President Donald Trump has once again blurred the lines between television and government by appointing Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host and longtime media loyalist, as acting United States attorney for the District of Columbia.
The decision, announced by Trump himself on Truth Social, quickly drew backlash, skepticism, and accusations that the legal system is being treated like a reality TV set.
Trump praised Pirro as a woman of exceptional legal ability, calling her a perfect fit for one of the most sensitive and powerful prosecutorial roles in the country, despite her last major legal involvement being in a broadcast studio rather than a courtroom.
With this appointment, the president has elevated a media firebrand better known for shouting over guests on cable news than handling federal indictments.
Pirro, now 73, rose to prominence decades ago as a prosecutor and judge in Westchester County, New York, where she earned a reputation for being tough on crime.
But it was her transition to television that turned her into a household name. After failed attempts to enter statewide politics in New York, she pivoted to media, first hosting her own syndicated courtroom show, and later becoming a fixture at Fox News.
Her program “Justice with Judge Jeanine” aired for 11 years, making her one of the most recognizable conservative voices in the country. Known for her bombastic delivery, sharp denunciations of Democrats, and unwavering support for Trump, Pirro became a reliable member of the president’s media arsenal.
Her shift from prime-time commentator to federal prosecutor is being seen by critics as a final collapse of the wall between propaganda and public service.
Trump’s move reflects a pattern of installing political allies and television personalities into key government roles, not for their experience in governance, but for their usefulness on-screen.
Pirro’s legal experience is decades old, and her recent professional focus has centered not on the practice of law but on defending conspiracy theories and attacking political opponents.
Her involvement in false claims about the 2020 election even landed her in legal jeopardy, as she became one of the central figures in the defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News.
That suit resulted in an unprecedented $787 million settlement, one of the largest in U.S. media history, after Fox admitted to airing falsehoods about the election on multiple programs, including Pirro’s.
While the Dominion settlement would likely disqualify most legal professionals from ascending to a high-ranking prosecutorial post, it seems to have had no impact on Pirro’s trajectory in Trump’s world, where loyalty and media value carry more weight than ethical clarity or professional qualifications.
Her appointment follows a growing trend inside the administration, where former Fox News contributors and anchors have been appointed to top Cabinet positions.
Pete Hegseth, another Fox host, was named Secretary of Defense. Sean Duffy, a reality TV contestant turned Fox analyst, currently serves as Secretary of Transportation.
These appointments, which once might have been viewed as satire, are now the standard operating procedure in a government increasingly run like a talk show.
The position Pirro now occupies is not ceremonial. The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia oversees one of the most high-profile jurisdictions in the country, handling cases that touch on national security, corruption, violent crime, and political investigations.
This office is often involved in prosecutions that relate directly to the federal government, given its proximity to Capitol Hill and the White House. Legal experts have raised concerns about whether Pirro has the temperament, impartiality, or recent courtroom experience necessary for such a critical role.
But for Trump, Pirro’s main qualification appears to be her record of televised loyalty. Her show was one of the first to embrace Trump’s claims of voter fraud, and she was among the most aggressive defenders of his administration throughout his first term and into his post-presidency.
Her appointment has been met with mockery on social media, with critics calling it a parody of governance. Legal scholars and political commentators questioned whether she would pursue cases impartially or use her new position to settle scores and carry out political vendettas.
Some joked that it was only a matter of time before other Fox hosts were placed in charge of the FBI, CIA, or Supreme Court. Others noted that while the legal system is supposed to operate independently from politics, the installation of a pundit with a record of false reporting undermines the credibility of the entire justice apparatus.
Pirro herself has not commented publicly on her appointment, but her record speaks volumes. Throughout her tenure at Fox, she repeatedly made headlines for her inflammatory rhetoric.
She suggested Muslim members of Congress were part of a jihadist plot, accused immigrants of importing crime, and pushed unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud and election machines.
In one particularly infamous broadcast, she claimed the deep state was working to overthrow Trump and warned viewers that the country was under siege. These statements, while earning her applause from certain segments of the Republican base, have drawn widespread criticism and multiple advertiser boycotts.
Despite her television fame, Pirro’s direct experience with federal prosecution is outdated, and she has not tried a case in decades. Critics argue that her legal skills are rusty at best and that her true role is not to uphold the law but to serve as a political weapon for the White House.
Trump’s appointment of Pirro fits squarely within his strategy of dismantling institutions he views as hostile, replacing career professionals with loyalists willing to turn public service into ideological warfare.
The White House offered no justification beyond Trump’s statement praising Pirro’s qualifications. Her appointment was not announced through a press release or formal nomination process but through a brief message on Truth Social, as has become customary in an administration that treats traditional channels of governance as optional.
With the Justice Department now partially helmed by a woman known more for shouting over guests on cable television than litigating federal cases, the Trump administration’s blend of media obsession and institutional disruption is now more visible than ever.
Observers say the move is not simply a publicity stunt. By placing a loyalist in charge of the D.C. attorney’s office, Trump gains influence over legal decisions that may directly or indirectly affect investigations into political allies, government agencies, and even former officials.
It gives him an additional tool to shape public perception and control the narrative, all while wrapping executive power in a layer of television-ready outrage. Pirro’s task may not be to prosecute evenly or administer justice fairly but to amplify a worldview and punish those outside it.
For now, the Justice Department has remained silent on how Pirro’s appointment will affect pending cases or ongoing investigations. Within legal circles, the mood is one of resignation. Many have long feared that the merger of infotainment and federal power would culminate in moments like this.
The idea that a judge from Fox News could end up running prosecutions in Washington was once the subject of parody. Today, it is reality. And for those still working inside the system, the question is no longer how to stop it, but how to survive it.
