Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice has arguably the most important agenda for any agency within the executive branch of the incoming administration. Over the last four years, Americans have observed justice be systematically desecrated and attacked by vengeful actors, working shamelessly in tandem with Merrick Garland’s corrupt DOJ, with an agenda to censure – and even imprison – those with opposing or dissident political views. At the same time, they ran roughshod over those timeless constitutional guardrails necessary for preserving justice in the United States, such as the presumption of innocence and due process of law. These nefarious actors got away with their lawfare with virtual impunity. The protections granted to people like Fani Willis, Jack Smith, and Alvin Bragg originate ultimately in the example set by Garland’s DOJ, who dutifully carried out the marching orders of his commander-in-chief.

Lawfare became the rule of the day, and America’s legal institutions paid a mighty price for it. Americans witnessed their next President be ruthlessly prosecuted in a banana republic show trial in Manhattan, Washington, and Fulton County. Marxist district attorneys, with the financial backing of George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and other leftist radicals, eroded the rule of law in this country by launching the first all-out political persecution (which also stood as the most brazen form of election interference in American history) of a major party politician in the history of the United States, bookending the darkest chapter in the history of American justice. In a phrase, justice was put on the chopping block. Had it not been for the political miracle that was November’s historic election victory, the United States would be in a much bleaker place; for all intents and purposes, the light of American freedom would have been vanquished for good. No fundamental constitutional rights would have been guaranteed under a regime led by Kamala Harris, including the unassailable rights to speak, assemble, and worship God, as enumerated in the First Amendment, or the protections of due process, like the right to a fair and impartial tribunal, as enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Accordingly, much of the department’s resources must be allocated to restoring public confidence in the rule of law and integrity of our judicial institutions over the next four years. Paramount among these considerations will include both reforms that will facilitate public trust that justice is being carried out fairly and impartially. Additionally, the DOJ should embrace its electoral mandate to advocate for concrete policies that will help guide jurisprudence throughout the federal government with respect to how prosecutors, courts, and even administrative agencies manage important constitutional issues presented before them. The latter might include, for example, recommendations for courts to apply a broad construction of presidential power, one that respects the Supreme Court’s recognition of broad-based immunity for presidential actions, a decision that is perfectly consistent with a unitary executive. The latter might also include recommendations to the civil rights division, as but one example, for courts and prosecutors to retain a rigorously originalist construction of constitutional law, one that does not freely submit to innovations, like substantive due process or a spirited understanding of equal protection with its innumerable manufactured “protected classes,” which has no basis in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment or any other provision in the Constitution itself.