A high-stakes decision at the Justice Department’s public integrity section has exposed deep tensions between career prosecutors and political appointees, culminating in multiple resignations over the controversial move to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
On Friday morning, acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove III convened a videoconference with nearly 20 lawyers from the department’s public integrity section. His message was blunt: two prosecutors needed to step up and sign a motion to drop the charges against Mayor Adams.
The demand followed a disastrous earlier meeting with section supervisors, where three officials resigned in protest. By the end of the day, a total of seven prosecutors—including top figures in the Adams case—had stepped down rather than comply with an order they viewed as ethically indefensible.
A Deepening Rift in the Justice Department
The forced decision exposed what many in the department saw as a direct political intervention in a major corruption case. According to court filings, Bove argued that Adams’ indictment—coming roughly nine months before the city’s primary election—created the “appearance” of political interference. He further claimed that allowing the case to proceed could hinder Adams’ ability to govern, posing risks to national security and federal immigration policy.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and Bove have framed the dismissal as part of their broader effort to end the so-called “weaponization” of the Justice Department, reversing what they see as prosecutorial overreach under the Biden administration. However, within the department, the move sparked outrage, with some officials likening it to a modern-day “Saturday Night Massacre.”
A Stark Choice for Prosecutors
For the prosecutors on the Friday call, the directive presented a grim choice: sign off on an action they deemed unethical or resign in protest. The public integrity section was overseeing about 200 cases at the time, and a mass exodus could have crippled its ability to function.
As tensions escalated, one prosecutor, Ed Sullivan, ultimately stepped forward to sign the motion. A longtime Justice Department lawyer, Sullivan reasoned that his reputation had already weathered scrutiny from an investigation into the botched prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens years earlier. By taking the hit, he believed, he could shield his younger colleagues from being forced into a similarly impossible situation.
A second lawyer, Antoinette “Toni” Bacon, also signed the filing. A respected corruption prosecutor, Bacon’s decision was met with sharp criticism from colleagues, who believed she had chosen to follow political directives over legal principles.
“Toni is one of the foremost public corruption attorneys in the country, so she knows the Adams indictment is more than worthy of prosecution,” said Ann Rowland, her former supervisor in Ohio. “One then can only conclude her decision to sign off on the motion to dismiss was purely political.”
Fallout and Fractures
The resignations sent a clear message of dissent, but the consequences for the department remain uncertain. Some prosecutors worried that giving in to Bove’s demand would embolden defense lawyers in other cases to seek similar dismissals. Others feared that with the Trump administration actively cutting the federal workforce, those who resigned would struggle to find positions at private firms, which have been hesitant to hire government lawyers as the administration scales back white-collar prosecutions.
Justice Department officials past and present have described the ordeal as a profound betrayal of the institution’s mission. Unlike the Watergate-era resignations, which saw political appointees stand up to a president’s improper demands, this crisis has pitted department leadership against its own career prosecutors.
Bove and Bacon could have signed the dismissal order themselves, but instead, they forced a reckoning within the department. Now, with key prosecutors gone and trust in leadership shaken, the damage to the Justice Department’s credibility may be just beginning.