When Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section had roughly 40 full-time attorneys. The section was created after Watergate specifically to investigate and prosecute corruption by public officials. It had around 175 to 200 open cases.
Today it has two full-time attorneys. The open cases have dropped to about 20.
The hollowing out of the section did not happen by accident. It happened alongside a steady stream of presidential pardons for politicians convicted of corruption, a pattern that legal experts say has sent an unmistakable signal about how this administration views the problem of public officials stealing from the public.
The Pardons
Trump has granted clemency to at least 20 corrupt politicians since returning to office. The list spans party lines but leans heavily Republican. A few of the more notable cases:
Michele Fiore, a former Las Vegas city councilwoman, was convicted of pocketing roughly $70,000 in donations meant to fund memorials for police officers killed in the line of duty. She spent the money on herself, including cosmetic surgery, rent, and her daughter’s wedding. Trump pardoned her weeks before she was scheduled to be sentenced.
Glen Casada, the former Speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives, was convicted of bribery in a scheme involving state-funded legislative mailers. He was sentenced to three years in prison in September 2025. Trump pardoned him in November, before he served a day.
Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democratic congressman, faced bribery charges for allegedly using his office to benefit Azerbaijani and Mexican interests. Trump pardoned him in December 2025. The charges were dropped.
Rod Blagojevich, the former Democratic governor of Illinois who was convicted of trying to sell Barack Obama’s Senate seat, received a full pardon in February 2025, completing a clemency process Trump had started in his first term.
What the Pardons Have in Common
The recipients are not all from the same party. But they share a common thread: each was charged with or convicted of using public office for personal gain. Stealing from constituents. Taking bribes. Selling influence. These are the cases the Public Integrity Section was built to pursue.
Columbia Law School professor Richard Briffault described what the combination of pardons and staff reductions sends as a signal: “There’s kind of a disdain for the very idea that corruption is a problem.”
The Section Itself
The Public Integrity Section was established in the aftermath of Watergate as a permanent institutional answer to the problem of politicians who abuse their power. For five decades it operated as a nonpartisan check, prosecuting Democrats and Republicans alike.
The reduction from 40 attorneys to 2 did not require a law or an executive order. It required reassignments, departures, and a leadership willing to let the section go quiet. The open caseload dropped from nearly 200 matters to roughly 20 as the attorneys left and the cases were closed, reassigned, or simply allowed to stall.
The Practical Effect
There are approximately 500,000 elected officials in the United States at the federal, state, and local level. The Public Integrity Section was never large enough to investigate all of them, but its existence functioned as a deterrent. Getting caught meant prosecution. Prosecution meant consequences.
That calculation has changed. The section that once had 40 attorneys pursuing public corruption now has two. The president who oversees it has spent the past 16 months demonstrating that conviction does not have to mean punishment if you are the right kind of politician or know the right people.
What happened to the Public Integrity Section is not complicated. The people who ran it left or were reassigned. The cases dried up. And one by one, the politicians who had been convicted of betraying the public trust walked free.