Trump Administration continues crackdown on rogue bars with lawsuit against corrupt D.C. Bar
By Rachel Alexander
web posted June 1, 2026
Last month, the DOJ filed a complaint against the District of Columbia Bar over its aggressive attempt to disbar Trump official Jeffrey Clark. The DOJ also filed a statement of interest in support of Trump’s Pardon Attorney Ed Martin, who the bar also targeted with disciplinary proceedings. The complaint said the D.C. Bar has a “pattern and practice of bad-faith and harassing prosecutions of Federal Government attorneys based on viewpoint and political affiliation.” The DOJ asked the court to void the proceedings against Clark.
Clark merely drafted a letter for the DOJ to send to officials in Georgia outlining some options to deal with the 2020 election irregularities. A couple other high-level attorneys at the DOJ who wanted to sweep the election irregularities under the rug disagreed, and so the letter was never sent. President Donald Trump became so furious at the other two that for one day he appointed Clark as acting Attorney General instead. The DOJ pointed out that the 2020 election is still disputed, and “remains the subject of litigation nearly six years later.”
“Weaponizing state bar discipline against Executive Branch attorneys in this way chills them from giving candid legal advice to others in the Executive Branch, including the President and Attorney General,” the complaint said. “To permit these proceedings is to allow state bar authorities to control the Executive Branch.”
Two members of the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility admitted, “We have not identified any case in which the Court disbarred a respondent over a single dishonest statement supported by a false citation.” The complaint noted that Clark’s actions drafting a letter didn’t “even fit that characterization.”
The DOJ said the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution bars states and D.C. from interfering with federal officials performing their official duties. Since the president has absolute immunity for his official actions, his attorneys’ internal Executive Branch deliberations are protected. Clark’s draft letter was marked with both attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.
Three former attorneys general — Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions and Michael Mukasey — submitted an amicus curiae brief in Clark’s disciplinary proceedings asserting that they were unconstitutional and created serious separation-of-powers concerns.
The complaint pointed out the hypocrisy of the D.C. Bar treating leftist political operatives leniently. Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty to the felony of falsifying a document used to obtain a surveillance warrant against a political campaign advisor Carter Page as part of the “thoroughly discredited Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” received only a retroactive one-year suspension.
In contrast, Clark has no criminal conviction nor did he make a false statement to any court.
One member of the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler, demonstrated his leftist bias in social media posts, the complaint noted. Metzler, who worked on the case against Clark, said in one of his posts, “It is unethical to engage with anti-vaxxers and people who claim there is a debate about birthright citizenship. Some ideas are so toxic the only permissible response is shunning and perhaps ridicule.”
The complaint brought up The 65 Project, the leftist group that was launched to target Trump’s attorneys with bar complaints. An advisor for the group said their agenda is to “not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms,” and bragged that “the littler fish are probably more vulnerable to what we’re doing. You’re threatening their livelihood.”
The D.C. Bar went after Martin, who was serving as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia at the time, for sending a letter to Georgetown University Law School advising the school that teaching DEI was “unacceptable.” The DOJ’s complaint said that the D.C. Bar has no authority to determine whether Martin’s actions violate the Constitution.
Trump is the first president to crack down on crooked state bars, having witnessed the targeting of many of his own attorneys. In March, the DOJ issued a proposed regulation titled "Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys." It gives the Attorney General the right of first review over any bar complaint or investigation involving current or former DOJ attorneys for actions taken in their official duties.
Trump is also going after the American Bar Association (ABA). Although it is voluntary for attorneys, state bars rely heavily on the ABA to draft their ethics rules, and it wields immense power in the legal arena.
Last year, Trump issued an Executive Order, "Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” directing the Department of Education to review and potentially suspend or terminate the ABA's status as the official accreditor for law schools, citing its DEI standards as unlawful discrimination. Some states followed up by limiting reliance on ABA accreditation for bar eligibility.
The DOJ stopped sharing nonpublic information with the ABA for vetting federal judicial nominees and barred nominees from responding to ABA questionnaires or interviews. The DOJ issued a memo, "Engagement with the American Bar Association," prohibiting DOJ employees from attending, speaking at or participating in ABA events in their official capacity or using official time or taxpayer funds for ABA-related travel. It accused the ABA of supporting "activist causes." Other agencies followed suit.
The DOJ canceled millions in grants to the ABA, such as $3.2 million for Violence Against Women training grants. The ABA sued, and a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking some cuts.
The Trump administration issued executive orders and policies targeting law firms for DEI policies or lawfare against Trump. The ABA sued the administration over this last year.
Of course, as soon as a Democratic president gets back into power, much of this progress will be reversed, and the state bars will have little pushback on their leftist lawfare. The only way to stop this from inevitably taking place is to ensure a Democratic president never gets elected again. 
Rachel Alexander and her brother Andrew are co-Editors of Intellectual Conservative. She has been published in the American Spectator, Townhall.com, Fox News, NewsMax, Accuracy in Media, The Americano, ParcBench, Enter Stage Right and other publications.
