Jeffrey Clark — Political Accountability Profile
Political Operatives

Jeffrey Clark — Political Accountability Profile

Skip to main content
Table of Contents
< All Topics
Print

Jeffrey Clark — Political Accountability Profile

Posted
Updated
ByPatriot University
0 out of 5 stars
5 Stars 0%
4 Stars 0%
3 Stars 0%
2 Stars 0%
1 Stars 0%

Role: Former Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, US Department of Justice (September 2020 – January 2021); former Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division (2018-2021); central figure in the late-December 2020 / early-January 2021 plot to install a Trump loyalist as Acting Attorney General who would direct DOJ to challenge the Georgia 2020 election certification (“the Brad Letter” plot); former Kirkland & Ellis partner.

Status: As of May 2026, indicted in Fulton County, Georgia on RICO and false-statements counts (August 14, 2023; State of Georgia v. Trump, et al., Case No. 23SC188947); case remains pending. Federal indictment by Special Counsel Jack Smith (August 1, 2023; United States v. Trump, No. 1:23-cr-00257 (D.D.C.)) named Clark as Co-Conspirator 4; the federal case was dismissed in November 2024 following the presidential election. Pardoned by President Trump on November 10, 2025 in a proclamation covering 77 people connected to 2020-election-related conduct (federal offenses only; the Georgia state case is unaffected). DC Bar Board on Professional Responsibility recommended disbarment on July 31, 2025, forwarding the matter to the DC Court of Appeals for a final decision. Served as Acting Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) from March 2025 to his resignation in March 2026; broadly understood to be the figure in the conservative legal infrastructure most aligned with maximalist unitary-executive theory.

Background

Origins and Education

Jeffrey Bossert Clark (born May 7, 1967, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) attended Harvard College (BA 1989, government), Georgetown University (MA 1996, international relations), and Georgetown University Law Center (JD 1995, magna cum laude, member of Georgetown Law Journal).

Federal Clerkship (1995-1996)

  • Law clerk to Judge Danny Boggs, US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1995-1996)

Kirkland & Ellis (1996-2001, 2018)

  • Joined Kirkland & Ellis as an associate in 1996
  • Became partner; specialized in environmental law, regulatory matters, and Supreme Court / appellate litigation
  • Active in the Federalist Society’s Environmental Law Practice Group
  • Returned to Kirkland after 2009-2017 service in private practice

George W. Bush DOJ (2001-2005)

  • Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division
  • Worked on cases including Massachusetts v. EPA (Clean Air Act / climate change)

Trump 1.0 DOJ (2018-2021)

  • 2018: Confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), Senate-confirmed
  • September 2020: Trump appointed Clark as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division (in addition to ENRD), giving him a second senior DOJ portfolio
  • September 2020 – January 2021: Held both ENRD and Civil Division acting roles simultaneously

The Brad Letter Scheme (December 2020 – January 2021)

The plot now broadly known as “the Brad Letter” or “the DOJ takeover scheme” centered on Clark’s effort to be installed as Acting Attorney General with a mandate to direct DOJ to challenge state-certified 2020 election results.

How Clark Got Involved

  • Clark, an environmental lawyer, was outside the normal DOJ post-election legal-strategy track
  • Scott Perry (R-PA), a member of the House Freedom Caucus and Trump ally, introduced Clark to Trump in late December 2020
  • The introduction was specifically because Clark was willing to take aggressive election-fraud-claim positions that the Senate-confirmed leadership (AG Bill Barr → Acting AG Jeffrey Rosen, Acting Deputy AG Richard Donoghue) had refused to take

The “Proof of Concept” (December 28, 2020)

Clark drafted a letter to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, Speaker David Ralston, and Senate President Pro Tem Butch Miller, on Department of Justice letterhead, stating in part:

“The Department of Justice is investigating various irregularities in the 2020 election for President of the United States. The Department will update you as we are able on investigative progress, but at this time we have identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.”

The letter requested a special legislative session to consider re-appointing electors. The letter was drafted on DOJ letterhead despite the absence of any DOJ investigation finding “significant concerns” that “may have impacted the outcome.” It was the foundation document for what came to be known as “the Brad Letter.”

Acting AG Rosen and Acting Deputy AG Donoghue refused to sign it.

