Trump Pardoned Jeffrey Clark, Then His Justice Department Sued to Erase the Ethics Case

Erase the Proceedings, Block the Next Case

On May 13, 2026, Trump's Justice Department sued Washington's attorney-discipline authorities to void their proceedings against Jeffrey Clark, an election ally of the President.¹² In late 2020, Clark headed DOJ's environmental division and was acting head of its Civil Division; before the events at issue, he had no role in its election investigations.² A disciplinary board had found that Clark tried to make DOJ announce findings about the 2020 election that he knew were false.² Federal lawyers were seeking protection from professional accountability for a man found to have tried to put false election claims on their own department's letterhead.¹²

Trump had already acted for Clark himself. On November 7, 2025, he granted an election-related pardon that named Clark.³ Clark then sought permission to supplement his objections to the board's report in light of the pardon; the disciplinary docket lists that motion as granted.⁴ When the lawsuit followed six months later, his department publicly presented it as carrying out his directives: DOJ said the suit advanced Trump's executive order on ending government weaponization and his memorandum on preventing abuses of the legal system.⁵

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's name is on the complaint, which Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward filed for the United States.¹ It asks for a declaration that the existing proceedings and findings are void, and for preliminary and permanent injunctions against investigations, proceedings or disciplinary actions based on Clark's government conduct.¹ That would end the case against Clark, not merely lighten the proposed sanction.¹

This was one of several interventions by Trump's administration in the legal profession, alongside his [orders directing clearance suspensions and contract reviews for Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block](bar_casefile_strong.md).⁶⁷

A Letter That Could Turn Votes Into a Legislative Choice

These are the findings DOJ wants voided.¹ On December 27, 2020, according to the board's report, Trump told Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue, who was performing the deputy attorney general's duties, "Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen."² Donoghue answered that DOJ's investigations did not support the major allegations.²

The board's July 31, 2025 report found that between December 28, 2020, and January 3, 2021, Clark urged DOJ's leaders to send Georgia officials a letter claiming the department had identified election concerns that could have affected the outcome.² William Barr, Trump's attorney general, had already announced that DOJ had uncovered no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome.² Rosen and Donoghue refused to sign and repeatedly told Clark the proposed claim was false.² Clark kept pressing without producing evidence to justify it.²

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp had certified the state's electors for Joe Biden.² Clark's proposed letter would have recommended that the legislature convene, investigate the election and, if necessary, appoint electors without regard to the popular-vote result.² The board found that it was intended as a model for similar letters to several states.² The people this proposal put at risk were the Georgians whose votes produced Biden's certified victory: a false claim of federal investigative findings would supply the reason to reconsider their choice.²

Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin, the board found, warned Clark that keeping Trump in the White House past January 20 would bring riots in every major city.² Clark suggested calling out the military to restore order if riots occurred, telling Philbin that was "what the Insurrection Act is for."²

On January 2, Clark told Rosen and Donoghue that Trump had offered him the acting attorney general's job; the next day, he told Rosen he was going to accept.² Trump backed away at the January 3 Oval Office meeting after DOJ leaders and White House lawyers, among them officials he had chosen who supported his administration, threatened to resign.² Trump ultimately overruled Clark, who never became acting attorney general, and the letter was never sent.²

A Unanimous Finding, a Split on the Sanction

The board found by clear and convincing evidence that Clark attempted intentionally false statements about DOJ's investigative findings.² Every member agreed on the intentional dishonesty; they split on the sanction.² The majority found the attempted dishonesty flagrant and recommended disbarment because of the aggravating circumstances and potential harm.² Two members recommended a three-year suspension with proof of fitness before reinstatement, finding disbarment inconsistent with the court's precedents.²

The board rejected two other allegations: that the letter's language about two slates of electors was false or intentionally misleading, and that Clark attempted serious interference with justice.² On the second, it found the unsent letter had not come close enough to producing a legislative proceeding.² Clark had no prior disciplinary record.² The D.C. Court of Appeals decides the final sanction.¹

Candid Advice Does Not Explain the False Claim

DOJ's defense is about who polices federal lawyers.¹ It says D.C. authorities cannot police their confidential advice to the President: doing so, it argues, chills candid advice and violates the Supremacy Clause and Article II by letting local officials interfere with federal authority and the President's control of his administration.¹ Federal law subjects government lawyers to local ethical standards, but DOJ argues that it does not authorize punishment for internal executive deliberations.¹ The complaint also invokes presidential immunity, emphasizes the unsent draft and Clark's sincere beliefs, and cites support from former Attorneys General Barr, Jeff Sessions and Michael Mukasey.¹ It alleges political discrimination, pointing to disciplinary lawyer Jack Metzler's partisan social-media posts and a lighter sanction for former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith.¹

The board drew a different line.² It accepted Clark's sincere concerns about the election and treated his initial December 28 draft as no violation.² Its finding rested on what came after: his insistence that DOJ announce results he knew its investigations had not produced.² It rejected extending Trump's criminal immunity to Clark's professional discipline.² The board also rejected Clark's Supremacy Clause and separation-of-powers defenses: it said the proceeding addressed attempted dishonesty, not second-guessing executive deliberations.² That board ruling did not decide DOJ's later federal lawsuit.²¹ And it noted that the D.C. Court of Appeals had already rejected Clark's argument that the federal ethics statute did not apply to D.C.² That narrower 2024 ruling did not decide DOJ's later constitutional lawsuit.²¹

Accountability on Hold

As of October 10, 2026, the D.C. Court of Appeals' public docket lists Clark's disciplinary case as on hold following its June 26 order.⁴ DOJ has not obtained what it asked for: the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse lists the federal suit as pending, with no relief granted.⁸

The cost so far is institutional: the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the Board on Professional Responsibility and the D.C. Court of Appeals became defendants in a separate federal lawsuit and filed a joint motion to dismiss on July 10.¹⁸

Trump pardoned Clark. Then his department sued to erase accountability for a lawyer the board unanimously found had attempted intentional dishonesty about the 2020 election.³¹² Using public power to seek that protection is an abuse of public trust. A President's ally should answer for attempted dishonesty under the same professional standards as other lawyers.