White House Fires Newly Appointed U.S. Attorney in Swift Move

Feb 13, 2026, 2:37 AM
Image for article White House Fires Newly Appointed U.S. Attorney in Swift Move

Hover over text to view sources

The White House recently terminated Donald Kinsella, appointed as the US attorney for the Northern District of New York, just hours after he was sworn into office. Kinsella, a seasoned attorney with decades of experience, was selected by federal judges who utilized their authority to fill the role following the disqualification of a previous Trump appointee, John Sarcone III, from the position due to legal irregularities.
Kinsella's appointment was meant to restore stability in the office, but his tenure was abruptly cut short when he received an email from the White House stating, "the president directed that I be removed." The email, sent by Morgan DeWitt Snow, deputy director of presidential personnel, did not provide any further explanation for his dismissal.
In a notable social media post, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche emphasized the president’s authority over such appointments, stating, "Judges don't pick US Attorneys, [the president of the United States] does," reiterating the executive's constitutional prerogative. This incident reflects a broader trend under the Trump administration, which has seen a concerted effort to replace US attorneys chosen by the judiciary with loyalist appointees.
Kinsella's swift removal raises important questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary. Legal experts are divided on whether the president possesses the authority to dismiss US attorneys appointed by federal judges. Some argue that since these attorneys are considered "inferior officers," their removal should rest with the judges who appointed them. However, other interpretations of federal law suggest that the president retains the power to remove US attorneys regardless of their appointment process.
Kinsella was appointed following a ruling that deemed Sarcone's interim role unlawful, highlighting issues surrounding the appointment of US attorneys under the Trump administration. Sarcone, who had previously served as a regional administrator for the General Services Administration, had faced scrutiny for his lack of prosecutorial experience and controversial actions during his tenure.
The judges involved in Kinsella's appointment issued a statement thanking him for his willingness to serve and underscoring the importance of filling the vacancy with a qualified candidate. They justified their choice under federal law, which allows judges to appoint acting US attorneys when no lawful appointee is available.
Kinsella's dismissal is part of a broader pattern observed during Trump's presidency, where numerous acting US attorneys have been removed or replaced in controversial circumstances. The administration's approach to these appointments has often been characterized by a desire to maintain control over federal prosecutors and align them more closely with the president's political agenda.
The quick turnaround of Kinsella's appointment and firing could have lasting implications for the judiciary's ability to assert its authority in the face of executive actions. Legal scholars continue to debate whether federal judges will have the motivation or standing to challenge such dismissals in the future.
As this situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how the judiciary will respond to the ongoing tensions with the executive branch over the appointment and removal of US attorneys. The broader implications for the justice system and its independence are significant, as the balance of power between judicial and executive authorities continues to evolve.
The firing of Kinsella, a seasoned attorney, serves as a stark reminder of the complexities and potential conflicts inherent in the current political climate, particularly regarding the appointments of key judicial figures.
In conclusion, the swift action taken by the White House in dismissing Kinsella after his appointment raises important questions about judicial independence and executive authority, a topic that is likely to remain in the spotlight as the political landscape continues to shift.

Related articles

DHS Shutdown Looms as Lawmakers Depart Washington Amid ICE Dispute

As lawmakers leave Washington for a 10-day break, the Department of Homeland Security is on the brink of a shutdown due to unresolved disputes over immigration enforcement policies. With negotiations stalled, both parties remain far apart on critical demands regarding US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

House Speaker Denounces DOJ's Surveillance of Lawmakers' Epstein Document Review

House Speaker Mike Johnson has criticized the Justice Department for monitoring lawmakers' search histories during their review of unredacted Jeffrey Epstein files. This condemnation follows the revelation that the DOJ tracked specific searches made by Representative Pramila Jayapal, raising concerns over separation of powers and the integrity of congressional oversight.

White House Fires Newly Appointed U.S. Attorney Donald Kinsella

The White House swiftly removed Donald Kinsella from his role as US Attorney for the Northern District of New York just hours after his appointment. This dismissal has raised questions about presidential authority and the independence of federal judiciary appointments.

Understanding RINO: Trump's Criticism of Oklahoma's Stitt

The term 'RINO' or 'Republican in Name Only' has resurfaced in political discourse, particularly after former President Trump criticized Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt at a recent National Governors Association dinner. This article explores the implications of the RINO label and the ongoing tensions within the Republican Party.

Trump's Political Retaliation in Colorado Sparks Outrage Among Democrats

Democratic lawmakers in Colorado are accusing former President Trump of using political retribution tactics during the ongoing government shutdown. They claim his administration's actions are targeting key programs and federal employees, raising concerns about the legality and humanitarian impact of these measures.