The January 3, 2021 Oval Office Meeting

On January 3, 2021, with Clark having been told by Trump that he would be elevated to Acting Attorney General, the principals gathered in the Oval Office:

  • President Donald Trump
  • Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen
  • Acting Deputy AG Richard Donoghue
  • DOJ Office of Legal Counsel head Steven Engel
  • Acting Assistant AG Jeffrey Clark (the proposed elevatee)
  • White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
  • White House Counsel Pat Cipollone
  • Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin

Trump considered firing Rosen and elevating Clark. Multiple senior DOJ officials threatened to resign en masse; the White House Counsel’s office threatened similar resignation. Cipollone called the Brad Letter “a murder-suicide pact.” After the threats and a roughly three-hour meeting, Trump backed down.

Aftermath

  • Clark remained at DOJ through January 20, 2021
  • Clark left DOJ on January 20, 2021 with the Trump administration’s end
  • The plot was disclosed publicly via Senate Judiciary Committee’s October 2021 investigation under Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL); the resulting report (“Subverting Justice: How the Former President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election”) detailed Clark’s role
  • The J6 Select Committee built on this in its 2022 hearings, with extensive dramatization of the Oval Office showdown

Post-DOJ (2021 – )

  • 2021-2022: Center for Renewing America (Vought’s organization) senior fellow / chief of litigation
  • Has continued to advance the unitary-executive / impoundment theory
  • Has been an outside advisor on multiple Trump 2.0 administration matters, including:
  • The Schedule F / Schedule Career-Policy implementation
  • The OMB / impoundment doctrine litigation
  • Various OLC opinion matters

Trump 2.0 Period

Clark rejoined the executive branch in March 2025 as Acting Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB, reporting to OMB Director Russ Vought. In that role he oversaw the review of federal regulatory actions and Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” January 31, 2025), which set a target ratio of at least 10 deregulatory actions per new regulation and reached a reported 129-to-1 ratio in FY2025. In November 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation pardoning Clark and 76 others for federal offenses connected to their post-2020-election conduct (see DCPD-202500112). Clark resigned from OIRA in March 2026. His pending Georgia state criminal case is not affected by the federal pardon.

Democratic Malice Assessment

Cumulative Designation: Sustained Campaign of Democratic Destruction

Metric Value
Qualifying actions scored 3
Highest individual DMS 5 — Systemic Malice
Primary categories Rule of Law Destruction, Separation of Powers Attack

Scored Action 1: Drafted the “Brad Letter”

Category: Rule of Law Destruction
DMS: 5 — Systemic Malice

Action: Drafted the “Brad Letter” — a letter on official DOJ letterhead addressed to Georgia’s governor and legislative leadership falsely asserting that DOJ was investigating “significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election” in Georgia and requesting a special legislative session to reconsider presidential electors

Key Evidence: Clark draft letter (produced to Senate Judiciary Committee); Senate Judiciary Committee report “Subverting Justice” (Oct. 2021); Rosen and Donoghue contemporaneous notes and sworn testimony; Pat Cipollone characterization (“a murder-suicide pact”); Jack Smith indictment naming Clark as Co-Conspirator #4

Ideology vs. Malice Determination: Using official Department of Justice letterhead to make a materially false claim — that DOJ had found “significant concerns” about the election — when no such investigation had found such concerns and the department’s actual leadership (Rosen, Donoghue) had refused to sign the letter is not legal advocacy. It is the weaponization of federal institutional authority to produce a false statement designed to trigger state legislative action to overturn a certified election. Process subversion, targeted asymmetry, expert rejection (his own department leadership refused to sign), accountability avoidance (the letter was never sent because resignations were threatened). The ideological path: file legal challenges through courts as DOJ’s legitimate election-law function.

Scored Action 2: Sought installation as Acting Attorney General specifically to operationalize…

Category: Separation of Powers Attack
DMS: 5 — Systemic Malice

Action: Sought installation as Acting Attorney General specifically to operationalize the Brad Letter scheme — positioned himself at the January 3, 2021 Oval Office meeting as Trump’s preferred replacement for Acting AG Rosen, blocked only by a mass-resignation threat from senior DOJ officials and the White House Counsel’s office

Key Evidence: Senate Judiciary report; J6 Committee testimony from Rosen, Donoghue, Engel, Cipollone; Cipollone’s characterization of the plan as a “murder-suicide pact”; documented threat of mass DOJ resignations; J6 Committee final report

Ideology vs. Malice Determination: Clark sought to remove the acting chief law enforcement officer of the United States and replace him with himself in order to direct DOJ to assert false claims about a presidential election. This is not a policy disagreement — it is an attempt to seize control of the federal law enforcement apparatus to overturn an election. Process subversion of the highest order: the entire constitutional mechanism of a peaceful transfer of power. All five distinguishing factors apply. The plan was stopped by institutional resistance — not by Clark’s restraint.

