In a stunning turn of events, Erik Siebert, the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, resigned on Friday amid intense political pressure from President Donald Trump over a federal investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James, as the New York Post reports.

Siebert’s abrupt departure follows Trump’s public statement demanding his removal, as the investigation into mortgage fraud allegations against James remains unresolved, with no charges filed.

The timeline of this controversy began in April when William Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, requested the FBI to investigate James for alleged mortgage fraud. Pulte claimed that James falsified records to secure favorable loans for a Virginia home purchased in 2023 and a Brooklyn brownstone she has owned since 2001. One specific accusation was that James misrepresented the Virginia property as her primary residence while serving as New York’s attorney general.

Allegations spark political firestorm

James has firmly denied these claims, describing them as “baseless” and suggesting they are part of a retaliatory campaign by Trump. She linked the probe to her prior civil fraud case against Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, calling it a “revenge tour.”

In May, Trump nominated Siebert for the U.S. Attorney position, though his appointment was never confirmed by the Senate. Reports later surfaced that Siebert faced increasing pressure from the Trump administration regarding the ongoing investigation into James.

Trump’s dissatisfaction became public when he learned that Democrat Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner supported Siebert’s nomination.

The president expressed his frustration to reporters in the Oval Office, stating, “I want him out.” He further elaborated, saying he no longer backed Siebert after discovering the senators’ endorsement.

Trump’s influence raises eyebrows

Siebert’s investigation had progressed to the point where prosecutors convened a grand jury to review evidence against James. However, as of his resignation, no criminal charges had been filed. Justice Department Special Attorney Ed Martin was set to meet with Siebert on Monday to discuss the case’s status.

Under standard protocol, Siebert would have been required to draft a memo recommending whether to drop the case if he chose not to proceed.

As of midday Friday, no such document had been prepared or submitted.

On Friday evening, Siebert informed his staff of his decision to step down via email. He wrote, “This evening, I submitted my resignation as Interim U.S. Attorney for [Eastern District of Virginia].”

Resignation email expresses gratitude

He expressed appreciation for his time in the role, stating, “For the last eight months, I have had the pleasure of leading the finest and most exceptional of DOJ employees who care deeply about our nation and our EDVA community.”

Siebert also thanked his colleagues for their dedication, adding, “Thank you for the lessons you have taught me, the sacrifices you have made, and the pursuit of justice you strive for every day.”

Trump, when asked about the investigation, offered a vague response to reporters. He remarked, “I am not following it very closely.” He added that it seemed to him James might be guilty of something, though he admitted to lacking detailed knowledge.

Uncertainty surrounds probe's future

The president also commented on the grand jury proceedings, saying, “We’re going to see what happens.” His statements have fueled speculation about the political motivations behind the probe and Siebert’s exit.

Siebert’s resignation leaves the investigation into James in limbo, with questions lingering about who will take over and whether the case will move forward. The intersection of political influence and legal proceedings has drawn significant attention to this unfolding story.

As the situation develops, the public and legal experts alike are watching closely to see how the Department of Justice handles this high-profile case.

The outcome could have broader implications for the balance between political pressures and independent investigations within the federal system.