Ed Martin, serving as U.S. pardon attorney in the Trump administration, has been accused of ethical violations for threatening sanctions against Georgetown University Law Center over its diversity programs. The D.C. Bar's disciplinary counsel also alleges he improperly pressured judges to interfere with an investigation into his conduct. These claims stem from a complaint by a retired California judge.
Ed Martin, who previously served as interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., and led the administration's "weaponization" efforts, faces multiple ethics charges related to his actions as a government official.
In February, while acting in his official capacity, Martin sent a letter to Georgetown University Law Center and its dean, William Treanor. He cited a whistleblower claiming the school was promoting 'DEI'—diversity, equity, and inclusion programs that the Trump administration described as "illegal and immoral discrimination programs." Martin demanded to know if the school had removed all DEI elements from its curriculum and threatened sanctions if not, stating that no Georgetown-affiliated applicants would be considered for the office's fellows program, summer internships, or employment until the issue was resolved.
Treanor replied that the inquiry violated the First Amendment and targeted the university's Jesuit and Catholic mission. Martin responded by suggesting the questions affected Georgetown's 501(c) nonprofit status and its receipt of nearly $1 billion in federal funds in recent years.
The D.C. Bar disciplinary counsel, Hamilton Fox, filed an eight-page petition with the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility, based on a complaint from retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Phillip Argento. The petition accuses Martin of coercing the suppression of a disfavored viewpoint on DEI, violating his oath of office, and breaching the First and Fifth Amendments.
Further allegations involve Martin's attempts to influence the bar investigation. On March 31, he wrote to the D.C. Court of Appeals judges, complaining of the disciplinary counsel's "uneven behavior" and requesting a "face-to-face meeting" to resolve the matter, copying the White House Counsel. He later emailed the chief judge ex parte before an April 14 response deadline, which he missed. The chief judge declined the meeting, citing established procedures. In May, Martin again contacted the chief judge, urging the suspension of Fox and dismissal of the case due to alleged prejudicial conduct. He submitted a formal response in June.
These actions are said to constitute impermissible ex parte communications and interference with the administration of justice.
The administration has dismissed the D.C. Bar as a "partisan organization" for targeting Trump allies while ignoring alleged violations by attorneys from prior administrations. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche called it a "blatantly Democrat-run political organization" on X, adding, "Thank God I'm not a member, and trust me, I never will be."
Recently, Martin was removed from his Weaponization Working Group role, though Blanche praised his work as pardon attorney and denied internal DOJ misconduct probes. Attorney General Pam Bondi's DOJ has proposed a rule allowing her to oversee state bar investigations involving current or former DOJ attorneys.