Scored Action 3: Post-government advisory role through Center for Renewing America

Category: Rule of Law Destruction
DMS: 3 — Knowing Participation

Action: Post-government advisory role through Center for Renewing America — continuing to advance the constitutional theory that the president has plenary authority over DOJ to direct individual investigations, aligned with multiple Trump 2.0 administration legal positions including OMB impoundment doctrine

Key Evidence: CRA website documentation; Clark’s published legal writings 2021-2026; documented alignment between Clark’s theories and Trump 2.0 DOJ/OMB legal positions; Senate confirmation records noting his informal advisory role

Ideology vs. Malice Determination: Malice — reduced weight. While post-government legal advocacy is generally ideology, Clark’s continued role as the principal theoretical architect of the most aggressive executive-branch theories — theories being operationalized by an administration he informally advises — constitutes knowing participation in an ongoing effort to concentrate executive authority in ways that undermine judicial and congressional oversight. Scored at DMS 3 (Knowing Participation) rather than higher because direct operational direction is not documented; the alignment between his theories and administration action is circumstantial.

What Is NOT Scored

Clark’s legitimate legal career, his environmental and administrative law practice, his academic work on unitary executive theory in non-election contexts, and his public writing on constitutional interpretation are ideology, even where strongly contested. DMA scoring applies to the specific Brad Letter scheme and the DOJ takeover attempt.

Assessment Basis

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s October 2021 investigation under Sen. Dick Durbin produced the primary documentary record, including the Brad Letter draft, Rosen and Donoghue’s contemporaneous notes, and the full account of the January 3 Oval Office meeting. These documents establish both the factual predicates and Clark’s intent with specificity unusual for a document-driven accountability profile.

Legal Disclaimer

The Democratic Malice Assessment is an analytical framework applying defined criteria to documented public conduct. Designations are evaluative conclusions, not statements of criminal guilt. No DMS score constitutes a finding of criminal liability. The factual predicates are cited to primary sources; the evaluative conclusions are protected expression. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and its progeny apply to this assessment of a public figure’s public conduct.

Role in Democratic Erosion / Jan 6 / Trump 2.0

The DOJ Takeover Plot

Clark’s role represents the closest the post-2020 conspiracy came to weaponizing DOJ for election overturning purposes:

  • The original draft “Brad Letter” was the operational vehicle
  • The proposed Acting AG elevation was the structural mechanism
  • Only senior DOJ resignation threats prevented operationalization

Without the resignation threat, Clark’s plan would have:

  • Directed DOJ to assert publicly that “significant concerns” existed about the 2020 election
  • Provided cover for state legislators in Georgia and elsewhere to consider rejecting certified electors
  • Created a constitutional crisis between DOJ leadership and election certification

Continuing Theoretical Influence

In 2021-2026, Clark has been the most operational figure within the conservative legal infrastructure for:

  • The view that the President has plenary authority over DOJ to direct individual investigations
  • The view that the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is unconstitutional (aligned with Russ Vought’s CRA position)
  • The view that DOJ can decline to defend specific federal statutes deemed politically inconvenient
  • The view that the President’s removal authority over inferior officers extends without limitation to officials at all levels

Trump 2.0 Operational Connection

While not formally in the administration, Clark’s CRA infrastructure and his close relationship with Vought (now OMB Director), Mark Paoletta (now OMB GC), and other DOJ-adjacent figures make him an effective informal architect of administration legal posture. Multiple administration legal positions in 2025-2026 reflect Clark’s theoretical commitments.

Legal Status and Investigations

  • Indictments:
  • Georgia (Fulton County): RICO indictment plus one count of criminal attempt to commit false statements and writings — State of Georgia v. Trump, et al., Case No. 23SC188947 (Fulton Cnty. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 14, 2023); Clark pleaded not guilty; case status pending following DA-office disqualification proceedings. Indictment on file at the Fulton County Clerk of Courts: https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2108/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT
  • Federal: Named Co-Conspirator 4 (not charged as a defendant) in the Special Counsel election-obstruction case, United States v. Trump, No. 1:23-cr-00257 (D.D.C.) — docket via CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/ . Case dismissed November 2024 following the presidential election.
  • Presidential pardon: On November 10, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation pardoning Clark and 76 other individuals for federal offenses related to their post-2020-election conduct (Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents, DCPD-202500112: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202500112/pdf/DCPD-202500112.pdf ). The federal pardon does not reach state charges — the Georgia case remains pending.
  • DC Bar:
  • Disciplinary Counsel filed a Specification of Charges (2022)
  • DC Bar Board on Professional Responsibility recommended disbarment on July 31, 2025 (see CNN, “Board recommends that Trump White House official Jeffrey Clark be disbarred”: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/31/politics/jeffrey-clark-dc-bar )
  • DC Court of Appeals action pending; DOJ filed a federal suit in May 2026 challenging the DC disciplinary authorities’ recommendation (DOJ complaint: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1440681/dl )
  • Civil litigation: Some Capitol Police officer suits include Clark; primarily targeted at Trump and others
  • Ethics complaints: Multiple OGE / OLC ethics complaints related to use of DOJ letterhead for personal political advocacy

