Senior Federal Prosecutor Overseeing D.C. Crackdown Is Demoted

Jonathan Hornok, the prosecutor who led federal criminal charging decisions in Washington, D.C., has been demoted and is no longer serving in a supervisory capacity at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the capital, four sources familiar with the matter said. The personnel change occurred late last week, and Hornok remains a member of the office’s staff.

Hornok rose to the criminal chief post after he was promoted by former interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin and was kept in that role after Jeanine Pirro became the top prosecutor in the office. In August, as a controversial federal initiative to address unrest and violent crime began in the city, Hornok issued a charging directive that required federal prosecutors to file every applicable case in federal court rather than pursuing lesser local charges in the D.C. Superior Court. That policy helped shape a harder federal enforcement posture that critics say displaced local prosecutorial discretion and advocates say targeted serious violent crime.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the personnel move, and Hornok did not respond to requests for comment. No internal disciplinary records or public statements explaining the reason for the change have been released. The demotion was confirmed by multiple sources but not explained by officials, leaving unanswered whether it reflects policy disagreements, personnel disputes, or other considerations tied to the summer crackdown.

Hornok’s tenure attracted scrutiny beyond charging strategy. A sworn court statement from George Foote, a lawyer for the Institute of Peace, alleges that Hornok threatened him with a criminal investigation after the institute rebuffed efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency to enter its building. That allegation remains a reported claim and has not been adjudicated in court.

The personnel shift comes against a backdrop of larger enforcement actions in the capital, including a high visibility federal presence and the deployment of the National Guard as part of the broader response to unrest. Those measures have produced sharp debate about the proper balance between public safety and civil liberties, and about who should set priorities for prosecution in a city that is home to diverse communities already grappling with health and social inequities.

Public health experts and community advocates note that charging decisions are not only legal choices, but also public health decisions. Federal prosecution often carries stiffer penalties and fewer local diversion options, which can increase pretrial detention and deepen the long term harms associated with incarceration, including worsened physical and mental health, strained family stability, and barriers to housing and employment. For historically marginalized communities in Washington, shifting cases into the federal system can amplify existing disparities and erode trust in institutions charged with delivering safety and justice.

The demotion raises immediate questions about oversight and transparency inside the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Without an official explanation, residents, defense attorneys and oversight bodies will seek documentation and clarity on whether the change reflects a reassessment of charging policy, internal management decisions, or responses to allegations about conduct. For now, the move underscores how prosecutorial personnel decisions ripple beyond courthouses into neighborhoods, public health systems, and civic life.