Once hailed as a stabilizing figure, Merrick Garland’s tenure as Attorney General is now widely viewed as a period of hesitation, inconsistency, and institutional decline that weakened public trust in the Department of Justice.
WASHINGTON | Merrick Garland entered the Department of Justice with a reputation as a calm, principled jurist who would restore stability after the political storms of the Trump years. Nearly four years later, critics across the political spectrum — from progressives to conservatives — argue that his cautious leadership and reluctance to act boldly have instead left the DOJ weakened, divided, and mistrusted.
Garland’s tenure, once defined by promises of restoring the rule of law, is now increasingly defined by hesitation in enforcement, politically inconsistent prosecutions, and a perception of institutional paralysis.
Analysts, legal scholars, and former prosecutors have begun referring to his DOJ as “the quietest during one of the loudest moments in American history.”
The Central Criticism: Paralysis by Politics
Garland’s critics say his biggest failure was indecision in the face of national crises.
Following the Jan. 6 insurrection, he pledged “swift and even-handed justice,” but investigations into top figures were painfully slow. Years passed before indictments touched high-level actors — a delay many believe emboldened further extremism and political cynicism.
On the opposite end, conservative critics accuse him of weaponizing the DOJ in selective ways — citing the targeting of pro-life demonstrators, parents at school board meetings, and the controversial handling of the Hunter Biden investigation.
The result: Garland managed to alienate both sides, leaving the public with less faith in the department’s impartiality than before he took office.
Institutional Drift and Declining Morale
Inside the DOJ, reports describe a department riddled with low morale, internal confusion, and constant political interference. Line prosecutors have quietly voiced frustration that Garland’s leadership often prioritizes optics over justice, delaying or avoiding politically risky cases entirely.
Former DOJ officials have said that Garland’s judicial temperament — ideal for the bench but ill-suited for executive leadership — slowed critical decision-making in a department that required urgency.
“He runs the Justice Department like a courtroom, not a crisis command center,” said one former U.S. attorney. “In times like these, that’s a fatal flaw.”
Double Standards and the Decline of Credibility
From classified document cases to high-profile corruption probes, Garland’s DOJ has been dogged by accusations of unequal justice.
Civil libertarians, meanwhile, point to Garland’s defense of controversial surveillance authorities, his slow response to police misconduct reform, and continued secrecy around key national security programs as proof that he failed to deliver on transparency and accountability.
From Promise to Failure: What Went Wrong
When President Biden nominated Merrick Garland in 2021, the move was intended to heal the DOJ after years of turmoil.
Instead, Garland’s preference for process over principle — and deliberation over decisive action — turned the department into a symbol of bureaucratic stagnation.
Political scientists note that this failure wasn’t born of malice, but of a misplaced belief that neutrality could exist in an age of extremism.
“Garland thought staying above the fray would restore trust,” one legal analyst explained. “Instead, it looked like weakness — and both parties exploited it.”
The Historical Context
Historians now rank Garland among the least effective Attorneys General of the modern era, citing:
- Inconsistent enforcement of federal law
- Prolonged political investigations with little accountability
- A DOJ increasingly distrusted by both the left and right
- Failure to restore institutional confidence promised at his confirmation
Even within his own party, Democrats have grown frustrated. Progressive lawmakers say Garland’s reluctance to act against authoritarian threats undermined efforts to defend democracy itself.
Conservatives, conversely, see him as a symbol of partisan overreach — an Attorney General who quietly expanded the administrative state while preaching impartiality.
The Verdict: History Will Not Be Kind
Garland’s term as Attorney General was supposed to mark a return to balance. Instead, it became a lesson in how timidity, bureaucratic caution, and misplaced faith in process can corrode the credibility of justice.
His legacy, say observers, is not one of scandal — but of squandered opportunity.
“Garland may be remembered as the man who tried to depoliticize justice by pretending politics didn’t exist,” said one historian. “In doing so, he lost control of the very department he sought to protect.”
======
-- By James W. Thomas
© Copyright 2025 JWT Communications. All rights reserved. This article cannot be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten, or distributed in any form without written permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment