Only in the Trump administration could the appointment of a Fox News host to a high-level law enforcement position be seen as an improvement.
And yet, President Donald Trump’s nomination of Jeanine Pirro to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia is in some ways preferable to Ed Martin, his (failed) first choice. Martin was an election denier who supported the “Stop the Steal” movement and provided legal representation to some of the defendants charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Trump appointed him interim U.S. attorney for D.C. in January. Martin proceeded to fire and demote prosecutors who worked on cases involving Jan. 6 defendants. His aggressive use of the social media platform X suggested a prosecutor more bent on retribution and culture wars than on law and order. Martin sent official letters demanding answers from Democratic politicians for their statements about Trump and targeted Georgetown University Law Center for its commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.
Trump’s nomination of Jeanine Pirro to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia is in some ways preferable to Ed Martin, his (failed) first choice.
When it became clear that Martin would fail to garner enough votes for confirmation in even a GOP-led Senate because of his role in the events of Jan. 6, Trump withdrew the nomination. Martin was instead appointed to serve in positions that required no Senate confirmation — pardon attorney and head of the DOJ’s Justice Department’s “Weaponization Working Group” created to investigate special counsel Jack Smith and others who assisted in investigations against Trump.
Trump named Pirro as Martin’s replacement, first on an interim basis and last week to the permanent position. Unlike Martin, Pirro has serious prosecution experience, having served as domestic violence prosecutor before becoming a judge and then district attorney for Westchester County, New York, a position to which she was elected three times. She has not worked as a prosecutor in 20 years, though, stepping down from her position to run for Senate against Hillary Clinton back in 2006.
Nevertheless, Pirro, 73, has plenty of what Trump seems to prize most — loyalty. Pirro’s ex-husband, Albert J. Pirro Jr., previously served as Trump’s lawyer. On Fox News, Pirro has established herself as a reliable supporter, channeling Trump’s combative style. In 2016, she called Trump’s “Access Hollywood” comments “disgusting” but notably said she would still support him. After the 2020 election, Pirro’s show aired false claims alleging election irregularities by Dominion Voting Systems, leading to her inclusion in a defamation lawsuit that resulted in Fox News having to pay a $787 million settlement. She called the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol a political “narrative,” as CNN notes, and demanded investigations into the DOJ and Capitol Police. This unwavering loyalty was rewarded in 2021 when Trump pardoned Albert Pirro, who had been convicted of tax evasion and conspiracy in 2000.
So, yes, Pirro may be more qualified than Martin. But choosing between the two is a little like trying to decide if it’s better to lose your home in a fire or in a hurricane. Both are devastating. Despite her experience as a prosecutor, Pirro shares Martin’s reputation as a political firebrand. As a former U.S. attorney, I know that the job requires a commitment to following the Principles of Federal Prosecution, the DOJ’s policy manual, which forbids the consideration of politics in charging decisions. In fact, federal prosecutors must avoid even the appearance of bias in their work and recuse themselves if their impartiality could be reasonably questioned. In the District of Columbia, where the U.S. attorney’s office might be called upon to handle matters involving members of Congress and federal agencies, confidence in the independence of the U.S. attorney is paramount. Pirro’s history as a strident Trump booster would absolutely and obviously undermine public confidence in the soundness of her discretionary decision-making in the high-profile cases that are likely to come across her desk. I am reasonably confident that our legal system, with its checks and balances, can prevent Pirro from obtaining convictions against Turmp’s political enemies, but she would have enormous power to make their lives miserable just by initiating investigations. Criminal probes can result in enormous legal fees, harm reputations and create enormous stress for targeted individuals and their family members. As U.S. attorney, Pirro could apply tremendous pressure, even if no charges are ultimately filed. Unlike federal judges and Cabinet officials, U.S. attorneys rarely endure questioning at a confirmation hearing, instead subjecting themselves to scrutiny by senators outside the public arena. If the Senate takes seriously its work to provide advice and consent in the confirmation process, it will nonetheless demand answers from Pirro in writing and in private before allowing her to use the criminal justice system as a tool of retribution in our nation’s capital.
Barbara McQuade is a former Michigan U.S. attorney and legal analyst. 
