Today’s Wordle answer is a fun word, though it’s a little out of season. Read on for hints and the answer.

Today’s Wordle hints

Before we show you today’s Wordle answer, we’ll give you some hints. If you don’t want a spoiler, look away now.

Wordle hint No. 1: Repeats

Today’s Wordle answer has one repeated letter.

Wordle hint No. 2: Vowels

Today’s Wordle answer has one vowel.

Wordle hint No. 3: First letter

Today’s Wordle answer begins with S.

Wordle hint No. 4: Last letter

Today’s Wordle answer ends with H.

Wordle hint No. 5: Meaning

Today’s Wordle answer can refer to wet, watery snow.

TODAY’S WORDLE ANSWER

Today’s Wordle answer is SLUSH.

Yesterday’s Wordle answer

Yesterday’s Wordle answer, July 31, No. 1868, was PURSE.

Recent Wordle answers

July 27, No. 1864: POSER

July 28, No. 1865: SONAR

July 29, No. 1866: VALVE

July 30, No. 1867: FLUME

Get CNET’s top-rated VPN for privacy & usability

CNET editor Gael Fashingbauer Cooper, a journalist and pop-culture junkie, is co-author of “Whatever Happened to Pudding Pops? The Lost Toys, Tastes and Trends of the ’70s and ’80s,” as well as “The Totally Sweet ’90s.” She’s been a journalist since 1989, working at Mpls.St.Paul Magazine, Twin Cities Sidewalk, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and NBC News Digital. She’s Gen X in birthdate, word and deed. If Marathon candy bars ever come back, she’ll be first in line.

See full bio

Advertisement

A small, pale oblong device has started turning up in European retail listings and a clear photo, and it carries the name Google Pixel Tag. The model number GA12506 appears alongside a color called Fog Light. The shape stands taller and more pill-like than the round discs most people already know, closer to the core of an old Fitbit without the band attached. A large Google “G” sits in the center of the face. Below it sits a tiny speaker grille and what looks like a small LED.

Photo credit: 9to5 Google
There is no built-in loop or hole on the body, thus the emphasis is on how you want to attach the object to something, such as keys, a wallet, or your suitcase’s handle. You’ll almost certainly need one of those attachments or cases to clip the tracker in place, which is likely what they’re counting on given that the escaping marketing lingo promises that this tracker is designed to be very small and lightweight, and nearly unnoticeable until you need it. This is when the loudspeaker inside starts yelling to tell you where it is so you can go find the missing item.

Sale

Apple AirTag (2nd Generation) – 4 Pack: Tracker for Keychain, Wallet, and More; Locator with Sound…

• FIND YOUR ITEMS ON FIND MY — AirTag (2nd generation) helps you keep track of what matters. Attach one to an item you want to keep track of using the…
• EXPANDED PRECISION FINDING ON IPHONE AND APPLE WATCH — Get step-by-step directions to your lost item on iPhone and, now, Apple Watch.*
• ENHANCED SPEAKER — With a 50% louder speaker and a new, distinctive chime, it’s easier than ever to hear and find AirTag.*

All of this goes through Google’s Find My Device system, which has been helping you find your Android phone and tablet for years. Now, the network is large enough that if you lose the Pixel Tag, a nearby Android smartphone with location enabled should be able to ping its location for you. Privacy language in the early product descriptions stresses that the system was built with personal data protection in mind.

Prices have begun to appear in a few early listings in Europe, at €30, which corresponds to some predictions that it would cost between $29 and $39 in the United States, but one thing we still don’t know is how the battery works. Is it a replaceable coin cell or a sealed rechargeable battery? That ultra-wideband precision issue, no one has confirmed or rejected it yet, and it is not even mentioned in those listings. The timing also appears to be planned, as Google’s major hardware event is scheduled for August 12, when they are expected to unveil the new Pixel phones and the forthcoming Pixel Watch. The Pixel Tag is now mentioned as a compatible attachment on the phones’ product sites, which is unusual given that we have yet to see a photo of the tracker.

Russian state hackers are using a maximum-severity vulnerability in Microsoft Outlook’s Exchange Server to backdoor unpatched machines and steal credentials and other confidential information from them, security researchers said Thursday.

The attacks are coming from TA488, a tracking name for a group working on behalf of the Kremlin, Proofpoint researchers said Thursday. Proofpoint and the National Security Agency jointly warned last week that the group, also tracked as Laundry Bear and Void Blizzard, had been carrying out similar attacks by exploiting a zero-day vulnerability in an email service from Zimbra. The revelation that TA488 is also exploiting the Exchange Server vulnerability to install advanced malware when a user does nothing other than open an email sent to an Outlook Web Access (OWA) account has elevated the group’s profile and assessments of its abilities.

Doubling down

“TA488 is doubling down on the use of ‘half-click’ exploits—where opening the email is enough to trigger compromise—with significantly improved loading mechanisms, techniques, and malware, signaling an improvement in the group’s tradecraft and capability,” Proofpoint researchers wrote. “This novel infection chain ends with a previously unknown JavaScript browser-based implant we call OWAReaper, purpose-built for persistent access inside OWA.”

The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2026-42897, is a cross-site-scripting vulnerability, usually abbreviated as XSS, that Microsoft provided mitigation advice for in May and patched in July. Microsoft gave it a maximum severity rating. The vulnerability, which stems from a failure to properly filter HTML embedded in an email, allows malicious JavaScript execution. Proofpoint said that TA488 may have exploited it as a zero-day.

The malicious JavaScript installs a novel, custom-built browser extension that gives attackers persistent access to victims’ OWA accounts. Proofpoint said it was the most sophisticated backdoor the company has ever seen delivered through a half-click exploit. The company has named it OWAReaper.

BMS’s Kasia Stusinska discusses the importance of embracing the unknown to further your career.

“Over the years, I’ve developed an understanding of how software, equipment and people come together in a modern biopharma environment,” said Kasia Stusinska, a senior automation engineer for the digital plant at Bristol Myers Squibb Cruiserath Biologics.

She added: “I started my career through the BMS Graduate Programme in the process engineering department, where I learned about the manufacturing process of the molecules we make on-site. It felt like the most natural career path for me as a chemical and bioprocess engineer.”

For Stusinska, rotating across multiple departments was an ideal opportunity to engage with elements of the organisation that she may otherwise not have had any knowledge of. 

“As a graduate, the chance to explore different roles was especially attractive,” she said. “On the programme, I rotated through different departments every nine months. During that time, I moved into automation, which is closely connected to process engineering. 

“What began as an opportunity to broaden my experience quickly became the area I wanted to stay in. Seven years later, I’m still here. I realised that the combination of problem-solving and working with software systems was exactly what I was interested in.”

Upon a move to automation she felt as though she had to learn from scratch, as she was unfamiliar with much of the software she now works with. 

She said: “I undertook several technical courses and was lucky to be mentored by a senior engineer who taught me so much. Over time, it all just clicked. Automation engineering might not seem like an obvious career path for a chemical engineer, but the understanding of physical processes, problem-solving and critical thinking I learned in college still stand to me today.”

What first stirred your interest in a career in this area?

I’ve been curious about how things work since childhood. I used to love taking things apart, like toys and remote controls. I even dismantled a Rubik’s Cube once because I wanted to see how it worked inside. I can’t say I was always able to put things back together, but I was always eager to understand how things worked.

My first experience with computers was through video games. At the time, I barely knew how to use a computer properly, but gaming sparked a curiosity that made me want to understand how computers work, not just the software but also how the hardware comes together to create interactive systems. Over time, this interest naturally grew.

When it came to choosing subjects for the Leaving Certificate, I studied chemistry, biology, design and communication graphics and French. I then went on to study engineering at University College Dublin (UCD).

At UCD, the engineering degree begins with a common first year for all disciplines, and at the end of that year you choose your specific path. For me, it was chemical and bioprocess engineering, as I was interested in science but also enjoyed problem-solving.

Tell us more about your role today and what is involved?

As a senior automation engineer, I play a central role in integrating manufacturing equipment with site systems and testing and troubleshooting software for BMS’s first sterile drug product (SDP) facility in Europe.

My work involves solving multi‑layered problems, improving system performance and ensuring that new technologies integrate smoothly into daily operations. This all contributes to a reliable and efficient manufacturing process. I focus on the automation elements of commissioning activities, making sure that the control software, servers and IT components of the new equipment function correctly and integrate smoothly with the existing systems and services.

Do you have a typical day and if so, how does it look?

My mornings often begin at 8am on the construction floor, where the team meets to align on priorities and the day’s commissioning schedule.

The commissioning activities that I support involve ensuring that all new equipment on site is operating as intended. This includes running tests, preparing the documentation that accompanies those tests and ensuring that everything is reviewed by the relevant technical and quality teams.

