In a move that underscores the increasingly politicized nature of legal oversight in the nation’s capital, the D.C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility has now reportedly recommended disbarment for Jeffrey Clark, a former senior Justice Department official and key ally of President Donald Trump.
The recommendation, which now heads to the D.C. Court of Appeals, would effectively strip Clark of his license to practice law and automatically suspend him unless the court intervenes within 30 days.
Clark, currently leading regulatory reform efforts at the Office of Management and Budget, is being targeted for actions he took in late 2020 — actions that reflected growing concerns among Trump administration officials and millions of Americans about the integrity of the presidential election.
According to the Board, Clark had urged DOJ leadership to consider releasing a statement suggesting there were “significant concerns” about election fraud, particularly in battleground states. When his superiors declined to act, Clark reportedly took his concerns directly to the president.
“The fight continues,” Clark said defiantly on X after the ruling, signaling his intention to challenge what many on the right see as a politically motivated punishment.
At the heart of the Bar’s accusation is Clark’s effort to push the Justice Department to take election concerns seriously, at a time when evidence of irregularities and alleged procedural failures was fueling widespread public mistrust.
While the Board labeled his proposed actions as based on “false statements,” Clark and his supporters argue he was simply advocating for transparency and lawful investigation in a moment of national uncertainty.
“Lawyers cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements and they certainly cannot urge others to do so,” the Board wrote, framing Clark’s call for scrutiny as disqualifying conduct.
Notably, two dissenting members of the Board found the proposed punishment excessive.
Though critical of Clark’s handling of the situation, they recommended only a three-year suspension, arguing that his actions, while serious, did not rise to the level of “flagrant dishonesty” meriting full disbarment.
Clark joins a growing list of attorneys aligned with President Trump who have faced professional sanctions for challenging the 2020 election results.
Among them are Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, and Kenneth Chesebro — figures who have become emblematic of the left’s effort to criminalize dissent and punish those who raised objections to how the election was conducted.
Clark remains under indictment in Georgia, a case critics see as part of a broader pattern of politically charged prosecutions targeting Trump-era officials.
Despite this, Clark has maintained his innocence and insisted his calls for additional investigation were both lawful and justified. Testimony from DOJ officials such as Jeff Rosen and Rich Donoghue painted Clark as acting beyond his authority — but none allege that his concerns were malicious in nature.
Instead, they objected to his persistence in pursuing election-related inquiries outside the traditional DOJ process.
As the D.C. Court of Appeals prepares to review the recommendation, questions remain about whether this escalating wave of legal and professional sanctions against Trump-affiliated figures is truly about misconduct — or about sending a message to those who dare to challenge the political consensus.
Clark’s role in Trump’s current administration, particularly in regulatory affairs, may yet continue. But the broader implications are clear: in Washington, questioning liberal election narratives may cost more than just a job — it may cost a career.
[READ MORE: Trump Announces Major White House Addition]
