What reforms have been proposed to insulate the DOJ from political influence and which have congressional support?
Executive summary
Several competing reform packages have been floated to insulate the Department of Justice from political influence: advocacy groups and legal scholars urge strengthening career protections and internal accountability tools while some congressional and presidential proposals would redesign or limit DOJ powers; Congress itself has both advanced measures that would constrain DOJ decisionmaking and rejected administration proposals to reorganize parts of the department [1] [2] [3]. Support in Congress is fragmented—some reforms have clear bipartisan backing in committee text or appropriations riders, while other high-profile proposals face active opposition or were removed from must-pass bills [4] [3].
1. Strengthen civil‑service protections and internal accountability—longstanding, scholar-backed fixes
Reform advocates such as the Brennan Center argue that bolstering the civil service and restoring robust internal accountability mechanisms are core fixes to prevent politicized prosecutions: proposals include reinforcing the Civil Service Reform Act’s protections for career DOJ employees, enhancing Offices that investigate misconduct, and creating clearer, enforceable limits on improper political interference in charging decisions [1]. The Brennan Center specifically notes historical reforms after Watergate that created informal deterrents and recommends restoring comparable safeguards today to ensure career lawyers can apply “Principles of Federal Prosecution” without political pressure [1]. These ideas enjoy broad support among legal reformers, though concrete statutory packages reflecting them in Congress are diffuse rather than unified [1].
2. Granting investigatory subpoena power to independent watchdogs—an accountability gap flagged by experts
A recurrent proposal is to strengthen inspectorate capacities—giving the Office of the Inspector General or a reformed Office of Professional Responsibility subpoena authority or enforcement tools—because OPR currently lacks broad subpoena power and the IG has limited reach over non‑DOJ actors, which advocates say weakens deterrence against political misuse [1]. Brennan Center analysis highlights this structural shortcoming and frames expanding subpoena authority as a way to make internal investigations meaningful rather than merely advisory [1]. While the recommendation is prominent in academic and advocacy circles, the search results do not show a single, passed statutory change in Congress codifying such enhanced powers as of the latest reporting [1].
3. Statutory limits and reporting requirements—Congressional appetite on display in appropriations and hearings
Congress has demonstrated appetite to use appropriations and committee oversight to constrain DOJ reorganizations or set policy boundaries: a recent fiscal‑year spending package explicitly would reject a proposed DOJ restructuring, signaling bipartisan congressional control over how the department is organized [3]. Committee hearings and authored events titled “Legislative Reforms to End Lawfare” show members pushing statutory language about proper enforcement roles and asking whether DOJ should be limited in certain prosecutorial pursuits, reflecting an appetite for rules or reporting requirements to curb perceived politicization [5] [4]. Such measures have had mixed traction—some make it into committee text or reports, others are stripped during conference [3] [6].
4. Limitations on grant‑conditionality and local enforcement leverage—specific congressional amendments
Some senators have proposed narrower, targeted restraints on DOJ leverage—for example, Sen. Cory Booker introduced amendments to FY26 NDAA language to prevent DOJ from attaching immigration‑enforcement conditions to federal grants for local police, an effort framed as protecting local jurisdictions from politically driven strings attached to funding [7]. That amendment exemplifies a narrower class of reforms that limit how DOJ can wield grants to influence local policies; these tend to attract localized or bipartisan support where jurisdictions see a direct impact [7].
5. Counter‑proposals that would politicize or reorient DOJ—Project 2025 and partisan alternatives
Not all high‑profile proposals aim to insulate DOJ from politics; some would centralize political control. Project 2025’s blueprint, for example, calls for sweeping changes including eliminating consent decrees and empowering the department to remove local prosecutors it labels as derelict, a menu of changes critics say would increase political leverage rather than reduce it [2]. Those proposals have strong backing in segments of conservative policymaking networks and risk drawing congressional support along partisan lines, illustrating that “reform” is contested terrain where insulation and politicization are both being legislated for depending on who controls Congress and the White House [2] [4].
Conclusion: mixed congressional traction and a partisan map of reforms
Across advocacy, administrative, and congressional sources the clearest consensus favors strengthening civil‑service protections and internal oversight powers—reforms framed as depoliticizing by bolstering neutral career staff and watchdog tools—yet concrete statutory enactments remain piecemeal, and Congress has simultaneously moved to block or to propose politically charged restructurings; therefore, support in Congress exists for some insulating measures (appropriations riders, targeted grant‑condition limits, oversight mandates) while other high‑profile proposals either lack consensus or intentionally cut in the opposite direction [1] [3] [7] [2].