President Donald Trump made a calculated and unconventional move this week to keep Alina Habba in her role as acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, sidestepping a last-minute effort by federal judges to replace her and triggering a fresh confrontation between the executive branch and the judiciary.
Habba’s initial 120-day appointment was scheduled to expire at midnight on Friday, a deadline that would normally end her tenure unless the Senate confirmed her as the permanent U.S. attorney. That confirmation never happened. Instead, a panel of federal judges in New Jersey—most appointed by Democratic presidents—stepped in and selected one of Habba’s subordinates, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Desiree Grace, to assume the post.
But Trump wasn’t finished.
Rather than allow the judges’ choice to take effect, the president withdrew Habba’s nomination for the permanent position and immediately reappointed her to a different role that effectively placed her right back in charge. By naming Habba as the first assistant U.S. attorney—a position that had just become vacant—Trump automatically elevated her back to acting U.S. attorney, nullifying the judges’ move.
The maneuver, while uncommon, is legal and has been used sparingly in the past. Still, it sent a clear message: Trump intends to keep Habba exactly where she is.
Habba Responds: “I Don’t Cower to Pressure”
Habba confirmed her continued leadership in a defiant statement posted on X late Thursday.
“Donald J. Trump is the 47th President. Pam Bondi is the Attorney General. And I am now the Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey,” she wrote. “I don’t cower to pressure. I don’t answer to politics. This is a fight for justice. And I’m all in.”
The statement underscored the broader significance of the move. This wasn’t just about staffing—it was about authority, loyalty, and who ultimately controls federal prosecutions.
Habba, a longtime Trump ally and former personal attorney, has been a lightning rod since her appointment. Supporters see her as a tough, unapologetic prosecutor willing to confront entrenched interests. Critics accuse the administration of politicizing the Justice Department by installing loyalists in key legal posts.
Judges Push Back—Administration Pushes Harder
The judges’ decision to appoint Grace was widely interpreted as an attempt to reassert judicial influence over a process that stalled in the Senate. Under federal law, district judges may select a U.S. attorney when a vacancy persists, but presidents are not required to accept that outcome quietly.
Attorney General Pam Bondi escalated the standoff by firing Grace shortly after the judges named her—an extraordinary step that effectively cleared the way for Trump’s reappointment strategy.
Grace, for her part, publicly defended her qualifications and insisted politics played no role in her career. In a LinkedIn post earlier that day, she wrote that she had served under both Republican and Democratic administrations and had been promoted multiple times based on performance.
“I’ve served under both Republican and Democratic administrations,” Grace said. “Politics never impacted my work at the Department.”
That claim did little to cool tensions.
A Broader Pattern Emerges
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has clashed with institutional resistance over appointments. Since returning to office, Trump has made clear that he views unelected officials—whether judges, bureaucrats, or holdovers from prior administrations—as obstacles to be confronted, not accommodated.
To Trump allies, the Habba move represents decisive leadership and a refusal to allow what they see as ideological interference from the bench. To critics, it’s another example of executive overreach and norm-breaking.
But one thing is undeniable: the president knew exactly what he was doing.
By withdrawing the nomination and reappointing Habba through a different legal pathway, Trump outmaneuvered his opponents without violating the law—forcing critics to argue about propriety rather than legality.
Why This Matters
The fight over Habba’s position highlights a growing fault line in Washington: who ultimately controls federal law enforcement.
Is it the president, elected by voters and empowered by the Constitution to execute the law?
Or is it an entrenched system of judges and officials who believe continuity and tradition should override political change?
Trump’s answer is clear.
And for Alina Habba, the message is even clearer: she has the president’s backing—and she isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.