The Scorecard After the Friday Night Massacre -- Who Still Works At DOJ And the FBI?

Pretty much everyone who worked there on Thursday although the Outrage Porn Peddlers would have you thinking otherwise.

The second full week of the Trump Administration resulted in long-awaited news from the Department of Justice and the FBI. Attorneys were fired, senior FBI managers were forced to retire or face possible termination, January 6 prosecutors had their tenure cut shot, the FBI was directed to create is list of EVERY employee — Special Agent and otherwise — who had any role in the investigation of the events of January 6, 2021.

This news comes before three of the most crucial Trump Administration political appointees have been confirmed — Pam Bondi is not yet Attorney General, Todd Blanche is not yet Deputy Attorney General, and Kash Patel is not yet Director of the FBI. Given that, how is it that Donald Trump is already having a significant impact on the operations of the DOJ and FBI?

But, the news is not exactly what has been reported by various “sources” in social media and elsewhere. The “firings” are not quite as extensive as some outrage peddlers screamed from their electronic perches, and the forced retirements really aren’t surprising and tend to occur at the top of the FBI every time there is a new Director named.

So, here is a scorecard concerning what actually did happen this past week — based on either widespread reporting crossing partisan lines, and/or documentation put out by DOJ and/or the FBI themselves.

THE JACK SMITH SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE.

Smith himself had resigned from the Department of Justice back on January 11, 2025. The team of attorneys with Smith at the Special Counsel’s Office were a mix of Public Integrity Section attorneys who were handling the investigation prior to Smith’s appointment, as well as a handful of attorneys Smith brought in specially to be part of the two cases he ended up bringing. Many of these attorneys followed Smith out the door during the final days of the Biden Administration, with the remainder heading back to their prior positions with DOJ.

Of those who remained, several were terminated on Monday of this past week. A list of individuals in this category has not been released, but various social media outlets have mentioned Molly Gaston, Thomas Windom, James Pearce, JP Cooney, and David Harbach as being among the group.

In addition to the firings, several members of DOJ’s upper management who are “career” officials — they have remained in place in one position or another through at least one change in administration — have been reassigned. While not directly involved with Jack Smith’s SCO work, it should be recalled that the investigation into Pres. Trump — both the classified documents case and the D.C. case involving January 6 — stated prior to Jack Smith being hired. The senior “career” officials were likely involved in the decision-making to start those investigations.

The primary landing spot reported has been a new office within DOJ created to give legal assistance to the immigration/deportation efforts by Border Czar Tom Holman and the Department of Homeland Security. While crucial work, it is likely to be much busier work than these individuals are accustomed to and not at the same level of national importance. This is the time-tested method of pushing managers out of DOJ — assign them to do work they have no interest in doing. All of these individuals have jobs waiting for them with big law firms, so none will be unemployed when they leave. All they need is the motivation to leave and the Trump Administration is doing that now.

FBI SQUADS ASSIGNED TO WORK WITH JACK SMITH’S SCO

On Friday news broke that approximately 40 agents in the Washington Field Office had been escorted from the building. Reports on social media by some who would be in a position to know confirmed that the two squads involved were had been working on the two Trump prosecutions — including having executed the search warrant at Mar A Lago.

The description does not sound like termination — that is a process for an FBI Agent that takes much more time — but rather a situation where the agents were put on Administrative Leave and not allowed to take anything with them when they left. This would be the typical approach if the squad’s work is going to be scrutinized for misconduct. Since the communications between FBI and the Smith SCO is going to be crucial in evaluating the legality of Smith’s work, securing all those communications and other supporting paperwork is a critical first step.

FBI SENIOR MANAGERS TOLD TO RETIRE OR FACE TERMINATION

FBI Director Christopher Wray resigned his position on January 19, 2025. Deputy Director Paul Abbate resigned his position on January 20, 2025. Acting Attorney General James McHenry the appointed an Special Agent In Charge of the New York Counterterrorism Section to the position of Acting Director.

It has been reported that at the same time McHenry took these steps he also communicated to eight of the most senior FBI managers — presumably those hold the position of “Assistant Directors” — that they should retire or face termination by a specific date. The Assistant Director who oversaw the Washington Field Office, David Sundberg, was one of the eight forced out.

In addition to those eight, it has been rumored that approximately one-half of all the Special-Agents-in-Charge of the FBI’s 54 Field Offices will also be forced to retire or face termination.

Because of the way promotions work in the FBI at the upper management level, each of these individuals is likely associated with Wray in some way. The Director has a personal hand in picking who should fill these senior management positions in specific offices. Personal and professional relationships play a big role in determining who is promoted into each position. Each of the individuals now facing forced retirement came into management during either Jim Comey’s tenure as Director or Christopher Wray’s tenure. Pres. Trump as been in open conflict with FBI management going back to early 2016, and it is not surprising at all that he wants to start his second 4 year term not having to look over his shoulder, and the easiest way to do that is with all new personnel in the upper levels of FBI management.

FIRING OF PROSECUTORS WHO HANDLED JANUARY 6 CASES.

This move has been the most mis-reported over the past 48 hours. To understand what steps were taken on Friday afternoon (January 31) it is necessary to understand the changes made to the staffing of January 6 prosecutions going back to the beginning.

When the prosecutions began in early 2021, the cases numbered in the dozens and were handled by parceling them out among the AUSAs who worked full-time in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. As the number of cases climbed past 100 and then 200, that was beyond the ability of D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office to handle alone and still handle the other cases that existed prior to January 6.

That led DOJ to “detail” AUSAs from other offices around the country to handle January 6 cases. When I first became involved as a defense attorney I had prosecutors assigned to cases from California, New Mexico, New York, Florida, Massachusetts, etc. This arrangement lasted for about 14-18 months, and then another group of prosecutors from around the country started being assigned to cases, with the first group of detailees being released back to their home districts to return to the work they were doing before.

All of that largely ended in early 2024, and I began to encounter new faces among prosecutors assigned to the “Capitol Siege Unit” — a group of prosecutors in the D.C. U.S Attorney’s Office who did only January 6 cases. I learned from talking to some of them that they were “term hires” — meaning they were hired under a 2 year contract to do one thing, prosecute January 6 cases.

The announcement this past Friday regarding the firing January 6 prosecutors only concerned this relatively small number of “term hires” estimated to be 25-30. There was one interesting aspect of the letter that was made public — it referenced the fact that since the election, some unspecified number of these term employees were moved into permanent positions that came open because of resignations by regular AUSAs after the victory by Pres. Trump.

This is not unusual — many U.S. Attorney’s Offices use term positions as a “audition” period for applicants who want a permanent position. If the U.S. Attorney is satisfied with the person’s job performance, they can be moved to an open permanent position, and a new “term” hire can be made — another person auditioning for a permanent slot.

But, according to the letter, what the Biden DOJ did after the election was move the “term hires” into permanent positions opened by resignations, and this will greatly inhibit the ability of the new U.S. Attorney for D.C. to staff his/her office with prosecutors of his/her choosing. So the Acting U.S. Attorney for D.C., Ed Martin, asked for all the term positions to be ended, and anyone moved from a term position to a permanent position be terminated.

So, contrary to the popular reporting by the engagement farmers in social media, this was not a firing of “all” the January 6 prosecutors.

IDENTIFICATION OF FBI PERSONNEL WHO WORKED ON JANUARY 6 CASES.

This is the move that is the most puzzling — the FBI has been directed to provide a comprehensive list of EVERY FBI employee who worked on any January 6 case. This list is going to number in the thousands when complete.

It may be a way to divide the FBI workforce up into “teams” — those who worked on Jan 6 cases and those who did not. It might be for the purpose of immediately narrowing the field of inquiry — only those who worked on January 6 cases are going to come under additional scrutiny.

On a person-by-person basis, I’m not certain where this might go. A different question involves who, among those on the list, had decision-making authority as a matter of policy, and who had decision-making authority on a case-by-case basis as a practical matter.

I suspect that the isolation of FBI personnel for interviews — a likely first step — is going to be part of a move to force out more of the career AUSAs who handled the January 6 cases for the first 36 months. Interviews beginning with FBI personnel involved will likely focus on instructions given by prosecutors to FBI personnel in building the cases. This may be where the first wave of “whistleblowers” might begin to emerge.

I expect it is going to be a significantly longer period before we see more major personnel shakeups. Bondi and Patel should be in place within 10 days, and the further examination of DOJ and the FBI will fall to them. Bondi’s DOJ requires many more political appointees in the upper levels of DOJ management so it will take longer for her full team to be in place. Patel, being the only Presidential appointee in the FBI, can begin immediately in surrounding himself with a trusted staff, and promote individuals he has confidence in to the upper management levels that are being emptied out now.