Personal-Public Interest Conflicts

Financial Holdings

  • Kirkland & Ellis equity / former-partner share: Clark was a senior partner at Kirkland & Ellis with significant accumulated equity; partnership shares typically vest over time
  • Center for Renewing America compensation: Senior fellow / chief of litigation; income reported in five-to-six figures annually
  • Speaking and consulting income: Significant in 2021-2024
  • Legal defense fundraising: Multiple legal-defense vehicles for Clark; CPI / CRA / individual donors
  • Personal real estate: Clark and family have multiple residences; specific holdings in OGE 278 (2018-2021) showed comfortable but not exceptional wealth
  • No documented major investments

Foreign Exposure

  • No FARA registrations
  • No documented foreign-government deals
  • No foreign business interests
  • No personal or family foreign-government relationships

Regulatory Recusals and Waivers

  • N/A — currently out of government
  • During his Trump 1.0 DOJ tenure, signed standard ethics agreements; recusal regime administered through DOJ ethics office
  • His ENRD work specifically avoided conflicts with prior Kirkland clients in the environmental space

Family Business Entanglements

  • Spouse: Not a documented business or political principal
  • Children: Adult; no documented administration entanglements

Specific Decisions Intersecting Personal Interests

  • Defense of his own conduct: Clark’s continued employment by CRA and his ongoing public advocacy for the legal theories he advanced in 2020 means his professional reputation, post-government earning potential, and his criminal-defense narrative are all aligned: if his theories are vindicated as legitimate, his defense-narrative position improves
  • CRA’s substantive work: Aligns with his prior DOJ positions; the “blurring” of his post-government advocacy and his pre-2021 official work has been a recurring point of bar-disciplinary concern

Key Connections

J6 / Coup Plot Network

  • Donald Trump — Direct
  • Mark Meadows — Coordination
  • John Eastman — Parallel constitutional theory
  • Scott Perry — Introduced Clark to Trump
  • Boris Epshteyn — Trump aide / AZ co-defendant
  • Rudy Giuliani — Coordination
  • Sidney Powell — Parallel scheme
  • Kenneth Chesebro — Fake electors

Center for Renewing America Network

  • Russ Vought — CRA founder; now OMB Director
  • Mark Paoletta — OMB GC; CRA general counsel
  • Wesley Coopersmith — CRA
  • James Bacon — CRA
  • Multiple CRA staff/alumni in administration

Federalist Society / Legal Network

  • Leonard Leo — Federalist Society co-chair; broader network alignment
  • Mike Davis — Article III Project
  • Hans von Spakovsky — Heritage; election-integrity ally
  • Cleta Mitchell — Election integrity

DOJ 2020-2021 Adversaries

  • Jeffrey Rosen — Former Acting AG; refused Brad Letter
  • Richard Donoghue — Former Acting Deputy AG; refused Brad Letter
  • Steven Engel — Former OLC head; refused Brad Letter
  • Pat Cipollone — Former White House Counsel; called the Brad Letter “a murder-suicide pact”
  • Patrick Philbin — Former Deputy White House Counsel
  • Richard Cullen — Former WH attorney
  • Eric Tung — Former WH attorney

Adversaries / Opponents

  • DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith (federal case dismissed)
  • DC Bar Disciplinary Counsel
  • Senate Judiciary Committee minority then majority — “Subverting Justice” report
  • J6 Select Committee — Cheney, Thompson, et al.
  • Federal-court system in DC, AZ, GA

Investigative trail pointers (public records)

Education only — verify independently. Absence of hits is not proof.

