Trump allies launch a bid to take control of a powerful Washington legal group
WASHINGTON — Two of President Donald Trump's allies have launched bids for leadership roles with the D.C. Bar Association, an under-the-radar effort that would give them more control over the influential legal group.
The push comes amid bar associations' confrontations with the Trump administration, and some federal attorneys have looked to their state groups for ethical guidance amid Trump's rapid reshaping of government.
Bradley Bondi — a lawyer who is Attorney General Pam Bondi's brother — and Alicia Long — a deputy to Ed Martin, Trump's interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia — are running for president and treasurer. The election runs from April to June, according to the organization's website.
While the general public may not pay much attention to bar associations, lawyers do. The nongovernmental groups decide who gets to be a lawyer — and who gets to stay a lawyer when misconduct allegations are involved. The D.C. Bar, as it is known, has more than 120,000 members, and, by virtue of its location, it is where a significant number of federal attorneys are licensed.
The effort to take control of the D.C. Bar follows warnings Trump administration officials have directed at bar associations, which lawyers inside and outside the government have suggested could play a role in slowing down legally questionable elements of Trump's agenda.
On one of her first days as attorney general, Pam Bondi warned career lawyers that they could be fired for refusing to carry out orders because of any personal objections. Meanwhile, the D.C. Bar maintains a confidential legal ethics hotline for members to submit concerns.
Bondi and Long each face one opponent. If elected, they would join the professional organization's 23-person Board of Governors. Though the D.C. Bar does not have a direct role in disciplining lawyers for misconduct, its board does recommend members to sit on the D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility, the disciplinary arm of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Disciplinary cases are brought forward by a separate Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which investigates and prosecutes ethical complaints against lawyers.
With Republicans in control of the House and the Senate, bar discipline could be one of the last remaining ways to hold Trump-appointed attorneys accountable. On Thursday, a group of Democratic senators wrote a letter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel expressing 'grave concerns' about some of the highly unusual steps Martin has taken since he became interim U.S. attorney. The letter accused him of 'serious violations of professional conduct' and abusing his position. Martin did not respond to requests for comment.
Some Trump attorneys have faced sanctions in Washington for their actions. Rudy Giuliani was disbarred in Washington last year in the wake of his efforts to overturn Trump's 2020 presidential election loss; a committee of the Board on Professional Responsibility found that what it called his 'utter disregard for facts denigrates the legal profession.'
Jeffrey Clark — a former Justice Department lawyer whom Trump tried to make attorney general in the days before the Jan. 6, 2021, attack — appeared before the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility last year and invoked the Fifth Amendment. A panel made a preliminary determination that he had committed an ethical violation and recommended in August that he be suspended from practicing law for two years. With Trump back in the White House, Clark is now acting administrator of the White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
And a Republican report issued in December by Rep. Barry Loudermilk, of Georgia, alleged possible coordination between House Jan. 6 investigators and the D.C. Bar to target an attorney who represented a former Trump White House aide. (The Office of Disciplinary Counsel dismissed that complaint last year.)
Bondi's and Long's bids quickly caused some alarm among attorneys in Washington. An email seen by NBC News and sent to dozens of Washington-area lawyers — and also shared on social media — described the duo as 'Trump/Pam Bondi loyalists' who were 'making a bid to take over the DC Bar' and encouraged recipients to pay attention and vote.
An attorney at a federal agency said the pro-Trump effort to win leadership positions at the D.C. Bar suggests the administration 'may be getting pushback internally' from lawyers who are concerned about potential professional consequences for carrying out Trump's agenda.
'They know this is a potential weakness,' this person added.
Bondi and Long did not respond to requests for comment. The D.C. Bar did not reply to a request for comment.
Bondi's opponent, Diane A. Seltzer, an attorney with a focus on employment law who already serves on the D.C. Bar's Board of Governors, said she decided to run because she saw it as the culmination of decades of bar leadership experience at a critical time in history.
'I want to be able to support the members of our bar in this time of governmental chaos,' she said. 'Our legal system needs a bar that understands and sees them and can support them in ways that will be helpful and keep everyone's energy up and keep people from giving up or burning out.'
The D.C. Bar does not control the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, but anyone can submit a complaint there, which is then heard by the Board of Professional Responsibility. The D.C. Bar seeks candidates for the Board of Professional Responsibility, but the D.C. Court of Appeals ultimately chooses the candidates.
There are fears among some Washington lawyers, however, that with Trump-supporting officials in place, the D.C. Bar might choose to ignore Court of Appeals rulings or orders from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
'I would never want to be president of a bar that could do that or that would do that,' Seltzer said. 'I wouldn't want to be president of a bar where those lines could be blurred and we would say, 'I am not going to follow what the Court of Appeals has decided or what the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has ordered.''
The disciplinary process can be protracted. Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens — a former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington who led the aggressive prosecution of anti-Trump protesters arrested en masse during Trump's first inauguration in 2017 — is only now facing a disciplinary hearing eight years later, accused of hiding exculpatory evidence from defendants.
