HuffPost
A severe and unusual fear of being punished for doing their jobs has spread among staff at the State Department’s legal office, bolstering concerns about how the Trump administration is crafting foreign policy, five former State Department officials told HuffPost.
Lawyers at the Office of the Legal Adviser at State, known as “L,” worry they will face repercussions if they suggest the administration’s plans could break domestic or international law, and suspect they may be evaluated based on their apparent loyalty to President Donald Trump and his political vision, not their expertise and judgment, officials said. They noted that leadership in the office has steadily and atypically become dominated by Trump’s political appointees.
Administrations have not always followed guidance from the lawyers at “L,” but longtime officials said the office has not typically had a culture of self-censorship or consequences for the counsel that staff provide. Three officials who formerly worked there, two until earlier this year, described the shift underway in the office as alarming and notably different even from the first Trump presidency. Some former officials spoke to HuffPost on the condition of anonymity, citing a fear of retaliation.
“Your job is to provide legal advice,” one former State Department lawyer said. “Imagine being afraid to provide what you think is appropriate legal advice.”
“We’ve always had a culture where we speak frankly, challenge things and really push ideas to ensure they’re solidly supported,” another former lawyer told HuffPost. Now, “there’s an underlying fear of … providing advice that wasn’t well-received and then being cut out of a subject, being further and further removed from the job that you spent your career trying to do.”
Officials at the agency’s Foggy Bottom headquarters have become guarded about what they say, even in elevators or hallways, the second former lawyer added.
The office has historically played a significant role in U.S. government national security discussions. Its hundreds of staff members treat both the secretary of state and senior officials at the State Department’s dozens of bureaus as “clients,” advising them on U.S. legal obligations and the possible ramifications of their choices. Additionally, “L” personnel are part of high-level discussions about policy options with counterparts at the White House, Pentagon and intelligence agencies.
Many see the office as a key internal guardrail within the government, both against dubious policies and to shield government personnel from following unlawful orders.
“L” has seen a drastic and uncommon loss of staff since Trump’s second term began, HuffPost previously reported.
Doubts about whether the office can sustain its mission are growing as the significance of independent, candid expertise at the State Department becomes clearer.
Trump is pursuing drastic moves internationally that scholars outside the government (and some within it) have fiercely criticized. His strikes on accused drug boats in the waters around South America, which have killed more than 100 people, have spurred alarm among lawmakers, who note the administration has not formally entered a war in the region or attempted to prove criminality by the individuals it is killing.
The administration’s mass deportation policy may have also broken international law through tactics like sending hundreds of foreign nationals to the CECOT detention facility in El Salvador in apparent “enforced disappearances,” potentially involving serious violations of human rights, given reports of torture there.
The administration argues it is justified as it is defending the U.S. against security threats.
But legal experts warn the White House may be responsible for major crimes, implicating U.S. officials who could eventually face prosecution globally or other consequences and encouraging other governments to behave in aggressive ways that endanger Americans.
“It’s really difficult to imagine how any [career] State Department lawyer could sign off on these strikes [in the Pacific and Caribbean]. That leads me to believe that the normal vetting process for vetting these things is not functioning as it did,” said Charlie Trumbull, who worked at “L” from 2008 to 2024 and now teaches law at the University of South Carolina. Trumbull recently published an essay saying the boat attacks constitute murder under American law as well as crimes against humanity.
Meanwhile, observers at the State Department worry it is increasingly dominated by partisanship, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his chief advisers suggest they are treating staff based on whether they support the Trump administration. The department recently promoted some staff through an unorthodox process and recalleddozens of career ambassadors, who usually remain in their posts when presidents change; many of those experienced State Department officials could effectively be forced into retirement and all received their latest promotions under President Joe Biden. On Tuesday, State Department Under Secretary Sarah Rogers announced U.S. sanctions on foreign individuals whom the Trump team accuses of censoring Americans through efforts to combat disinformation and hate speech.
“Some collaborated with U.S. bureaucrats… we’re pursuing transparency, truth and reconciliation at the State Department, too,” Rogers wrote.
