DOJ Nominees: A Threat to Fairness and Equality Under Trump

On April 2, 2025, the Department of Justice trumpeted a pair of nominations that sent a chill through anyone who values an impartial legal system. President Trump intends to install Stanley Woodward as Associate Attorney General and Elliot Gaiser as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. These choices are not mere personnel updates; they’re a flashing neon sign of an administration hell-bent on bending the nation’s top law enforcement agency to its will.

Woodward, a high-profile litigator with a resume glittering with corporate defense gigs, and Gaiser, Ohio’s Solicitor General with a pedigree tied to conservative judicial icons, aren’t just qualified on paper. Their records scream loyalty to a vision that prioritizes executive power and economic interests over the public good. For everyday Americans - the tenants facing eviction, the workers cheated by corrupt corporations - this isn’t a win. It’s a warning.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. With the DOJ already reeling from years of political tug-of-war, these nominations threaten to tip the scales further toward an agenda that’s less about justice and more about control. Let’s unpack what this means for a nation desperate for fairness in an unequal world.

Stanley Woodward’s career reads like a love letter to the powerful. Co-founder of Brand Woodward Law, he’s spent years defending international corporations accused of skirting the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a law designed to curb bribery and corruption abroad. Sure, he’s got a shiny pro bono award from 2018 for helping D.C. tenants fight evictions, but don’t be fooled. That’s a footnote in a story dominated by boardroom battles, not a commitment to the little guy.

Then there’s Elliot Gaiser, a rising star in the legal elite. He’s clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and worked under conservative heavyweights like Judge Neomi Rao. As Ohio’s Solicitor General, he’s honed a knack for crafting arguments that bolster state power and executive reach. His appointment to the Office of Legal Counsel, a role that shapes the legality of presidential actions, promises to greenlight policies that could trample civil liberties without a second thought.

Both men bring impeccable credentials, no question. Yet their paths reveal a troubling pattern: a cozy alignment with the interests of the few over the needs of the many. Historical precedent backs this up. The OLC, under past administrations, has justified everything from warrantless surveillance to harsh interrogation tactics, often with lawyers like Gaiser pulling the strings behind closed doors.

Think about the tenant in D.C. facing eviction because their landlord knows the system’s rigged. Pro bono work, like Woodward’s lauded efforts, is a lifeline for them, but it’s not enough when the DOJ’s top brass prioritizes corporate giants over accountability. Recent data shows 72% of corporate legal departments now have formal pro bono policies, a jump from 66% in 2022. That’s progress, but it’s hollow if the government’s own enforcers let corruption slide.

Or consider the FCPA, a law that’s kept American businesses honest on the global stage since 1977. Trump’s recent 180-day pause on its enforcement, ordered in February 2025, already signals a retreat from fighting corruption. Woodward’s history defending alleged violators fits this shift like a glove. The message? Profit trumps principle, and the average worker pays the price when overseas deals go dirty.

Gaiser’s role is even more alarming. The Office of Legal Counsel doesn’t just advise; it defines what the president can get away with. Past OLC opinions have greenlit policies that shredded privacy and equality, from post-9/11 security measures to bans on transgender troops. With Gaiser at the helm, expect more of the same: executive overreach dressed up as legal necessity, leaving ordinary citizens exposed.

Opponents might argue these picks bring efficiency and expertise to a bloated bureaucracy. They’re not wrong about the credentials. But expertise in service of what? A DOJ that shields the powerful while ignoring the vulnerable isn’t efficient; it’s complicit. The confirmation process, historically a slog - Biden’s nominees waited 21 days on average - now feels like a rubber stamp for an administration that’s lost the plot on justice.

This isn’t abstract. It’s your rent, your job, your rights on the line. The DOJ’s independence has been battered by political winds before, from Nixon’s scandals to Trump’s first term. These nominations don’t rebuild trust; they torch it.

We deserve a Department of Justice that fights for fairness, not just for the well-connected. Woodward and Gaiser might dazzle in a courtroom or a Senate hearing, but their records suggest a future where power consolidates, not disperses. The surge in pro bono hours - over 5.4 million in 2020 alone - proves lawyers can bridge gaps the government won’t. Why settle for leaders who’d rather widen them?

The path forward demands resistance. Senators, advocates for the underserved, and everyday people need to push back against a DOJ that’s drifting from its mission. Justice isn’t a luxury for the elite; it’s a right for all. These nominations aren’t set in stone yet. There’s time to demand a vision that lifts up the tenant, the worker, the forgotten - not one that buries them under corporate interests and unchecked authority.