The Trump administration has had a contentious relationship with bar associations, and Republicans have long accused them of having a left-wing bent — tensions that reached a boiling point in Trump's first term when the American Bar Association, the national bar organization, rated several of his judicial picks as 'not qualified' for the jobs they were nominated for.
Project 2025 took aim at the American Bar Association in its policy road map for a future conservative administration, calling for the president to issue an executive order pursuing antitrust measures against it. In one of his first moves as president, Trump signed an executive order that said bar associations could be targeted for investigations over their diversity programs.
Last month, the American Bar Association lambasted what it described as the Trump administration's 'wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself.' After billionaire Elon Musk, who is overseeing Trump's effort to reshape government, called for judges who have ruled against Trump to be impeached, the ABA said in a new statement Tuesday that it would 'not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not.' It added that such attempts at intimidation 'cannot be sanctioned or normalized.'
On Wednesday, Chad Mizelle, the Justice Department's chief of staff, punched back at the ABA, posting to X that 'they disguise their advocacy as work to 'promote the best quality legal education, competence, ethical conduct and professionalism, and pro bono and public service work in the legal profession,' but they never mention that they also work hand-in-hand on left-wing causes.'
He also wrote that the bar association's 'dedication to left-wing activism undermines justice' and that under the attorney general's 'leadership, DOJ is carrying out President Trump's executive orders putting an end to radical DEI programs, and we're all over the ABA's illegal and immoral diversity mandates for law school accreditation.'
In 2020, the ABA rated Mizelle's wife, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, as 'not qualified' to serve as a U.S. district court judge in Florida. She was 33 at the time and the youngest person Trump had tapped for the lifetime appointment. She was confirmed to the seat in November 2020.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil tanks 6% as Iranian retaliation against US spares energy supply
Oil futures slid 6% on Monday as Iran appeared to spare the energy market while the country launched missiles targeted at a US air base in Qatar in retaliation for US bombings on Iranian nuclear sites. Brent crude (BZ=F), the international benchmark, dropped to $72 per barrel. West Texas Intermediate (CL=F) also fell roughly 6% to trade below $70 per barrel. The declines came after Iranian state media said it launched missile attacks against a US air base in Qatar, matching the number of bombs dropped by the US over the weekend, in a move the Associated Press said signaled "a likely desire to deescalate." Prior to the retaliatory move, Wall Street weighed various scenarios after President Trump announced on Saturday that the US struck three Iranian nuclear facilities, including the threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for oil flows. On Monday morning, President Trump posted on social media: "To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!" "The main reason for this stability is that energy infrastructure has largely been spared from direct attacks, with number of oil tankers transiting through the Strait of Hormuz remaining steady," JPMorgan's Natasha Kaneva and her team wrote on Monday morning. On Sunday, futures spiked after Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, but the final decision rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The oil market is now factoring in "a one-in-five chance of a material disruption in Gulf energy production flows, with potential for crude prices to reach the $120-130 range," Kaneva wrote. "Yet, beyond the short-term spike induced by geopolitics, our base case for oil remains anchored by our supply-demand balance, which shows that the world has enough oil," she added. She also noted that "with fewer reliable partners in the Middle East and limited regional appetite for a broader conflict, Iran faces a constrained set of options and a heightened set of risks as it deliberates its course of action." Other possible retaliatory moves from Iran could include supporting Yemen's Houthi rebels in renewed attacks on commercial shipping, or going after energy infrastructure in neighboring countries. If crude climbs into the $120 to $130 range, analysts predict gasoline and diesel prices could rise by as much as $1.25 per gallon. "Consumers would be looking at a national average gasoline price of around $4.50 per gallon — closer to $6.00 if you're in California," Lipow Oil Associates president Andy Lipow said in a Sunday note. The key issue isn't just the potential for supply disruption, but how long it lasts, Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth, told Yahoo Finance on Sunday. "If infrastructure is hit but can be quickly restored, crude may struggle to hold gains," she said. "But if Iran's response causes lasting damage or introduces long-term supply risk, we're likely to see a stronger and more sustained move higher." Last week, JPMorgan analysts noted that since 1967 — aside from the Yom Kippur War in 1973 — none of the 11 major military conflicts involving Israel have had a lasting impact on oil prices. In contrast, events directly involving major regional oil producers, such as the first Gulf War in 1990, the Iraq War in 2003 and the imposition of sanctions on Iran in 2018, have all led to meaningful and sustained moves in oil markets. "During these episodes, we estimate that oil traded at a $7–$14 per barrel premium to its fair value for an extended period," JPMorgan's Kaneva wrote. They added that the most significant and lasting price impacts historically come from "regime changes" in oil-producing countries, whether that be through leadership transitions, coups, revolutions, or major political shifts. "While demand conditions and OPEC's spare capacity shape the broader market response, these events typically drive substantial oil price spikes, averaging a 76% increase from onset to peak," Kaneva wrote. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) had raised output in the months leading up to Israel's strike on Iran on June 13. Ines Ferre is a Senior Business Reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fed officials are starting to break rank and join Trump