Amid indications of superiors at State monitoring staff for disagreements, “L” officials feel a seemingly unprecedented degree of vulnerability, potentially undermining their ability to be autonomous and forthright.
“There’s clearly, from what I understand, much more hesitancy to give advice that the political appointees might not want to hear,” Trumbull told HuffPost.
Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesperson, disputed HuffPost’s findings.
“Secretary Rubio values candid insights from patriotic Americans who have chosen to serve their country. What we will not tolerate is people using their positions to actively undermine the duly elected President’s objectives,” Pigott wrote in an email. “It’s telling that one of the first things your anonymous sources worried about ‘being deemed insubordinate’ would do is run to the media to spread rumors and baseless claims.”
Silence Setting In
Traditionally, “L” has overwhelmingly consisted of nonpartisan career civil servants who report to a political appointee but serve across administrations and parties. The environment at the office has darkened as Trump and Rubio have pushed claims that civil servants are insufficiently deferential to elected officials, and said they will face harsher consequences if they challenge politically appointed colleagues and supervisors.
Staff became uncomfortable as the administration changed the civil service evaluation system, including by suggesting that senior officials could be removed from their positions based on perceived insubordination, one former “L” official said.
In “making calculations” about what to say to fellow State Department officials, including colleagues outside their office whose teams normally skew more political, “L” officials are now facing new considerations of what might not be “helpful” to say and how their comments might affect their careers in the long run, the official continued.
For some legal professionals, the conflict between their honest judgment and their ability to influence policy became intolerable.
“Lawyers were being sidelined or we were being asked to advise on things we weren’t comfortable with, on top of the rhetoric and atmosphere,” said another “L” staffer who recently departed.
The administration’s attempt to reshape national security decision-making — and treat many personnel as disposable or unnecessary — became clearer throughout 2025. That bolstered the sense that anything perceived as dissent was risky.
As Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired top military lawyers, accusing them of being “roadblocks” to the commander-in-chief, Trump, the impression of “people not wanting to hear guidance from JAGs was definitely chilling,” the second former “L” official said, referring to the Judge Advocate General officer corps.
“Now I’m watching from the outside in horror: It certainly seems legal advice within [the Defense Department] but also within the interagency is not working the way it has in the past,” they said. As the Trump administration developed a legal memo justifying for the boat strikes campaign, for instance, some government lawyers raised concerns — then some career lawyers were excluded from reading drafts of the memo, and one who questioned the policy was moved out of a key role at the CIA, the Washington Post reported.
Jennifer Gavito, who left the State Department in 2024 after more than 26 years and remains in contact with many current personnel, described a general mood of silencing at the agency. She told HuffPost she has heard numerous stories of career staff being pushed out of posts for their advocacy “for things that ultimately were deemed not the policy position — and that is the career person’s job, to raise these issues.”
All the former officials who spoke with HuffPost said they believe their former colleagues continue trying to do their jobs professionally and uphold “L” responsibilities.
But the exodus of staff is continuing, and harsh possible consequences loom for those still there.
When Rubio instituted mass layoffs at the agency in July, “L” personnel knew the office was not his “primary target,” the first former “L” official said, as offices like those focused on human rights and democracy promotion work were. Amid rumors of further firings, “you don’t know where it lands next,” they added.
John Dinkelman, who runs the union of professional foreign service officers known as the American Foreign Service Association, told HuffPost some “L” personnel appeared to have chosen to depart in hopes of protecting remaining staff from dismissal. (Staff at the office work closely with but are not themselves foreign service officers.)
Still, he argued, “L” has not been spared as the department has become overwhelmingly politicized.
“We’ve always looked to them to be the conscience of the department, if not the entire U.S. government. They’ve had a long and proud history of being able to speak the truth to power. That seems to have vanished,” said Dinkelman, who rose through State’s ranks over 37 years before being dismissed in July.
Concerns about U.S. government violations of international law and “L” being unduly influenced by political concerns predate Trump, however. Some see its current weakening as enabled by a disturbing pattern among government lawyers and political officials, including Democrats.
