardons, that have forgiven financial penalties. Typically, commutations leave financial penalties intact. However, many of Trump’s commutations expressly state that they extinguish all financial components of the sentence, in addition to any term of imprisonment and/or supervision.]

I consider this $1.56 billion figure a conservative estimate, because I have excluded some cases in which the amounts were not readily calculable (for example, those cases in which a pardon preceded a conviction in court), cases in which sums less than $10,000 were owed, and some very dated cases. I have also not endeavored to compute the total restitution owed by the January 6 defendants, although some of them have been refunded restitution owed for damage caused.

Just one year into his term, this figure already far surpasses the financial penalties extinguished by Trump’s predecessors. By comparison, Joe Biden granted 80 individual pardons during his four-year term. His pardon recipients had a total of approximately $688,000 in financial penalties. I also note that, most of the convictions of Biden’s pardon recipients were quite dated compared to the convictions pardoned by Trump. It is therefore much more likely that their financial obligations had been paid prior to the pardon and that the sums will not be returned.

My detailed calculations are available here in my Pardon Trackers, a feature for my paid subscribers. I will be rolling out some additional pardon analysis for paid subscribers in the Pardon Trackers soon. Many thanks to all of you who have become paid subscribers to support my work, I am truly so appreciative!

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with and . And thanks to all of you who support Lawyer Oyer!

Share

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with , and thanks to all who subscribe to Lawyer Oyer!

One of the most contradictory areas of U.S. policy this past year has been drug enforcement. I’ve put together a timeline — which I’ve also shared in video form on my socials — which I think will help to explain why many of us are so confused. Check it out.

January 20, 2025. Donald Trump signs an Executive Order designating drug cartels terrorist organizations, and declaring that “it is the policy of the United States to ensure the total elimination of [their] presence in the United States.”

January 21, 2025. Trump grants a full pardon to Ross Ulbricht, founder of the Silk Road—an online marketplace that trafficked hundreds of millions of dollars worth of drugs. At least six people died from overdoses, including two teenagers.

March 2025. Trump frees Cesar Humberto Lopez-Larios (aka “El Greñas”), a notorious MS-13 gang leader captured in 2024 after years on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. Lopez-Larios was charged with narco-terrorism and other crimes, but Trump’s DOJ dismissed those charges and returned Lopez-Larios to El Salvador.

March 2025. Trump’s Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announces that he’s eliminating the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, which is the primary agency responsible for reducing drug overdose deaths and addiction.

April 2025. Trump’s DOJ cuts $88 million in grant funding for substance abuse and addiction treatment.

May 2025. The Trump Administration decides to eliminate the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (known as OCDETF)—a specialized section of the Justice Department that targets major drug traffickers and international cartels. It’s the unit that captured El Chapo, for example. Members of Congress on both sides objected to shutting down OCDETF, but still the unit was fully disbanded by September.

September 2025. Instead of prosecuting suspected drug traffickers through legal channels, Trump starts bombing them. He launches military airstrikes on tiny boats supposedly carrying drugs. We haven’t actually seen any proof of that. But there have been over 30 strikes to date.

October 2025. Trump pardons Changpeng Zhao, the founder of Binance—a cryptocurrency exchange that was used to launder money to international drug trafficking organizations and criminal enterprises.

December 2025. Trump pardons Juan Orlando Hernandez, the corrupt former president of Honduras, who turned his country into a narco-state. Hernandez took millions in bribes from drug traffickers and sent hundreds of tons of cocaine into the US. In 2024, he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 45 years in prison. Now he’s a free man thanks to Trump’s pardon.

January 2026. Trump sends troops into Venezuela to capture their president, Nicolas Maduro, and try him in the United States on charges of drug trafficking. The charges against Maduro are almost identical to the ones that Trump pardoned Hernandez for.

So how can we reconcile this totally contradictory timeline? That’s exactly what we should be asking our elected officials. It’s not our job to make it make sense—it’s theirs. My focus in 2026 will be seeking accountability from those entrusted to run our country. I invite you to join me. You can be part of my accountability circle by subscribing to my channels, sharing this information, asking questions, and demanding answers. It’s what we deserve from our elected leaders.