Some Federal Reserve officials are joining President Donald Trump in calling for lower interest rates as soon as July. Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman on Monday downplayed the potential impacts of Trump's tariffs on prices and said the US central bank should swiftly lower rates to preserve the labor market's health. 'It is time to consider adjusting the policy rate,' Bowman said. 'Should inflation pressures remain contained, I would support lowering the policy rate as soon as our next meeting in order to bring it closer to its neutral setting and to sustain a healthy labor market.' Bowman is the second Fed official to join Trump in calling for lower borrowing costs. On Friday, Fed Governor Christopher Waller said tariffs will likely only result in a 'one-off' increase in inflation. Both Bowman and Waller are Trump appointees. For months, Fed officials have said they prefer to wait to see how Trump's major policy shifts affect the US economy first before considering further rate cuts. At its policy meeting earlier this month, the Fed kept its benchmark lending rate unchanged for the fourth consecutive time. But that strategy hasn't sat well with Trump, who has relentlessly lashed out at the central bank and its leader, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, for not lowering rates. Trump has hurled various insults at Powell, describing him as a 'fool' and a 'numbskull.' Now, the Fed's wait-and-see posture is slowly crumbling, even as tensions in the Middle East heat up, which raises the risk of higher global energy prices. And the jury is still out on the ultimate impact of Trump's tariffs. Bowman said it's possible the Israel-Iran conflict — which escalated over the weekend with the US striking at three Iranian nuclear sites — results in higher commodity prices. And there's still the lingering possibility of Trump's trade war also pushing up prices, she said. Still, that may not even result in higher consumer prices because businesses don't have much leverage to hike prices this time around, Bowman said. 'I am certainly attentive to these inflation risks, but I am not yet seeing a major concern, as some retailers seem unwilling to raise prices for essentials due to high price sensitivity among low-income consumers and as supply chains appear to be largely unaffected so far,' Bowman said. Bowman isn't the only Fed official seemingly not worried about the potential economic impact of the Israel-Iran conflict. Powell has said higher energy prices spurred by the conflict will likely be short lived. 'When there's turmoil in the Middle East, you may see a spike in energy prices, but it tends to come down. Those things don't generally tend to have lasting effects on inflation, although of course in the 1970s, they famously did,' Powell said in a news conference following the Fed's June 17-18 policy meeting. 'But, we haven't seen anything like that now. The U.S. economy is far less dependent on foreign oil than it was back in the 1970s,' he added. Economists have said the economic impact of the current conflict largely depends on how out of hand it gets. A forecast from analysts at EY-Parthenon shows that the US economy could contract by a massive 1.9% annualized rate if the Middle East plunges into an all-out regional war. But in a 'contained' scenario, the US economy could contract only slightly. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Iran strikes US base after Trump bombing. Are you concerned about war? Tell us.
Last week, we asked you if the US should go to war with Iran. It looks like President Trump decided for us. We want to know how you feel about that. Last Thursday, on June 19, President Donald Trump said he would decide 'within the next two weeks' whether the United States would engage directly in the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. Two days later, Trump announced the completion of a 'successful' attack on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. On Monday, June 23, Iran responded by striking a U.S. military base in Qatar. And thus begins, perhaps, another U.S. 'forever war' in the Middle East. If you, like me, spent your entire life with America entrenched in Middle East conflicts – where friends and community members have laid down their lives for wars based on lies – then perhaps you, like me, are less than thrilled at this prospect. (Scroll down or click here to share your opinion with us.) And we're not alone. Do you think the US should have bombed Iran? In an Economist/YouGov poll released before the bombing, 60% of respondents said the U.S. military should not get directly involved. A majority – 56% – said that negotiations should continue. A Washington Post poll conducted June 18 found a similar pattern, with the majority of respondents opposing air strikes. And when USA TODAY conducted our own reader survey, we received an overwhelming response saying the United States should not get involved and America should refrain from official intervention. Previously: Should US go to war with Iran or support Israel from afar? Take our poll. | Opinion In the aftermath of the bombing, Americans – and the world – seem as divided as ever on the decision. Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, applauded the move and even encouraged it, telling The Wall Street Journal that he told the president, 'This will reset our relationship with the rest of the world.' Meanwhile MAGA faithful Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, took to X on Monday to break with Trump, writing, 'It feels like a complete bait and switch.' Less than a week later, we want to know if that feeling has changed. Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran? Do you think he should have waited for approval from Congress? What do you think Iran – and America – will do next? Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear war? Why did Trump strike Iran? Will it change anything? Questions have swirled in the immediate fallout from the June 21 bombing. In a speech that evening, Trump claimed Iran's three major sites had been 'obliterated.' But less than a day later, the picture was much less certain, with weapons experts, Iranian officials and even Russia contesting the true impact of the attack. These new developments beg the question: Was it worth it? And, with countries pledging to arm Iran with nuclear weapons anyway, did it even change anything? We want to know what you think. Take our poll below, or send us an email with the subject line "Forum US Iran war" to forum@ We'll publish a collection of responses from all sides of the conversation in our next installment of the Opinion Forum. Janessa Hilliard is the director of audience for USA TODAY Opinion and Opinion at Gannett.
