Ed Martin: DOJ Exit, D.C. Bar Case

The story so far

As of August 21, 2026

Ed Martin is leaving the Justice Department, where he served as the U.S. pardon attorney, to take on outside legal work around the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential race. The move was announced by President Trump on social media. Martin, 56, previously served as interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and later led DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group before being removed from that role earlier this year. His tenure included internal reviews of Biden-era prosecutions involving Trump and efforts tied to an investigation of New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud.

Martin departs under an ethics cloud. The D.C. Bar opened disciplinary proceedings in March over a letter he sent as interim U.S. attorney to Georgetown Law warning that his office would not consider its students for jobs or internships if the school continued diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, while raising the school’s receipt of federal funds and tax status. The petition also cites a series of ex parte letters Martin sent to the D.C. Court of Appeals pressing to sideline the investigator on his case, alleging conduct that interfered with the administration of justice. Sanctions could range up to disbarment.

The Justice Department escalated the fight in May by suing the D.C. Bar, arguing the disciplinary machinery had become politicized and was intruding on executive branch prerogatives. The case challenges the bar’s authority to police federal lawyers for official acts, backing Martin along with other Trump-era attorneys such as Jeffrey Clark, and seeks to shield internal deliberations from the bar’s inquiries.

The story has become a test of two boundaries at once: how far a government lawyer can use official leverage to pressure private institutions over contested ideas, and how far a local bar can reach into the conduct of federal officials. Martin’s exit positions him to work in election litigation while those questions are decided. What is at stake for him personally is his license and ability to practice; what is at stake institutionally is whether separation of powers limits bar oversight when professional rules collide with claims of official duty.