Share

Subscribe now

Thank you , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Get more from Liz Oyer in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Get more from Liz Oyer in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

How is the president’s use of pardons damaging our democracy? Well, the Founders gave the president the pardon power as a tool for mercy; instead, our current president is using it to enrich himself and his allies at great expense to the welfare of our nation. Here are a few top line issues that I’ll be diving into in future posts.

1. Trump has pardoned more corrupt elected officials than any other president. By far. Crimes involving the abuse of public trust were once considered among the most serious. But through pardons, Trump is normalizing public corruption and paving the way for his own.

2. Trump is granting pardons without vetting the recipients. The current administration has abandoned the rigorous vetting of pardon candidates that has been a longstanding feature of the pardon process administered by the Justice Department. This is incredibly dangerous — as evidenced by the fact that many of Trump’s pardon recipients have already been returned to prison for committing new crimes.

3. Trump’s pardons are undercutting the work of his own Justice Department. Remarkably, Trump’s clemency grants have routinely unraveled sentences sought by his own Justice Department. For example, one of Trump’s most recent pardons went to Joseph Schwartz, convicted of a $38 million tax fraud scheme. Schwartz’s 36-month prison sentence — wiped out by the pardon — was announced in April by Trump’s handpicked U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, Alina Habba.

4. Trump has discarded the longstanding criteria for granting clemency. These standards, outlined in detail in the Justice Manual, are intended to ensure that the pardon power is used for the public good. Few if any of Trump’s clemency recipients to date meet these criteria (or even come close). The wholesale discarding of these principles by the current president is effectively undermining the legitimacy of our criminal justice system.

5. Trump has created a pay-for-play pardon system. Pardons have routinely been granted on the basis of financial contributions or political donations to Trump causes. For example, Paul Walczak, a corrupt nursing home executive, received a full pardon days after his mother paid one million dollars to dine with the President at Mar-a-lago. Trevor Milton, a prolific fraudster, received a full pardon after donating $1.8 million to Trump’s campaign. The effect has been to foster a booming pardon industry, from which many in Trump’s orbit are profiting handsomely.

6. Trump’s pardons have erased enormous amounts of restitution and fines owed to crime victims and taxpayers. As outlined in my pardon trackers, the total to date is well over one billion dollars in debts forgiven by grants of clemency. Trevor Milton alone was relieved of a restitution obligation that would have required him to repay over $600 million to the investors he defrauded.

7. Trump’s pardons consistently place his personal interests above the interests of the American people. The pardon of Changpeng Zhao is a perfect example. The Trump family benefitted enormously from their business relationship with Zhao (who brokered a $2 billion investment in the Trump family crypto business). But the American people do not benefit in any way, shape or form from Zhao’s pardon. Zhao endangered U.S. national security by allowing his crypto platform to be used to facilitate criminal activity, including funneling money to terrorist groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Hamas. By pardoning him, Trump is licensing depraved and dangerous conduct, at untold expense to the safety and security of the American people.

8. Trump’s pardons encourage his supporters to commit crimes in Trump’s name, including undermining democratic safeguards. On Day 1 of his presidency, with the sweeping January 6 pardons, Trump sent a loud and clear message to his supporters that crimes committed in his name will forgiven. Trump’s Pardon Attorney, Ed Martin, has openly declared that his own approach to clemency is: “No MAGA left behind.” Martin has backed pardons for all manner of MAGA-linked crimes, including the sweeping purported pardon of all those involved in overturning the 2020 election results. By consistently rewarding MAGA supporters with clemency, Trump is licensing them to commit all manner of crimes that threaten our democratic safeguards — from political violence to election interference — in his name.

9. The corruption of the pardon power leaves no path forward for ordinary Americans. Many thousands of Americans are seeking the type of mercy clemency was intended to provide — relief from outdated prison sentences or fresh starts through pardons that have been earned based on good conduct, sincere effort, and pure merit. At last count, about 15,000 clemency applications were languishing at the Office of the Pardon Attorney; that number, which has not been updated in months, is likely significantly larger now. These ordinary Americans — who lack the political connections or financial resources to navigate the current pardon market — have no shot at receiving the consideration they deserve.

I am sharing below two segments from 60 Minutes that dive into (1) the Zhao case, and (2) the demise of the pardon process across the board under Trump. As those familiar with my work as Pardon Attorney know, this is a topic near and dear to my heart. I hope you will take the time to watch and share.

The Pardon of Changpeng Zhao (as aired by CBS, 60 Minutes, Nov. 16, 2025):

The demise of the pardon process under Trump (as aired by 60 Minutes Overtime, Nov. 16, 2025):

Thank you for reading and watching. I am so grateful for your time. If you’d like to support my continuing efforts to promote accountability and transparency around presidential pardons, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thank you for your support!

Subscribe now

Thank you to all of my subscribers for your support, which has made my work possible. By subscribing to my Substack, you are investing in me and my work. You make it possible for me to get out there on TV, social, and print media to sound the alarm widely and loudly on issues that pose real threats to the future of our democracy — like the corruption and abuse of the pardon power. I don’t have the words to adequately express my gratitude.

Thank you and stay tuned for more soon!

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with , , and ! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Get more from Liz Oyer in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Get more from Liz Oyer in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

As you may know, I spent 10 years working as a public defender before I joined the Department of Justice. I have come to appreciate that public defenders are built differently than other lawyers—in ways we need now more than ever. Right now, the rule of law in our country is under existential threat. Public defenders are uniquely equipped to meet the moment and to defend and preserve our shared democratic ideals.

Below I share some excerpts from my lecture entitled, “Public Defenders Will Save Us” (delivered October 23, 2025, at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law).

****

In America, our justice system is founded on the principle that all who come before it should receive equal and impartial treatment. The words “equal justice under law” are etched into the pediment above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy recently described this as an enduring reminder that “equality is one of the principal and necessary components of justice.”^[1]

The promise of equal justice under law is so ingrained in the fabric of our democracy that many Americans take it for granted. But not public defenders.

Public defenders know all too well that equal justice under law is an aspiration. It is a goal, and a noble one. But it is not a reality and has never been a reality for most Americans who bear the weight of our criminal laws. As hard as we strive, the same inequities that pervade our society at large—like wealth disparities, education gaps, and racial bias—continue to affect the quality of justice meted out by our courts.

Public defenders work to bring us closer to the ideal of equal justice under law, one client at a time. We know the work will never be finished. But every time we stand up in court to protect the rights of our client, we are vindicating the righteous ideals of fairness and equality that animate the American system of justice.

As we gather here today, those ideals are facing an existential crisis. The epicenter of the crisis is inside the Department of Justice, an institution that for over 150 years has been entrusted with upholding the rule of law, protecting our civil rights, and keeping us safe. Throughout its history, the Justice Department has earnestly strived to fulfill the promise of equal justice under law. The results have been imperfect, but the commitment has been sincere. Until now.

Right now, the Justice Department’s longstanding commitment to fair and impartial enforcement of the laws is eroding from within. The norms and traditions that have guided the institution for over a century have been abandoned. The guardrails that check prosecutorial power have been stripped away. The experienced and knowledgeable career workforce has been dismantled.

As political influence grows within the Department, the rule of law is withering. Core principles like due process have been treated as inconvenient obstacles to be shattered or surmounted, not as shared values to be nurtured and protected. The goal of delivering equal justice to all has taken a backseat to outcome-oriented prosecutions.

For the first time in the history of our constitutional democracy, the rule of law itself is fighting for its life. And it needs public defenders. Public defenders possess unique skills, instincts, and experience that set them apart from all other lawyers. Those qualities are exactly what we need at this critical moment in history to protect and defend the rule of law in our country.

Prosecutors are not going to save us. Corporate law firms are not going to save us. I believe that only public defenders can save us. Let me tell you why.

****

I have spent a lot of time reflecting on how we got here. A question I keep turning over is this: How could an institution as old and venerable as the Department of Justice prove so vulnerable to the winds of political change? How could such a powerful institution fall so far, so fast?

The answer I keep coming back to is that too many of us took it for granted. Too many of us became complacent.

