Propublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates power abuse. Sign up and receive the biggest story as soon as it’s published.
The decision shocked current and former federal prosecutors and external legal experts when President Donald Trump chose Missouri lawyer and political operative Ed Martin to become the top US lawyer in Washington, D.C. Martin had no experience as a prosecutor. He was best known as the former right-hand man of conservative activist and the leading anti-feminist icon Phyllis Shulafrey and loyal Trump’s agent.
Since taking charge of the office in January, Martin has launched a controversial investigation, rushing to protect Elon Musk’s government efficiency and vowing to change the way District of Columbia offices prosecute crimes.
His actions have been filled with intense backlash from democratic lawmakers, watchdog groups and legal experts. There have been at least four disciplinary complaints filed against him in bars in D.C. and Missouri. One of the DC complaints was denied. The other three appear to be pending. If Martin responds to the complaint, his statement has not been made public.
Martin did not respond to repeated requests for comments.
Below are some of Martin’s most controversial moves so far.
An untold story of how the online attacks of Ed Martin Ghostlatte were attacked against a judge – and still become the top prosecutor
Revenge on January 6th
At Trump’s direction, Martin hosted the fire of an unsolved case on January 6, 2021, which was part of the Justice Department’s investigation into the Capitol riots.
But Martin was stumbled by what should have been a legal form. In one of the cases he dismissed, he was listed as a lawyer for the defendant’s records, which is still a possible conflict of interest. The incident prompted Barr’s complaints against D.C. and Martin in Missouri. (D.C. Barr’s Disciplinary Committee has dismissed the complaint saying that Martin was acting at the president’s request. The Missouri complaint appears to be pending.)
Martin fired more than 12 federal prosecutors who worked in the January 6th case. He played a low-level role in DC Superior Court handling local prosecutions with seven senior counsels, including two prosecutors who led the Jan. 6 team. (Most of the affected lawyers have not commented publicly, but critics of Martin’s tenure have not commented publicly.)
Martin has launched an investigation into the supposed leaks related to the January 6 case, saying the information is being used “as misinformation by the media and partisans.” He also ordered an investigation into past claim decisions made as part of the January 6 case. In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the use of DOJ’s obstruction laws in these prosecutions. In an office-wide email obtained by Propublica, Martin cited an unnamed contact comparing President Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to incarcerate more than 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.
Doge Enforcer
Martin has released several open letters to Mask on Musk’s social media platform X.
In the first letter dated February 3rd, Martin asked Musk to “use me and my staff” to protect people and Doge’s work. He vowed to take “all legal action against anyone” that interfered with Doge’s work.
“We don’t act like we did in the previous administration,” Martin added.
In the second letter dated February 7th, Martin expanded his pledge to the legal authority of his office in favour of Musk and Doge’s work. “Please repeat again. If it’s discovered that people have broken the law or simply acted unethical, we investigate them.
He urged employees to list five things all federal employees accomplished that week, saying, “Doge and Elon are doing a great job! They urged their employees to meet the demand for masks to list historical things.
And when Doge employees tried to take control of the US Peace Institute, a private nonprofit that receives government funds, Martin and his office helped Doge take over and defeat the nonprofit.
“We’ll protect you.”
DC’s U.S. Lawyers’ Office is unique in that it prosecutes both federal and local crimes. In his tweet and official statement, Martin vowed to “make DC safe again” despite the sharp decline in violent crimes in the district in recent years.
His public safety agenda has been light to detail so far, but he has promised to become a stubborn advocate for the DC police. In yet another open letter posted on X, Martin wrote, “The radical ‘police’ movement ended with the issue of black lives,” and “it’s time to go back to protecting and supporting law enforcement officials.”
“Every turn we’ll protect you,” he said.
But current and former federal prosecutors in DC say Martin’s actions so far have made it difficult, not easy, for prosecutors to do their job.
In February, Martin removed the chief and deputy chief of the federal major crime section, which oversees cases that include drugs, firearm possession, child exploitation, human trafficking and immigration violations. Two widely respected lawyers with decades of experience among them, were demoted to a low-level role. Two seniors, Melissa Jackson, resigned shortly afterwards. (Jackson declined to comment. Her lieutenant did not respond to requests for comment.)
Martin also said he is “rewrite” the policy of the so-called Lewislist office, a repository of police disciplinary records. Prosecutors will consult the Lewis Database when deciding whether to place officers on the witness stand. They also use Lewis List to identify officers about who are required to disclose information to a lawyer who endures the credibility of the witness or potential bias in order to fulfill their constitutional obligations.
Martin framed his decision to reform Lewislist as part of a broader shift to make him more pro-sponsored. “USAO will no longer allow judges and others to hurt your career for free due to the large impact of inaccurate traits,” he writes.
Michael Romano, a former federal prosecutor at the DC office, said efforts to weaken or abolish Lewislist will only make it difficult for prosecutors to discuss and win cases, as they will take away information they have to disclose in court. “I’ll shoot Luis’s list,” Romano told Propobrica. “The chances of a prosecutor being convicted at trial are less likely, the chances of a conviction being reversed upon appeal, and the chances of prosecutors being licensed to practice risky laws.”
Democrats’ investigation
Martin has launched multiple inquiries about Trump critics and opponents.
Martin seeks information about the business that Vindman and his brother Alexander began supporting Ukraine in the war with Russia, D-Va. asked Rep. Eugene Vindman, the Washington Post reported. Both Vindman and his twin brother, Alex, have blown up Trump’s attempts to withhold military aid to Ukraine, pressured the country’s leaders to investigate President Joe Biden’s family. Eugene Vindman said that Martin’s letter was part of Trump’s “retaliation campaign,” and that he wrote “the people who encouraged this strange attempt at blackmail are lying.”
Biden’s family and former officials in his administration have received letters from Martin’s office related to the former president’s decision to grant pardons to those close to him, The New York Times reported. Trump pushed an unproven theory that Biden’s actions are not mentally competent and therefore are not effective.
He also wrote to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Robert Garcia of California, both Democrats, asking them to answer questions about the inflammatory public comments they made. The enquiries seemed to have disappeared and no charges were incurred.
Targeting medical journals
On April 14, Martin sent a list of questions to the editors of Chest Magazine, a medical journal published by the American College of Chest Physicians. The letter accused the journal and others of being “partisans in various scientific debates,” and “how do you explain it clearly and clearly if you have a particular perspective influenced by your continued relationship with advocates, funders, advertisers, etc.” and “How do you deal with allegations that the author of your magazine’s work may have misunderstood the reader?”
According to the New York Times, two other medical journal publishers reported that they had received similar letters. The letter raised serious concerns about restraining freedom of speech and threats from government science publications.
