In a revealing interview with Tucker Carlson this week, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon shed light on the unusual atmosphere that pervaded the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division following Donald Trump’s election victory. Dhillon, who assumed leadership of the division, described encountering significant resistance and emotional reactions from career employees when faced with the prospect of aligning with the incoming administration’s policies.
The Civil Rights Division, housing over 400 attorneys and
approximately 200 support staff, demonstrated what some might consider textbook examples of bureaucratic entrenchment. When discussing the division’s composition, Dhillon explained its role as what she termed “the color revolution wing” of the DOJ, noting that regardless of which party holds the presidency, career attorneys within the division typically maintain their own specific agenda.
The response to the transition was particularly noteworthy, with Dhillon revealing that staff members organized what they called “unhappy hours” – gatherings to which they deliberately invited political supervisors to express their discontent with the new administration. Even more striking were the “crying sessions” and “struggle sessions” that emerged among employees grappling with the change in leadership.
The division’s resistance manifested in various ways, including the leaking of internal memos to the press, highlighting the challenges faced by new leadership in implementing policy changes. The situation became so intense that hundreds of lawyers ultimately chose to submit their resignations rather than adapt to the new administration’s directives.
During the interview, Carlson characterized the scenario as a prime example of the “deep state” in action, suggesting it demonstrated how certain government institutions operate independently of democratic processes. “Elections have no effect. It’s like, there’s no way to control these people. They act totally independently from the democratic system,” Carlson observed during the exchange.
Dhillon’s confirmation of this assessment – “Well, that’s what I found” – provides a firsthand account from someone who witnessed the internal workings of a major federal department during a significant political transition. Her experience offers a unique glimpse into the challenges faced by incoming administrations when attempting to implement policy changes within established bureaucratic structures.
The revelation about emotional responses within the DOJ, including organized crying sessions and collective expressions of
dissatisfaction, illustrates the deep-seated resistance to change that can exist within government institutions. This resistance appears to have been particularly pronounced in the Civil Rights Division, which Dhillon described as maintaining its own agenda regardless of political leadership.
The situation described by Dhillon highlights a broader discussion about the relationship between elected officials and career civil servants, and the potential challenges in implementing new policies when career staff members are ideologically opposed to the incoming administration’s objectives. The mass departure of attorneys from the division further underscores the depth of this ideological divide and the difficulties faced in bridging it.
This account from a high-ranking DOJ official provides valuable insight into the internal dynamics of government departments during periods of political transition, particularly when there are significant policy differences between incoming leadership and existing staff. The described events suggest that the challenges of implementing administrative changes extend beyond mere policy disagreements to encompass deeply personal and emotional responses from career government employees.