Talking Feds — “Trump's Reign of Terror in the Civil Rights Division”

Host: Harry Litman
Guest: Bill Yeomans (24-year DOJ Civil Rights Division veteran)
Date: February 5, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode features a one-on-one discussion between host Harry Litman and Bill Yeomans, former Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division, about the unprecedented turmoil undermining the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration. The conversation focuses on two recent controversial police shootings—the killings of Renee Goode and Alex Preddy—and the DOJ’s lack of intervention or outright obstruction. Yeomans provides historical context, examines the structural breakdown in the Division, details attorney resignations, and discusses the broader implications for civil rights enforcement and the country’s legal foundations.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Role and Importance of the Civil Rights Division

• Structure and Mission
  • The DOJ Civil Rights Division consists of about ten sections; the Criminal Section is a small but vital team of ~30 experienced attorneys with backgrounds as prosecutors and public defenders.
    • “Their power is magnified by their ability to work with U.S. attorneys around the country.” (Yeomans, 04:05)
• Standard Procedure after Police Shootings
  • In high-profile cases of police violence, the Division usually opens a federal investigation immediately, providing a credible, neutral probe to reassure the public.
    • “It’s an incident that cries out for investigation...Next day, or same day.” (Yeomans, 08:02)
  • Publicly announcing such investigations is an exception in DOJ because of the heightened public interest and potential for civil unrest.

2. What Went Wrong in the Goode and Preddy Shootings?

• Abandonment of Protocol
  • DOJ, instead of opening an investigation, publicly announced there would be none in the Renee Goode case—an unprecedented move.
  • The administration prejudged the case in public statements, citing unsubstantiated claims about Goode and poisoning any possible DOJ-led investigation.
    • “Prejudging the outcome of any possible investigation and frankly souring any potential investigation by the federal government.” (Yeomans, 11:34)
  • Even a subsequent reversal or investigation would lack credibility due to these statements.
    • “Once you have blown your credibility, it’s gone. You can’t get it back.” (Yeomans, 12:38)

3. Mass Resignations and DOJ Internal Culture

• Seismic Departures
  • Four top attorneys in the Criminal Section resigned over interference, signaling a breakdown in the norm of good-faith internal debate and joint mission.
    • “I think what these resignations say...[is] the relationship between the career people and the political people has completely broken down. The political people are conducting a reign of terror.” (Yeomans, 18:20)
• Resignation as Protest
  • In DOJ culture, resigning is the strongest protest against political interference since speaking out publicly is prohibited for most career officials.
    • “A resignation is the sort of ultimate kind of protest.” (Litman, 16:12)

4. “Reign of Terror”: Political Leadership’s Transformation

• Leadership Hostility
  • Harmeet Dhillon, the Trump-appointed Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, is described as hostile to the Division’s core mission.
    • Her section mission statements omitted mention of foundational laws—e.g., Fair Housing Act, Voting Rights Act—replacing them with rhetoric on “voting integrity” (i.e., focusing on fraud).
    • “In the voting rights section, there is no mention of voting rights...it’s only about voting integrity. Nothing about...protecting minority voting rights.” (Yeomans, 21:36)
• Mass Exodus and Replacement
  • Three-quarters of career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have left, replaced by less experienced or committed individuals.
    • “...they won’t be replaced with the same kind of people...with the same talents and with the same commitment to enforcing the law.” (Yeomans, 21:36)

5. Historical Mission and Political Undermining

• Foundational Role of Civil Rights
  • The DOJ and the Civil Rights Division were founded to enforce the rights of freed slaves; their mission has defined much of America’s moral and legal progress.
    • “We only have a Department of Justice because of civil rights.” (Yeomans, 23:47)
• Current Retreat
  • The Trump administration, Yeomans argues, seeks not just to underenforce the law, but to destroy the moral underpinnings and rewrite history to make civil rights seem irrelevant.
    • “They are attacking the moral values that underpin the laws. And I think by rewriting our history...eliminate slavery...worry that once you remove the moral foundation, it becomes far less obvious for people to understand why we need civil rights laws.” (Yeomans, 26:02)

6. Federal Obstruction of State Investigations

• Unprecedented Interference
  • For the first time, DOJ appears to be actively hindering state investigations (e.g., in the Goode and possibly Preddy cases). Historically, the state and feds coordinate or let the state go first if acting in good faith.
    • “I am not aware of any situation...where you have the federal government trying to block the state from proceeding.” (Yeomans, 28:39)
  • Minnesota’s investigation faces evidence suppression and practical obstacles, but will likely proceed in some form due to local resolve and public pressure.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Credibility and Public Trust:

  • “Once you have blown your credibility, it’s gone. You can’t get it back.”
    — Bill Yeomans, 12:38

• On the Impact of DOJ Civil Rights Action on the Community:

  • “Just that the Civil Rights Division had been there...it meant so much to the community.”
    — Harry Litman, 10:07

• On What the Mass Resignations Mean:

  • “The political people are conducting a reign of terror. Basically, you do it our way or you’re out. We’re not going to discuss it. We don’t care if you have a better legal argument...It’s a terrible loss to the country.”
    — Bill Yeomans, 18:20

• On the Moral Foundation of Civil Rights Laws:

  • “Those laws are the expression of the moral crusade that was conducted to wake up this country and to set it on path to become a multiracial, multi ethnic society...once you remove the moral foundation, it becomes far less obvious for people to understand why we need civil rights laws.”
    — Bill Yeomans, 23:47 and 26:02

• On Unprecedented Federal Obstruction:

  • “I am not aware of any situation...where you have the federal government trying to block the state from proceeding.”
    — Bill Yeomans, 28:39

Important Timestamps

• [03:43] — Overview of the Criminal Section and its traditional function
• [08:02] — How the Division normally responds to police shootings
• [11:34] — The DOJ’s unprecedented refusal to investigate Renee Goode’s killing
• [15:05] — Discussion of the resignations of top Civil Rights attorneys
• [18:20] — Yeomans describes “a reign of terror” by DOJ political leadership
• [21:36] — Discussion of Harmeet Dhillon’s leadership and the transformation of section priorities
• [23:47] — Historical context on the founding moral mission of DOJ Civil Rights
• [26:02] — The MAGA movement’s attack on the foundational values of civil rights
• [28:39] — Unprecedented federal obstruction of state investigations

Conclusion

This episode presents a sobering look into the crisis engulfing the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. Through rich personal experience and historical insight, Bill Yeomans explains how the Trump administration’s politicization and antagonism have gutted this “crown jewel” agency, replaced its mission with partisan targets, and threatened the enforcement of core American values and rights. The fate of investigations into the Goode and Preddy shootings exemplifies a broader retreat from justice and the risk of permanent institutional damage.

Litman and Yeomans close by expressing hope that state efforts will persist—even as historic federal structures falter—and that continued discussion might shine a light on what is at stake.