A profound and unusual climate of fear has taken root within the U.S. State Department's central legal office, where career lawyers now worry about professional retaliation for simply doing their jobs, according to five former officials. This atmosphere is bolstering deep concerns about how the Trump administration is formulating its foreign policy, with potential consequences for America's adherence to domestic and international law.
A Culture of Self-Censorship Replaces Frank Counsel
Lawyers at the Office of the Legal Adviser, known internally as "L," are increasingly concerned they will face repercussions if they suggest the administration's plans might be unlawful. There is a growing suspicion that evaluations may be based on perceived loyalty to President Donald Trump and his political vision, rather than on legal expertise and judgment. This shift is alarming to veterans of the office, who say a culture of self-censorship is replacing a long-standing tradition of frank, apolitical advice.
"Your job is to provide legal advice," one former State Department lawyer told HuffPost. "Imagine being afraid to provide what you think is appropriate legal advice." Another former lawyer described the historic culture: "We've always had a culture where we speak frankly, challenge things and really push ideas to ensure they're solidly supported." Now, they said, an "underlying fear" exists of giving unwelcome advice and being sidelined from critical work.
The office has seen a drastic and uncommon loss of staff since Trump's second term began. Leadership roles have steadily become dominated by political appointees, a departure from the norm where career civil servants formed the overwhelming majority. Officials describe staff becoming guarded even in casual conversations in elevators or hallways at the agency's Foggy Bottom headquarters.
High-Stakes Policies and Eroding Legal Guardrails
The erosion of "L's" independent voice comes as the Trump administration pursues aggressive international policies that legal scholars have fiercely criticized. Two key examples are raising particular alarm:
- Maritime Strikes: Trump's campaign of strikes on accused drug boats in the Pacific and Caribbean, which have killed more than 100 people, has spurred concern among lawmakers. The administration has not formally declared war in the region or established the criminality of those targeted.
- Mass Deportations: The administration's deportation policy may have broken international law through tactics like sending hundreds of foreign nationals to the CECOT detention facility in El Salvador. Reports of torture there suggest these actions could constitute "enforced disappearances" and serious human rights violations.
Charlie Trumbull, who worked at "L" from 2008 to 2024, said it's "really difficult to imagine" any career lawyer approving the boat strikes under normal legal vetting. He recently published an essay arguing the attacks constitute murder under U.S. law and crimes against humanity. Legal experts warn that U.S. officials could eventually face global prosecution for such actions, setting dangerous precedents that other nations might use against American interests.
Politicization and the Exodus of Expertise
The environment has darkened as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump have pushed claims that civil servants are insufficiently deferential. The department has promoted staff through unorthodox processes and recalled dozens of career ambassadors, many of whom may be forced into retirement. A State Department spokesperson, Tommy Pigott, defended the administration, stating that while "candid insights" are valued, the department "will not tolerate... people using their positions to actively undermine the duly elected President's objectives."
Observers point to a broader pattern of sidelining legal oversight. When the administration developed a memo justifying the boat strikes campaign, some career lawyers were excluded from reading drafts after raising concerns. One lawyer who questioned the policy was moved out of a key role at the CIA. This mirrors actions at the Pentagon, where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired top military lawyers, accusing them of being "roadblocks."
John Dinkelman, president of the American Foreign Service Association, lamented the change: "We've always looked to them to be the conscience of the department... They've had a long and proud history of being able to speak the truth to power. That seems to have vanished."
A Warning for the Future and Global Repercussions
Former officials caution that weakening independent legal counsel ultimately harms the administration itself. Jennifer Gavito, a 26-year State Department veteran, noted, "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."
The consequences extend beyond U.S. borders. Allies like Britain have reportedly withheld intelligence over concerns about the boat strikes policy. Trumbull warns that U.S. officials could be targeted by the International Criminal Court or prosecuted under universal jurisdiction principles for major violations. Furthermore, adversaries like China could use Trump's legal justifications—such as those for a blockade against Venezuela—as precedents for aggressive actions, for instance against Taiwan.
While concerns about political influence on "L" predate Trump, with some citing the Biden administration's handling of legal issues around the Gaza war, former officials say the current sense of direct danger is new. As the office faces more open management positions, observers are watching to see if political appointees fill them, which could signal a permanent loss of independence for a office long seen as a vital guardrail for the rule of law in U.S. foreign policy.