Alums of the Justice Department frequently speak about the “norms” and “traditions” of the Department. They are referencing the longstanding, shared values that have shaped and defined the place inside and out. Thanks to those enduring norms and traditions, generations of Americans have been able to take for granted that the Department would strive to administer justice without fear or favor; that it would seek to uphold the civil rights of all Americans; that it would do its best to keep us all safe; and that it would use its powers for the public good.

Those institutional values were so entrenched that they were believed to be immutable. They seemed to require no protection or reinforcement. No one ever contemplated the possibility that those values could be challenged.

As a result, no one was prepared to come to their defense. Norms and traditions have done a lot of work throughout history. But they do not have teeth, and we are learning now that they cannot defend themselves.

In the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson warned of the peril we are facing, but he also spoke of opportunity. He wrote:

It is … all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

While there is still time. We lawyers, who have taken an oath to uphold the law and support the Constitution, must think about what that oath requires of us right now. We cannot be complacent in our commitment. We cannot be passive in discharging our duty. We must act while there is still time.

Most of us lawyers can see clearly the looming crisis that Judge Wilkinson warned of. Most of us feel aching concern about the future of our profession and our nation of laws. We have the will to vindicate our shared respect for the rule of law. But we have not found the way.

That is where public defenders come in.

****

Public defenders are uniquely equipped to meet this moment. We are wired, trained, and skilled to do what DOJ’s legions of prosecutors have not been able to do: to protect and defend the rule of law against hostile forces trying to break it. What our democracy needs, urgently, is the kind of fight that public defenders give our clients every day.

I told you I’ve thought a lot about what makes public defenders unique among lawyers. I’ve actually made a list, and I want to share with you my Top 10 qualities of public defenders. These are ten qualities we urgently need right now as lawyers and as citizens. You don’t have to be a public defender to have them, but every public defender I know has them in spades.

One: We are hardwired to stand up to bullies.

We don’t appease. We don’t capitulate. We don’t go away quietly. We fight. Full stop.

Two: We know how to fight without institutional power behind us.

Unlike prosecutors, public defenders do not have the backing of a powerful institution. We are not given blunt force instruments to accomplish our objectives. We don’t have access to search warrants, arrest warrants, grand jury subpoenas, or indictments. We don’t have the leverage of mandatory minimums and sentencing enhancements.

Our fights are powered by duty, integrity, and conscience alone. We forge our own tools. We clear our own path. We make our own luck.

The rapid fall of the Justice Department illustrates how access to institutional power can engender complacency. Public defenders don’t have the luxury of growing complacent. We can’t take any outcome for granted. That keeps us sharp and resourceful.

Three: We see the world for what it should be—not for what it is.

Public defenders do not accept injustice, inequality, or unfairness. We see it. We feel it. Sometimes we are overpowered by it. But we never accept it. We fight every day to achieve the ideal of equal justice that has always been America’s unrealized aspiration.

Four: We have to earn trust every day.

When you walk into a jail cell to meet a client for the first time, and all your client knows is that you are a free lawyer they did not choose but are stuck with, you have to earn trust. And when you are sitting in that cell six months later, counseling that client that it’s in their best interests to sign away their rights in a plea agreement, you better have put in the time to earn their trust.

For a public defender, trust is not inherited or implicit or assumed. You start from zero with every client, every day. Trust is hard won, and it is easily lost.

Not just with clients, but also with judges. I spoke about the presumption of regularity that prosecutors enjoy in court. That does not apply to us. The only way a judge will take a chance on your client—cut them a break or show them compassion—is if they trust that you, the attorney, are leading them down the right path. Your credibility is everything.

Trust makes us or breaks us as public defenders. So, we are constantly striving to earn it.

Five: We are driven by mission—not by money, titles, or glory.

I say this with respect and fondness for my prosecutor colleagues. They really like awards. We used to snicker a little in the Defender’s office when every year, the entire staff of the U.S. Attorney’s Office spent a morning gathered at the courthouse for their annual award ceremony. It was a big deal.

Prosecutors are noble public servants—don’t get me wrong—and I’m sure they deserved those plaques. But public defenders pride ourselves on shying away from individual recognition. No one has ever deserved an award more than my old boss, Jim Wyda, who has been a public defender for 30-plus years and counting. But I know he would roll his eyes at that suggestion.