From there, my work can shift quickly. I may be reviewing design documents, collaborating with vendors, resolving issues arising from equipment testing or implementing code changes required by the business.

Was there any one person who was particularly influential as your career developed?

One experience does continue to shape my approach to work.

Some years ago, I heard an Irish patient, close to my own age at the time, speak about her diagnosis with oesophageal cancer. Listening to her story brought into focus for me the real people behind the work carried out across BMS. It highlighted for me the importance of the systems and processes that support the development and delivery of medicines.

Sometimes we get so absorbed in our work, especially in highly technical roles, that we can lose sight of the bigger picture. But what we do ultimately affects real people and keeping that in mind helps me stay connected to the patient at the end of the process.

What do you enjoy most about your job?

While my role can be very technical, it also leans heavily on communication, and I really enjoy this aspect and the collaboration involved. There are always stakeholders and people who need to buy into your solution or idea. That requires good, clear communication and building trust across diverse teams.

For me, this is as important as troubleshooting a software fault. In a regulated environment where systems must perform consistently, I’ve found that effective communication with others is a core engineering skill to have.

What can people expect from career progression in this industry?

Over the years, I’ve learned that career progression in the biopharma sector can take you anywhere, from highly specialised technical roles to global strategic leadership. I see people moving into completely different roles all the time. The soft skills you gain from working in a highly regulated environment are very transferable, while the specific technical skills can always be learned.

What advice would you give to those considering a career in this area, or just starting out in one?

My advice would be to not doubt yourself, try new things and get as much hands-on experience as possible. Every role teaches you something valuable and you don’t need to have everything figured out from the start. Staying curious and open to learning will take you a long way.

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

I watched two robot videos at the opposite ends of the Cantril Scale. You know, the ladder that measures human happiness in steps but that I am now applying to humanoid accomplishment?

At the bottom step and living its worst possible artificial life, we have the Qualcomm robot that, after delivering the new Dragonwing IQ10 robotics reference platform on a tray to a presenter, spectacularly collapsed lifelessly at the guy’s feet. The robot raised one hand as if in defeat, and seconds later, handlers rushed out to throw a sheet over its lifeless mechanical body.

In the immediate aftermath of Anthony Fauci’s tense congressional hearing on Wednesday, where he refused to answer any questions and invoked the Fifth Amendment, MAGA figures and Republican officials appeared to be seeking one thing: jail time for the former White House chief medical adviser.

“Why, when Fauci walks off of there today, is he not cuffed?” Steve Bannon, a former adviser to President Donald Trump, asked on his War Room podcast on Wednesday. “People are furious today to cut on this and see Fauci hiding behind the Fifth Amendment … He should die in prison.”

“Why isn’t he under arrest?” far-right podcaster Matt Walsh wrote on X. “Why isn’t he facing any real consequences? Why aren’t you actually doing anything?”

Fauci appeared before the US Senate committee investigating his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic and invoked his constitutional right to stay silent, known as the Fifth Amendment, over 100 times. In his opening statement explaining his decision, he described Senator Rand Paul, who chaired the hearing, as having an “unhinged obsession” with him.

“The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, ‘behind bars,’” Fauci said. Paul has long accused Fauci of covering up what could have been the origins of Covid-19.

As calls for Fauci’s imprisonment grow louder from far-right influencers and podcasters, WIRED turned to legal experts to assess just how likely it is that Republicans in Congress could jail the former public health official.

Last year, Fauci received a preemptive pardon from former President Joe Biden, which covered his actions from 2014 until 2025 and made him immune from prosecution for federal crimes during that period but not for anything that he has said or done subsequently.

Republicans like Paul, however, believe that anyone who has received a presidential pardon automatically loses their Fifth Amendment rights, citing a Supreme Court case from 1896 as proof. “I think there is a very real chance that he could be prosecuted for that,” Paul told CBS News after the hearing. “A court ultimately would have to determine: Does the Fifth Amendment apply to someone who already has a pardon?”

Paul said his committee will hold a vote next week on whether to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress, a charge that carries a potential punishment of up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $100,000. If passed, it will be sent to the Senate floor where it would require 60 votes to succeed, which is highly unlikely given it would require Democrats to side with Republicans.

In 2020, Trump pardoned numerous people before he left office, including disgraced former national security adviser Mike Flynn and his former campaign chair Paul Manafort. At the time, US constitutional scholar Aziz Huq concluded that the pardons opened up the possibility of contempt if those Trump associates refused to testify before Congress about action they took during Trump’s first term in office.

