Trump Fires Court-Appointed Seattle Prosecutor Within an Hour of Appointment

The Seattle prosecutor fired by President Donald Trump barely had time to settle into the job before being removed. In a striking display of the growing friction between the White House and the federal courts, Trump dismissed the newly appointed top U.S. prosecutor in Seattle on Wednesday less than an hour after federal judges unanimously placed him in the role.

The rapid firing has thrown a spotlight on an escalating power struggle over who controls these influential prosecutorial positions — a battle that has now played out in multiple judicial districts across the country.

A Short-Lived Appointment

Roger Rogoff, a seasoned prosecutor and former judge, was sworn in as U.S. attorney before 8 a.m. at the federal courthouse in downtown Seattle. In a phone interview, he described what happened next.

After taking the oath, Rogoff headed to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and requested a meeting with Charles Neil Floyd, whose interim term in the position had expired back in February. But as he waited in the lobby, an email arrived from the Trump administration informing him that he had already been removed.

Rogoff said he is now consulting with other attorneys about the possibility of challenging his firing in court.

How U.S. Attorneys Are Normally Appointed

Understanding why this situation is so contentious requires a look at how these appointments typically work. In most cases:

• Presidents nominate U.S. attorneys, who serve as the top federal prosecutors in each judicial district.
• These positions require Senate confirmation, except for temporary appointments.
• When a temporary appointment expires before the Senate confirms a nominee, the judges in that district have the authority to name a U.S. attorney themselves.

Under Trump, however, the Justice Department has repeatedly sought to keep unconfirmed prosecutors in place indefinitely, often relying on creative personnel maneuvers to do so.

The Administration’s Justification

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the president’s authority to remove Rogoff. In a social media post, he argued that while district court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. attorney, the president retains the power to fire them.

Blanche went further, criticizing the judges who selected Rogoff. He claimed they had strayed from the long-standing practice of consulting with the administration to ensure that any chosen U.S. attorney would be suitable to serve.

A Pattern of Personnel Maneuvers

The Seattle case fits into a broader strategy the administration has employed elsewhere. Trump originally named Floyd, a former immigration judge, as interim U.S. attorney last October, but never sent his nomination to the Senate.

When Floyd’s interim term ran out, the administration simply changed his title rather than replacing him. He was reassigned as first assistant U.S. attorney while the top post was left vacant — a tactic that has surfaced in other federal districts as well.

That approach hasn’t gone unchallenged. In May, a U.S. appeals court panel voiced doubts about whether the maneuver was even legal. In response, the federal judges in Seattle decided to accept applications for the position and assembled a bipartisan panel to review the candidates.

On Wednesday morning, the court — made up of 17 active and senior judges appointed by five different presidents — issued a unanimous order naming Rogoff the U.S. attorney for western Washington. Within the hour, he was gone.

Political Reaction

The swift firing drew sharp criticism from Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington, who had previously opposed Floyd for the same role.

Murray praised Rogoff’s record of public service and stressed that he had been lawfully appointed by the federal judges in the Western District of Washington. She accused the administration of bypassing the traditional advice-and-consent process in favor of installing loyalists to advance what she called a corrupt political agenda.

Not an Isolated Incident

The clash in Seattle is part of a series of similar disputes involving court-appointed and acting prosecutors:

• In December, Alina Habba resigned as the top federal prosecutor for New Jersey after an appeals court found she had been serving unlawfully.
• Lindsey Halligan left her role as acting U.S. attorney in Virginia after a judge ruled her appointment invalid, leading to the dismissal of indictments she had brought against two of Trump’s adversaries.
• When judges in Virginia named James Hundley, a prosecutor with more than three decades of experience, the administration fired him too.
• A court-appointed U.S. attorney in northern New York was likewise removed.

Together, these episodes illustrate a persistent tug-of-war between the judiciary and the executive branch over control of these key positions.

Rogoff Reflects on the Role

Despite knowing the risk of immediate dismissal, Rogoff said he had no reservations about stepping into such a contested position. With 20 years as a state prosecutor, six years as a federal prosecutor, and time on the bench as a state judge, he described the U.S. attorney role as the best job a prosecutor could have.

He expressed deep pride in his career and said it was humbling to have earned the confidence of the district’s judges — many of whom he had appeared before, tried cases against, or worked alongside over the years.

What Comes Next

With Rogoff weighing legal action and the broader dispute far from settled, the standoff between the courts and the administration shows no signs of cooling. The outcome could have lasting implications for how these powerful prosecutorial roles are filled — and for the balance of power between the branches of government.

For now, Seattle finds itself at the center of a constitutional tug-of-war, with the fate of its top federal prosecutor still very much unresolved.