Specifically, Gavito and one former “L” official pointed to the heavy emphasis the Biden administration placed on sustaining support for Israel in the Gaza war.
Many government experts, lawmakers, and watchdog groups said that the policy involved thousands of violations of American and international law, and should have been altered or limited. But multiple Biden-era officials, including those involved in legal deliberations, have told HuffPost there was a general understanding that the then-president and officials like then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken and then-National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan did not want to see formal confirmations that the law had been broken, so government lawyers, including at “L,” avoided such conclusions.
“The degradation is not unique to this administration: There was some of this in the last one as well with policy direction driving how interpretation of law was done,” said Gavito, who Biden had nominated to be an ambassador. (She withdrew after Senate Republicans stalled dozens of Biden picks.)
In late 2024, for instance, when the Biden administration received new intelligence findings suggesting Israeli officials knew they were committing war crimes, one senior official told HuffPost: “Reporting this up the chain was a hot potato: No one wanted to touch it,” because of fear of being seen as too critical of Israel.
Referring to Gaza, the former “L” official said: “It is frustrating as a lawyer … to see contortions in the law to reach particular outcomes when you have concerns.
“Sometimes you just lost the legal argument but in this context the stakes were so much higher,” they continued, adding they felt similarly about the Biden administration’s policy on Sudan. The United Arab Emirates, a close American partner, has fueled mass atrocities in the civil war there; Biden accused U.A.E.-backed forces of committing genocide, but did not penalize U.A.E. officials.
The significant new factor in the Trump era is the sense of danger, the second former official said: “The first time around [for Trump] I didn’t agree with all the policies, or [under] Biden — this felt different.”
The Toll
Observers of “L” are waiting to see who does — or does not — get tapped to the many open management positions in the office. If political appointees take those roles, that might signal it will be increasingly difficult for “L” to retain its independence.
Political staff added so far have not had extensive backgrounds in international law, according to former career staff.
For Rubio and State’s other decision-makers, simple self-interest might be a motivation for trying to restore the office and give greater weight to advice on compliance with international law.
“What I would tell the new administration is: They’re there to protect you. This environment of discarding legal opinions will not last forever, so if you commit war crimes, then you’re personally at risk,” Gavito said. “We always viewed L as a protection … for the institution and for the individual.”
[State Department lawyers] had a long and proud history of being able to speak the truth to power. That seems to have vanished.John Dinkelman, president of the American Foreign Serice Association
Pursuing policies with shoddy or minimal legal analysis could have unanticipated and broad ramifications.
Some former State Department personnel cited harm to American alliances as other countries become wary that the U.S. is pursuing policies that shirk cross-border statutes. Britain has withheld some intelligence from the U.S. for the boat strikes policy, according to NBC and CNN.
And Trumbull, the L staffer-turned-professor, sees two possible routes by which U.S. officials could be in jeopardy over the boat killings in particular: The International Criminal Court might target them, or countries could attempt to prosecute them, citing the principle of universal jurisdiction for major violations of international law.
“The Trump administration’s recent threats to issue new sanctions against the ICC if it investigates U.S. personnel demonstrates that the administration is aware of this risk, even if not deterred by it,” Trumbull wrote in Lawfare.
Speaking with HuffPost, he argued that Washington’s heft means its adherence, or lack thereof, to legal standards could have a dire effect on global affairs.
“Even if people are not sympathetic to drug runners, which can be understandable, even if people agree with policy of reducing drugs in the U.S. … our adversaries are going to use what’s happening now as a precedent in a way that’s harmful to U.S. national security interests,” he said, specifically pointing to the Trump administration’s sketchy claims it is at war. Other observers have noted that, say, China could use Trump’s argument for his blockade against Venezuela to target Taiwan.
“Other countries might target U.S. criminals with lethal force without any due process,” Trumbull continued. “It’s difficult to predict exactly how other countries might use this but other countries are paying attention.”
No comments:
Post a Comment