Bannon himself was pardoned by Trump in 2021, but only for specific federal charges related to his “We Build the Wall” scheme, whose leaders were charged with defrauding donors out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in the name of a border wall between the US and Mexico. So in 2022, when Bannon refused to hand over documents or appear for a hearing in Congress related to his role in the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, he was found in contempt of Congress and sentenced to four months in jail.

An iPhone app designed to alert users when smart glasses may be nearby has climbed to No. 3 on the US paid App Store chart. Its name, AntiZuck Smart Glasses Scanner, leaves little doubt about how the developer feels about Meta’s camera-equipped glasses.

The app costs $2.99 and scans for Bluetooth signals linked to smart glasses. It can spot Meta Ray-Bans, Snap Spectacles, Amazon Echo Frames, and RayNeo glasses, then sends an alert when it believes one is nearby.

Its rise comes as anxiety around being filmed in public continues to grow, particularly among younger people who have spent most of their lives knowing that an awkward moment could be uploaded within minutes.

How does the smart glasses scanner work?

AntiZuck presents detected devices on a radar-like screen, alongside a rough proximity estimate and confidence rating. It can remember repeat sightings, send local notifications, and let users mark familiar devices so they stop triggering alerts.

Unfortunately, the app cannot tell whether someone has started recording or taking a photo. It only detects Bluetooth signals broadcast by supported hardware, often during actions such as powering on, pairing, or opening a charging case.

Other Meta hardware, including Quest headsets, may also trigger a detection. Smart glasses can disappear from the scanner once they stop actively advertising over Bluetooth, so an alert is not proof that someone nearby is secretly filming.

Camera anxiety is already changing how people behave

A recent BBC report found that some young adults are becoming increasingly wary of cameras on nights out. Students said they watch for people holding up phones and club promoters recording content. Smart glasses make the situation harder because they can pass for an ordinary pair, so someone may not realize they are being filmed.

The discomfort is not limited to clubs or parties. A YouGov survey found that 54% of Americans consider filming and sharing strangers in public without consent usually or always unacceptable. Research also suggests people change how they behave when they know they are being watched. It helps explain why people are willing to pay for AntiZuck, since even the possibility of a discreet camera nearby can make it harder to relax in public.

• Ukraine’s MUL.E combines battlefield transport with portable electrical power for frontline units
• The electric motorcycle crosses anti-vehicle minefields without triggering many buried explosives
• A detachable generator keeps drones and communications equipment powered during extended frontline operations

Ukraine’s Defense Ministry has codified the MUL.E, its first all-wheel-drive electric military motorcycle built for frontline conditions.

The MUL.E cleared for Armed Forces service after completing testing confirming its stated operational capabilities.

from the presumption-of-regularity-is-dead dept

This story was originally published by ProPublica. Republished under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.

Across the country, federal judges are calling out Department of Justice lawyers, questioning in unprecedented ways whether they can be trusted to tell the truth or uphold centuries-old legal norms.

From Washington, D.C., to Rhode Island to Oregon, federal judges nominated by presidents from both parties, including Donald Trump, have zeroed in on what’s called “the presumption of regularity.” It essentially means that judges must presume that the government — whether it be federal prosecutors, an IRS auditor or an FBI agent — did their jobs according to the rules and in good faith.

Until Trump’s second term, which has seen an exodus of veteran DOJ lawyers and a transformative shift in priorities from issues like enforcing civil rights to instead defending a mass deportation agenda, this foundational tenet had rarely been discussed in federal courtrooms, former judges, lawyers and scholars say. But as Trump’s DOJ exhibits behavior that judges have called “unlawful,” “unethical,” “unseemly” or otherwise dishonest, adherence to that bedrock standard is now being questioned.

ProPublica reviewed hundreds of cases since Trump retook the White House in which judges criticized the actions of DOJ lawyers and found more than 40 in which they explicitly referenced the presumption of regularity. In many cases, judges have expressed frustration that they can no longer take the government at its word.

“Judges simply don’t believe the representations that are being made by United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys and the like,” said John E. Jones, a former federal judge for the District of Pennsylvania, appointed by President George W. Bush.

“I don’t think in the annals of the Department of Justice, in the history of jurisprudence in the United States, we’ve ever seen anything close to this.”

