In a controversial move, the White House announced on Tuesday that Bill Essayli will continue to serve as Los Angeles’ top federal prosecutor, solidifying his status as acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California.
The announcement comes as part of the Trump administration’s ongoing strategy to keep contentious appointees in various federal positions, sidestepping the customary Senate confirmation processes.
Essayli, a staunch conservative and Trump ally, was appointed to the position by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in early April.
Initial interim appointments must receive confirmation from the U.S. Senate within 120 days.
However, President Donald Trump did not formally nominate Essayli, likely due to anticipated opposition from California Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, who are both Democrats.
As a result, the responsibility for appointing a U.S. attorney fell to a local federal judicial panel, which declined to make any appointments on Tuesday, leaving Essayli’s status unresolved.
By assuming the role of acting U.S. attorney, Essayli has effectively secured an additional 210 days before any potential confirmation hearing.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles referred inquiries about Essayli’s continued tenure to the White House, which did not immediately respond.
In a recent interview with conservative host Glenn Beck, Essayli hinted at the possibility of remaining in office when he stated, “We’ve got some tricks up our sleeves.”
This maneuver reflects a pattern established by the Trump administration to retain its choice of U.S. attorneys in various regions, evidenced by recent actions taken in states like New York, New Jersey, and Nevada.
In upstate New York, a judicial panel did not appoint John A. Sarcone III as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York.
In response, Bondi appointed Sarcone to a lower position within the office but effectively equipped him with the powers of U.S. attorney, allowing him to operate as acting U.S. attorney indefinitely.
A letter from Sarcone to the chief U.S. district judge confirmed his designation as acting U.S. attorney.
In New Jersey, Trump’s selection of Alina Habba—one of his former personal attorneys—faced rejection by a judicial panel due to her lack of prosecutorial experience.
The Trump administration then took steps to dismiss Desiree Leigh Grace, the career prosecutor initially designated to replace Habba, and later appointed Habba as acting U.S. attorney.
These developments have drawn scrutiny from legal experts, with concerns raised about the validity of indictments and other legal proceedings under these circumstances.
Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and current professor at Loyola Law School of Los Angeles, emphasized the unusual nature of these legal workarounds.
Levenson commented, “These laws have never been used, as far as I can see, to bypass the Senate confirmation process or the judicial one.”
She added that the significant risk lies in potential indictments being deemed invalid if they are not signed by a lawful U.S. attorney.
As the situation surrounding Essayli continues to unfold, it remains uncertain what the implications will be once his acting tenure concludes.
Since taking office, Essayli’s time as L.A.’s leading federal prosecutor has not been without controversy.
He made headlines by proposing a no-jail plea deal for L.A. County Sheriff’s Deputy Trevor Kirk, who was previously convicted of assault involving excessive force during a 2023 incident at a Lancaster supermarket.
Kirk’s actions were scrutinized, as a woman he confronted was neither armed nor committing a crime.
Following this decision, multiple veteran prosecutors within the office chose to resign in protest.
Several prosecutors, speaking under conditions of anonymity due to fears of retaliation, have described Essayli’s leadership style as chaotic and belligerent, focusing more on advancing the Trump administration’s agenda than adhering to legal standards.
Essayli has also adopted a stringent stance against demonstrators accused of violating laws during significant protests linked to Trump’s immigration raids in Southern California.
Nevertheless, an investigation revealed challenges in pursuing those cases effectively in court, with many protest-related charges failing to secure grand jury indictments.
Of the nearly 40 cases related to protests and alleged interference with immigration enforcement, only seven resulted in indictments, indicating significant hurdles for prosecutors.
In one particularly heated moment, sources reported that Essayli aggressively instructed prosecutors to overlook Department of Justice guidelines regarding the prosecution of cases with weaker evidence, emphasizing a need to secure indictments for Bondi.
In response to criticisms, the U.S. attorney’s office dismissed the investigation conducted by The Times, claiming it was based on inaccuracies and anonymous rumors, without offering specific rebuttals to the reported facts.
As Essayli’s future now hinges on the Trump administration’s decisions, Levenson indicated that it is evident the White House is exerting control over federal law enforcement in Southern California.
“I don’t think [Essayli] even pretends he’s making these decisions on his own,” Levenson stated. “I think he’s just the messenger here.”
image source from：latimes
