The firing of DOJ paralegal Elizabeth Baxter may seem justified on paper, but it raises uncomfortable questions about political overreach and the limits of personal expression — even when that expression is crude or inappropriate. Yes, flipping off a National Guard member and shouting obscenities is disrespectful and unprofessional, especially for a government employee. But should such behavior result in immediate termination without any attempt at due process, counseling, or disciplinary review?

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s reaction wasn’t just swift — it was theatrical. Her statement didn’t focus on maintaining standards of professionalism; instead, it leaned heavily on political loyalty: “If you oppose our mission and disrespect law enforcement — you will NO LONGER work at DOJ.” That sounds less like a defense of civil service ethics and more like a loyalty test to Trump’s agenda.

Similarly, the case of Sean Charles Dunn — who allegedly threw a sandwich at a federal officer — is being held up as further evidence of a so-called “Deep State.” Bondi even used the phrase explicitly, painting career DOJ employees as enemies of the administration. But Dunn wasn’t charged with a felony, and the grand jury refused to indict him — a fact that undermines the narrative of violent insubordination.

Public servants should absolutely be held accountable for misconduct. However, discipline should be proportional and grounded in fairness. A rushed termination, especially when tied to political messaging, can erode trust in institutional neutrality and internal justice.

Firing employees for political reasons — or weaponizing minor incidents as evidence of ideological sabotage — is a dangerous precedent. It suggests this DOJ values political conformity over fairness, due process, and the fundamental principles of free expression in public service.