In Rhode Island in May, Trump-appointed federal Judge Mary McElroy rebuked federal prosecutors’ conduct — saying they withheld information and misrepresented facts — as she quashed their requests for a subpoena in their investigation into a hospital’s care of transgender children. The judge alleged the DOJ had inappropriately claimed its investigation was operating out of Texas to secure subpoenas targeting sensitive medical records of patients in another state and that it falsely claimed the Rhode Island hospital hadn’t communicated with the department.

“The discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and DOJ’s tactics in this case is unsettling,” McElroy wrote. “The Court cannot help but share the sentiment that ‘[t]he presumption of regularity that has previously been extended to [DOJ] that it could be taken at its word — with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes — no longer holds.’”

Judges have emitted a chorus of condemnations against the legal basis for some of Trump’s political agenda, including the mass firings of federal workers, an immigration dragnet that has imprisoned hundreds of U.S. citizens and retribution campaigns against the president’s political enemies.

In doing so, federal judges are imbuing forceful language into their orders in a way that scholars say signals to the Trump administration that the third branch of government is losing trust in the Justice Department.

Federal judges rarely grant interviews, and none of the judges who criticized the Justice Department in their orders granted interviews to ProPublica.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the DOJ said its attorneys are “dedicated public servants who represent the United States with integrity, in accordance with their ethical obligations and the law.”

“The Department stands firmly behind the professionalism and good faith of its attorneys,” said spokesperson Kiersten Pels. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Federal judges have found that the government filed statements generated by artificial intelligence that referenced nonexistent case law, wrote briefs that ignored facts and filed declarations with inaccurate dates, the ProPublica review shows.

In one case, the government included documentation claiming a detainee had been convicted of marijuana possession in 2009. That detainee, the judge noted, citing what she called the government’s persistent “sloppiness,” would have been 4 years old.

“This Court will no longer blindly accept statements of fact from [the U.S. government] unless they are made under oath by an individual with personal knowledge,” Judge Christine O’Hearn, a President Joe Biden appointee, wrote in New Jersey while reviewing a writ of habeas corpus petition filed by a man who claimed he was unlawfully imprisoned by immigration officers. O’Hearn accused the government of defying her orders when, instead of releasing the man, Immigration and Customs Enforcement transferred him to a different facility in New York.

In Minnesota, the state’s top political leaders had publicly clashed with the administration following the violent ICE raids that led to the deaths of two U.S. citizens. Then the administration filed a flurry of subpoenas against them.

Last month, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, who was appointed by George W. Bush and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, slammed the government’s actions and “spurious claims,” saying the presumption of regularity was being abused.

“Initiating a criminal investigation in order to harass political opponents or to coerce them into taking official action — particularly official action that the federal government cannot directly require those political opponents to take — is a blatantly unlawful and unethical use [of] the grand-jury process,” the judge wrote.

“Breakdown” of a Presumption

The presumption of regularity creates a high bar for those suing the government or defending themselves against it in criminal cases. They often must provide evidence that the government willfully violated a policy or otherwise deviated from its charge — that is, did something irregular — to overcome the standard.

It’s a shield the government wields often, with little notice, and one that is almost always successful. But overcoming that presumption has become increasingly common under Trump’s second term, according to court watchers.

About half of the cases ProPublica identified as questioning the presumption come from districts, including D.C., Maryland and Virginia, where by proximity and jurisdiction many of Trump’s actions are challenged and often heard by Democratic-nominated judges. The Southern District of New York, which has issued repeated rebukes of Trump administration actions, and the Northern District of California, another Democratic stronghold, are other hotbeds of judicial scrutiny.

Last September, D.C. District Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui accused the administration of working around the federal grand jury process, getting an indictment from a state court after prosecutors had failed to get one in his court, which he called “unseemly,” if not “unlawful.” He fired off one of the earliest signs that the presumption itself could come into question.

“This only deepens the growing mistrust of the actions of prosecutors,” the judge wrote. “That is a sentiment that was once unthinkable, but the irregular is now the regular.” While the case was largely managed by assistant U.S. attorney Caelainn Carney, according to court transcripts, Faruqui was aiming his frustration at her bosses, including senior prosecutor Jonathan R. Hornok, and the leadership at DOJ. Neither attorney responded to requests for comment.

Pels, the DOJ spokesperson, told ProPublica that Faruqui “was wrong on the law” and noted that after the government appealed to the district’s chief judge, his order was overruled. “Judge Faruqui has a long-standing documented pattern of editorializing from the bench beyond the scope of the cases before him,” Pels added.