There is a particular line from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that has always resonated with me. It’s from his Drum Major Instinct sermon, delivered shortly before his death. Dr. King said this:

If you want to be important—wonderful. If you want to be recognized—wonderful. If you want to be great—wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant.

That line—the greatest among you shall be your servant—captures what made me want to be a public defender in the first place, and what kept me at it every day. The idea that the greatest calling is serving our fellow citizens. That is the essence of being a public defender.

Six: We see serving others as a privilege, not a burden.

Being a public defender is hard. It is heavy. Our clients usually come to us as a last, unhappy stop on a journey through systems that have failed them: education, housing, medical care, and beyond. We are constantly confronted with problems that we don’t have tools to solve.

But what we can do is help to shoulder our clients’ burdens. And we know it is a privilege to be able to do that. It allows us to see the world from different perspectives. It creates human connections. It builds relationships.

If you’re doing the job right, you’ll learn that few relationships are more intimate than the one between a public defender and a client fighting for their life. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our clients weaves together the threads of our own life with those of our fellow citizens, which makes us all stronger.

Seven: We don’t mind rolling up our sleeves.

No task is too small for a public defender. We know it doesn’t matter how much time you spent researching your legal argument or writing your motion if your client doesn’t show up for court. That means, after writing your killer brief, you might also have to wake up early to give your client a ride to court. And you might need to grab them a coffee, too. You will never hear a public defender say, “that’s not my job” or “that’s not why I went to law school.”

We know that you can’t build something enduring without laying a solid foundation. So we roll up our sleeves, and we put in the work to make sure the foundation is strong—no matter what that requires of us.

Eight: We find the common humanity in our fellow citizens.

Public defenders are always focused on what unites us with others—not what divides us. Our clients come from all walks of life. Their backgrounds and lived experience almost always diverge from our own. We may disagree deeply with their choices, their actions, or their intentions. But still, we seek out and we find the shared spark of humanity that binds us together.

Nine: We are storytellers.

Communication skills are as vital as air for a public defender. We must be able to speak to our clients with clarity and authority, but also with empathy and compassion. We must be able to speak about our clients to others in much the same manner.

Telling our clients’ stories is one of the most important and most challenging things we do as public defenders. We can’t just tell a judge that our client deserves mercy. They are not going to take our word for it. We have to show them. We have to paint a picture. Our job is to help judges and prosecutors step into our clients’ shoes and see the world from their vantage point. And we are very good at it.

Finally, Number Ten: We believe in redemption.

Public defenders have a fundamentally optimistic view of humanity. We believe in improvement. We believe in change. We believe in second chances. We don’t give up on people.

****

Public defenders are not usually thought of as leaders. We work quietly, behind the scenes, with no expectation of praise or recognition. But can you imagine if our elected and appointed leaders had the qualities of public defenders? Can you imagine what we could accomplish if those leaders had the conviction, the courage, the empathy, the compassion, and the tireless stamina to fight for what is right?

All around us, we have seen powerful institutions struggle to defend and preserve their values. This is not limited to the Department of Justice or even the public sector; it includes the nation’s premier law firms, its top universities, its largest media corporations. We have seen literal pillars of our democracy bow and bend to hostile forces.

At the same time, I see my fellow public defenders on the frontlines defending the rule of law. I have watched with appreciation as Judge Paula Xinis, a former public defender, has held the government’s feet to the fire in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. I breathed a sigh of relief when I learned that the prosecution of James Comey would be overseen by Judge Michael Nachmanoff, another former public defender.

What we need in this moment, more than anything, is public defenders for our democracy. We need public defenders for the Constitution and the rule of law.

I urge all of you who have those public defender qualities to find your places defending our democracy. Figure out how and where you can best use your voice and your skills in service of the rule of law. This may or may not be in a courtroom. It may or may not be standing beside a client. It might be thankless, and it probably will not pay well.

But it’s what our nation needs from you right now. And it just might save us.

^[1] Justice Anthony Kennedy, The Origin of “Equal Justice Under Law,” The New York Times (Oct. 6, 2025), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/06/opinion/anthony-kennedy-supreme-court.html.

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning in live!

Get more from Liz Oyer in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app