Share and Follow
Ed Martin speaks at an event hosted by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., at the Capitol in Washington, June 13, 2023. (AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades, File)
Ed Martin, a former interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., and a prominent figure in the Trump administration known as the “weaponization” czar, is now facing serious allegations of professional misconduct. Accusations have surfaced claiming that Martin attempted to impose unconstitutional penalties on a prestigious law school and obstruct an investigation by the bar association.
Recent revelations have come to light through an eight-page complaint filed by Hamilton Fox, the D.C. Bar’s disciplinary counsel, to the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. The document details how a retired judge from California raised concerns about a letter Martin sent in February to Georgetown University Law Center and its dean, William Treanor.
In this contentious letter, penned during his tenure as interim U.S. attorney, Martin alleged that a whistleblower had exposed Georgetown Law for teaching and advocating for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. The Trump administration has controversially labeled such initiatives as “illegal and immoral discrimination programs,” as referenced in a White House document.
The filing notes that Martin failed to clearly define DEI or specify which aspects of the Georgetown Law curriculum were allegedly problematic according to government standards. He demanded that the law school purge any DEI-related content from its programs, asking if they would “move swiftly” to do so if such content was identified.
Despite not receiving a response, Martin reportedly proceeded to impose “sanctions” on Georgetown Law, declaring that students from the institution would face restrictions on employment opportunities. This action has been criticized by Fox as premature and lacking sufficient justification.
“At this time,” the letter said, “I have instructed our staff that no applicant for our prestigious fellows program, our summer internship, or employment in our office who is a student or affiliated with Georgetown law school will be considered until this is resolved.”
When the dean responded that the inquisition violated the First Amendment and amounted to an “attack on the University’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution,” Martin dug in deeper, according to the petition.
“Answers to these questions appear to bear directly on Georgetown University’s status as a 501(c) nonprofit and its receipt of nearly $1 billion of federal tax money in recent years,” Martin replied, according to the filing.
This exchange forms the basis of the first ethics charge against Martin, alleging that he “knew or should have known that, as a government official, his conduct violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States[.]”
“Acting in his official capacity and speaking on behalf of the government, he used coercion to punish or suppress a disfavored viewpoint, the teaching and promotion of ‘DEI,’” the petition summarized, alleging that Martin violated his oath of office.
The petition credited retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Phillip Argento with submitting the complaint that prompted the investigation, and additionally accused Martin of a panicked response.
Fox alleged that Martin sent a letter on March 31 to the judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals to complain about “Disciplinary Counsel’s ‘uneven behavior’” and sought a “face-to-face meeting with all of you to discuss this matter and find a way forward,” even copying the White House Counsel “for informational purposes because of the importance of getting this issue addressed.”
Subsequently, Martin emailed the chief judge without looping in Fox, days ahead of an April 14 deadline for Martin to respond to the complaint, the documents continued.
“She informed him that the court could not permissively meet with him ex parte and that any concerns should be raised through the regular procedures established by the court to govern the disciplinary process,” the petition added.
But the deadline was not met, leading Fox to counter with a motion to compel Martin’s response. By May, Martin allegedly reached out to the chief judge again, this time in a letter asking that “you not only suspend Mr. Fox immediately to investigate his conduct, but also to dismiss the case against me because of his prejudicial conduct.”
Martin eventually did formally respond in June, but now he has to contend with claims that he impermissibly communicated with the chief judge one-on-one and “engag[ed] in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice.”
The administration’s response to the probe has been to discredit the D.C. Bar as a “partisan organization,” given its various disciplinary proceedings against Trump-allied attorneys.
“The DC bar’s attempt to target and punish those serving President Trump while refusing to investigate or act against actual ethical violations that were committed by Biden and Obama administration attorneys is a clear indication of this partisan organization’s agenda,” the DOJ reportedly said.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche went a step further on X, slamming the D.C. Bar as a “blatantly Democrat-run political organization.”
“Thank God I’m not a member, and trust me, I never will be,” he added.
News about the disciplinary counsel’s petition also comes not long after Martin was sidelined from his “Weaponization Working Group” czar role and Blanche praised him for doing a “great job as Pardon Attorney.” Notably, Blanche had issued that praise in the context of denying that there are misconduct investigations into Martin within the DOJ, into allegations of the unauthorized disclosure of grand jury material.
At the same time, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s DOJ has proposed a rule to grant her the authority to take over state bar investigations targeting current or former DOJ attorneys.