But in recent months, skepticism about the presumption has also come from judges appointed by Republicans, such as McElroy, or in GOP strongholds.

In Indiana, Trump-appointed federal Judge James Patrick Hanlon ordered the release of Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and a lawful U.S. resident, from ICE custody in March. Sarsour’s lawyers argued the government had targeted him to suppress his First Amendment right to free speech. The DOJ invoked the presumption of regularity and argued his arrest was part of an anti-terrorism dragnet, which the judge threw out.

In the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Michael R. Barrett, appointed by George W. Bush, ordered ICE to release a detainee after concluding the presumption had been overcome because the government hadn’t presented a reasonable argument that the man was a flight risk.

News outlets, including CNN, have documented federal judges’ ire with Trump’s DOJ, and some of the cases under question have been well-publicized, such as the government’s illegal deportation of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. In that case, Judge Paula Xinis, a President Barack Obama appointee, criticized the government, saying, “You have taken the presumption of regularity, and you’ve destroyed it.”

Many of the rulings challenged one of Trump’s hallmark efforts: immigration enforcement and deportations.

“The presumption of regularity and integrity previously and routinely afforded to the Executive branch and the United States Attorney’s Office has been undeniably eroded in this jurisdiction and across the country,” O’Hearn wrote in February, noting that the federal government had repeatedly violated court orders in her district and others related to immigration operations.

In another immigration detention case, this one in Washington state, Biden-appointed Judge Lauren King said, “[t]he ‘presumption of regularity’ is dislodged here by the numerous factual errors in Respondents’ filings and by their conflicting representations.”

Jeremy Fogel, executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute and a former federal judge from California, said what’s happening in the courts feels more like a “political conflict” than the normal ebb and flow of the justice system.

“It’s really one branch that is really sort of questioning the legitimacy of the other one,” Fogel said. “I think the judges are trying to stand up for the legitimacy of their branch.”

Just Security, an online law and policy journal, has been tracking cases in which federal judges have admonished Trump’s prosecutors, including those involving the presumption.

“We’re witnessing a breakdown in the ways in which any administration ordinarily carries out its responsibilities, through the Justice Department in particular,” said Ryan Goodman, Just Security’s co-editor-in-chief.

Erosion of Trust, Ethics Inquiries

The erosion of trust from the federal bench comes as Trump has profoundly shifted priorities at the DOJ to align with his political platform: ending civil rights and diversity programs, deporting immigrants and stripping away environmental protections.

Those who deal with DOJ lawyers have noticed the difference in court.

Mitch Bernard, chief counsel at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, has faced off on environmental issues with the DOJ many times. Although they may disagree, he said, he always expected his opponents to be “fair and above board.”

That dynamic is gone, he said.

“I would call it a transformation of the role of the Justice Department,” he said. “There are many different judges in different jurisdictions not only ruling against the government but calling the government out for dishonesty and dissembling, and that’s an extraordinary thing.”

The result, Bernard said, is that “the government will lose more cases as a result of the way the Justice Department is behaving.”

Meanwhile, groups such as his are benefitting from the government brain drain. “We hired 10 litigating attorneys last year,” he said. Of those, eight came from the DOJ.

Judges aren’t just losing faith in the DOJ. Some are pushing to sanction Justice Department lawyers.

This month, Miami federal Judge Kathleen M. Williams ruled that Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS was an improper exercise in self-enrichment, citing the president’s lawyers for a series of misstatements in the case.

The Obama appointee referred the lawyer who brought the president’s case against the IRS, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida Bar for potential disciplinary proceedings. She also forwarded her ruling to disciplinary officials in New York, who had earlier received an ethics complaint about acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

A DOJ spokesperson called the Blanche case “nothing more than a politically motivated bar complaint, filed by partisan activists who disagree with this Administration’s policies.” Brito did not respond to a request for comment.

In Rhode Island, McElroy referred DOJ lawyers to a review board for possible discipline for their handling of the hospital investigation.

“As citizens, we trust that federal prosecutors, when wielding this awesome power against a state, a company, or certainly against vulnerable children, will play fair and be honest with its counterparts and the judiciary,” McElroy wrote. “DOJ has proven unworthy of this trust at every point in this case.”

Filed Under: abuse of power, doj, donald trump, fbi, federal judiciary, judges, presumption of regularity, prosecutions