Channel Starting points
Federal courts CourtListener / PACER party and attorney searches (spelling variants)
Campaign finance FEC + OpenSecrets for committees and donors tied to documented roles
Corporate / LLC State secretary of state; OpenCorporates for cross-border shells from reporting
Sanctions / PEP OpenSanctions when international business context is already sourced
Contracts / grants USAspending.gov for named entities from investigations

Use public-records-research-specialist, corporate-intelligence-investigator, and public-corruption-ombudsman evidence tiers.

Factual correction requests: If you believe information in this profile is incorrect, please contact factcheck@patriot.university with your name (optional), the specific claim, and any supporting documentation. We review all submissions and correct verified errors promptly.

For Trump Supporters: Questions Worth Considering

Clark — a Harvard and Georgetown-educated DOJ attorney — drafted a letter on Department of Justice letterhead that stated DOJ was investigating “significant concerns” that “may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.” The letter asked Georgia’s governor and legislature to call a special session to consider re-appointing electors. The DOJ’s own leadership — the Acting Attorney General and Deputy AG — said this was false, refused to sign it, and threatened to resign en masse if Clark was elevated to run DOJ. White House Counsel Pat Cipollone called the plan “a murder-suicide pact.” Clark was indicted in Georgia and Arizona. The DC Bar’s Hearing Committee recommended disbarment.

Here’s a question worth sitting with: Clark drafted a letter on DOJ letterhead claiming DOJ had identified “significant concerns” that may have affected Georgia’s election outcome. DOJ’s own leadership said this was false — there was no such investigation, no such finding. Clark was willing to use the institutional authority and letterhead of the U.S. Department of Justice to send a false letter to a state government requesting it override a certified election result. When the actual DOJ leaders refused and threatened to resign, Clark would have been the only senior DOJ official who was willing to do it. If a Democratic DOJ official had drafted a false letter on DOJ letterhead pressuring a Republican state to override a certified election — what would you call that? What does it mean that this person was almost the Acting Attorney General of the United States?

Sources

Primary — court and government documents

  • State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., Case No. 23SC188947, Fulton County Superior Court (indictment filed Aug. 14, 2023). Indictment PDF: https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2108/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT
  • United States v. Donald J. Trump, No. 1:23-cr-00257-TSC (D.D.C., filed Aug. 1, 2023) — Special Counsel election-obstruction case naming Clark as Co-Conspirator 4. Docket via CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/
  • Presidential Proclamation of November 10, 2025 (Trump pardon of Clark and 76 others for federal offenses related to 2020-election conduct) — Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents, DCPD-202500112: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202500112/pdf/DCPD-202500112.pdf
  • U.S. Department of Justice, complaint challenging DC Bar disciplinary authorities’ recommendation regarding Clark (May 2026): https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1440681/dl
  • Senate Judiciary Committee Majority Staff Report, “Subverting Justice: How the Former President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election” (Oct. 2021): https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim%20Staff%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
  • Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Dec. 2022) — govinfo collection: https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/january-6th-committee-final-report
  • Jeffrey Rosen testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee (Aug. 2021) — included in “Subverting Justice” supporting materials
  • Richard Donoghue testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee (Aug. 2021) — included in “Subverting Justice” supporting materials
  • Steven Engel deposition transcript, J6 Select Committee (June 2022) — released as part of J6 Committee final-report materials

Secondary — news coverage

  • CNN, “Board recommends that Trump White House official Jeffrey Clark be disbarred for efforts to overturn 2020 election” (July 31, 2025): https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/31/politics/jeffrey-clark-dc-bar
  • Philadelphia Inquirer, “Trump pardoned Jeffrey Clark, a Northeast Philly native who tried to help overthrow the 2020 election” (Nov. 10, 2025): https://www.inquirer.com/politics/jeffrey-clark-pardon-donald-trump-2020-election-20251110.html
  • Bob Woodward & Robert Costa, Peril (Simon & Schuster, 2021) — coverage of the January 3, 2021 Oval Office meeting
  • States United Democracy Center, “Backgrounder: Jeffrey Clark’s disciplinary trial”: https://statesunited.org/resources/clark-trial/

Cross-References

Accountability Cross-References (Added 2026-05-07)

Pardon Status: Pardoned Nov. 10, 2025 (DCPD-202500112) for federal offenses connected to post-2020-election conduct. Georgia state RICO case is not affected.

Administration Role / Post-Jan 6 Status: Served as Acting Administrator, White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), March 2025 – March 2026 (resigned).

See also:

Was this article helpful?
0 out of 5 stars
5 Stars 0%
4 Stars 0%
3 Stars 0%
2 Stars 0%
1 Stars 0%
5
Please Share Your Feedback
How Can We Improve This Article?

Related Articles