Georgetown University – Threat by Ed Martin, Interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Against Law School

Summary

On February 2025, Ed Martin, a conservative lawyer and longtime Republican activist serving as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, sent a letter to Georgetown University Law Center focusing on its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming. Martin was appointed amid broader nationwide efforts by the Trump administration to scrutinize universities and other federally funded institutions over DEI policies and compliance with federal civil rights law, including public pressure on colleges and universities to eliminate or restrict DEI-related programming.

The February 2025 letter stated that it had come to Martin’s attention that Georgetown Law continued to “teach and promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),” which he described as “unacceptable.” It announced that he had “begun an inquiry” into the law school’s academic programming and demanded confirmation that all DEI content had been removed from coursework, training, and institutional activity. The letter further stated that applicants affiliated with schools that continued to use DEI concepts would not be considered for positions in his office, and it set a deadline for Georgetown to respond. The communication directly focused on Georgetown Law’s curriculum and tied its internal academic policies to potential consequences involving federal employment decisions.

The letter also linked Georgetown’s compliance with DEI-related directives to federal civil rights enforcement authority, framing the inquiry as an assessment of whether the institution’s practices were consistent with nondiscrimination requirements and requesting assurances that DEI-related instruction had been eliminated.

On March 10, 2026, the District of Columbia Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed formal charges against Martin alleging professional misconduct based primarily on the February 2025 Georgetown letter. The filing asserted that Martin used his official position to pressure a private academic institution by linking federal employment decisions and the authority of his office to changes in Georgetown’s curriculum. It alleged that the letter functioned as coercion by suggesting potential government consequences without a formally opened enforcement proceeding and treated it as an improper use of prosecutorial authority involving academic programming rather than a specific case.

On the same day, Justice Department leadership defended Martin, stating that “the Department of Justice will not stand by while its attorneys are targeted for doing their jobs” and that review of institutional practices at federally funded universities fell within its enforcement responsibilities. Martin also responded publicly on social media, calling the action a “political attack” and writing that “the flak only gets heavy when you’re over the target.” The disciplinary case proceeded to the District of Columbia attorney regulatory system, which reviews whether lawyers have violated professional conduct rules governing the use of official authority and coercive conduct.