As Donald Trump weighs potential candidates for U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, one name often floated is Chris Christie. But would this be a smart move? Given their complex history, appointing Christie might feel less like a savvy political choice and more like inviting a fox into the henhouse.
The opening comes as current U.S. Attorney Philip Sellinger has just announced his resignation.
Let’s dive into why Trump might want to think twice before making such a move—and who else might be a better fit.
Why Christie Might Seem Like a Good Idea to his few and far between loyalists
Chris Christie does have the résumé. As U.S. Attorney for New Jersey from 2002 to 2008, he built a reputation for cracking down on corruption. He wasn’t afraid to go after politicians from both parties, scoring high-profile convictions. As governor, he displayed the kind of assertive leadership that some would argue is necessary for the top federal prosecutor in the state.
Christie’s deep familiarity with New Jersey’s legal and political networks is a double-edged sword. On paper, this could make him an effective enforcer of the law. He knows how the game is played—and how to bring bad actors to justice. But is that what Trump needs in someone potentially overseeing federal cases in New Jersey? That brings us to the thorny side of this proposal.
Why Chris Christie would be a terrible choice
Let’s not sugarcoat it: Chris Christie and Donald Trump’s relationship is… complicated. Once political allies, their friendship has soured dramatically. Christie has emerged as one of Trump’s most vocal Republican critics, blasting his policies and his conduct. Appointing Christie to such a powerful role could backfire spectacularly—after all, this is a man who has shown zero hesitation in turning on his former allies.
Worse, it’s not entirely far-fetched to think Christie could leverage this role to go after Trump himself. As U.S. Attorney, Christie would have significant authority to investigate federal crimes in New Jersey, including matters that could tangentially involve Trump or his associates. Given his recent comments about Trump and his willingness to publicly air grievances, one could argue Christie wouldn’t hesitate to wield this power against his former friend. For someone as litigious as Trump, that’s a risk too great to ignore.
Then there’s “Bridgegate,” the infamous scandal during Christie’s governorship where senior aides deliberately caused traffic chaos as political retribution. Though Christie denied involvement, the scandal damaged his reputation irreparably. Can Trump—or New Jersey—really afford to hand this level of authority to someone with that kind of baggage?
If Trump wants loyalty and results without the personal drama, he might want to consider someone like Joseph Coronato, the former Ocean County Prosecutor. Coronato’s focus on addressing the opioid crisis has earned him widespread respect in New Jersey. His innovative programs to combat overdoses and prioritize public health over punitive measures stand out as a model for smart law enforcement.
Unlike Christie, Coronato isn’t mired in political feuds or high-profile controversies. He’s seen as a steady hand and someone with a pragmatic, solutions-oriented approach. This makes him a much safer bet for Trump if the goal is to appoint someone who will do the job without the added risk of undermining the administration or creating new political headaches.
While Chris Christie’s experience as U.S. Attorney and governor gives him a polished résumé, his long trail of controversies and his well-documented animosity toward Donald Trump make him an unwise choice. The risk of Christie using the position to settle scores, potentially even with Trump himself, looms large.
If loyalty and effectiveness are the priorities, Trump should look elsewhere—perhaps to someone like Joseph Coronato—rather than rekindle a partnership with Christie, a man who’s proven time and again he’s anything but predictable.