Every claim against the United States Treasury deserves an independent conflict-free defense.
The American adversary system of justice depends upon one fundamental principle.
For the adversary system to function, every party to a lawsuit must be represented by an advocate whose undivided loyalty is owed to that party alone.
When the United States is sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, any judgment entered against the United States is ultimately paid by the American taxpayers.
The attorneys defending those claims owe their professional loyalty to the interests of the United States and, ultimately, to the American people whose Treasury they are charged with protecting. Their client is the United States of America, not a President, not an Attorney General.
Today, that principle is being tested.
After receiving blanket pardons, individuals who participated in the events of January 6 are now seeking damages from the very taxpayers whose government prosecuted them. The question is whether the American taxpayers are receiving the vigorous, independent, and conflict-free representation to which they are entitled.
The Department of Justice has traditionally defended Federal Tort Claims Act cases through experienced career attorneys whose responsibility was to protect the Treasury of the United States without fear or favor. That institutional independence inspired confidence that every claim would receive a professional and vigorous defense.
Significant changes in the Department of Justice and public statements by senior executive officials have raised legitimate questions concerning the independence with which these claims will be defended.
If substantial grounds exist to question whether government counsel can provide that representation free from conflict, the issue should be resolved before any taxpayer funds are placed at risk.
The judiciary has an independent responsibility to preserve the integrity of its own proceedings.
Courts should not proceed as though nothing has changed when substantial questions have been raised concerning the adequacy or independence of the government’s defense.
Where appropriate, litigants and interested parties should ask the courts to determine whether conflicts of interest exist. If such conflicts are found, the courts should employ every lawful means available to ensure that the United States receives an independent, vigorous, and good-faith defense.
If one administration may decline to defend the Treasury vigorously because it favors particular claimants, then every future administration may do the same.
That principle would place the public treasury at the mercy of politics and no constitutional republic can long tolerate such a precedent.
The issue is larger than January 6. This is a test of constitutional government.
Every citizen who believes that government remains accountable to the people should understand what is at stake.
The American people are entitled to an independent, vigorous, and conflict-free defense of every claim against the United States Treasury.
It is the duty of the federal courts to protect the integrity of the American adversary system of justice.
Permission to Repost. You may reproduce this article in its entirety on social media, blogs, and other websites without requesting additional permission, provided the article is reproduced in full without alteration, identifies Victor John Yannacone, jr. as the author, and includes a prominent link to the original article on this website.
Who Will Defend the American Taxpayer?
July 16, 2026 | Litigation
Every claim against the United States Treasury deserves an independent conflict-free defense.
The American adversary system of justice depends upon one fundamental principle.
For the adversary system to function, every party to a lawsuit must be represented by an advocate whose undivided loyalty is owed to that party alone.
When the United States is sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, any judgment entered against the United States is ultimately paid by the American taxpayers.
The attorneys defending those claims owe their professional loyalty to the interests of the United States and, ultimately, to the American people whose Treasury they are charged with protecting. Their client is the United States of America, not a President, not an Attorney General.
Today, that principle is being tested.
After receiving blanket pardons, individuals who participated in the events of January 6 are now seeking damages from the very taxpayers whose government prosecuted them. The question is whether the American taxpayers are receiving the vigorous, independent, and conflict-free representation to which they are entitled.
The Department of Justice has traditionally defended Federal Tort Claims Act cases through experienced career attorneys whose responsibility was to protect the Treasury of the United States without fear or favor. That institutional independence inspired confidence that every claim would receive a professional and vigorous defense.
Significant changes in the Department of Justice and public statements by senior executive officials have raised legitimate questions concerning the independence with which these claims will be defended.
If substantial grounds exist to question whether government counsel can provide that representation free from conflict, the issue should be resolved before any taxpayer funds are placed at risk.
The judiciary has an independent responsibility to preserve the integrity of its own proceedings.
Courts should not proceed as though nothing has changed when substantial questions have been raised concerning the adequacy or independence of the government’s defense.
Where appropriate, litigants and interested parties should ask the courts to determine whether conflicts of interest exist. If such conflicts are found, the courts should employ every lawful means available to ensure that the United States receives an independent, vigorous, and good-faith defense.
If one administration may decline to defend the Treasury vigorously because it favors particular claimants, then every future administration may do the same.
That principle would place the public treasury at the mercy of politics and no constitutional republic can long tolerate such a precedent.
The issue is larger than January 6. This is a test of constitutional government.
Every citizen who believes that government remains accountable to the people should understand what is at stake.
The American people are entitled to an independent, vigorous, and conflict-free defense of every claim against the United States Treasury.
It is the duty of the federal courts to protect the integrity of the American adversary system of justice.
Permission to Repost. You may reproduce this article in its entirety on social media, blogs, and other websites without requesting additional permission, provided the article is reproduced in full without alteration, identifies Victor John Yannacone, jr. as the author, and includes a prominent link to the original article on this website.