Teresa Peramato Martín has been Spain’s Attorney General since December 2025, taking charge of the Public Prosecutor’s Office during one of the most difficult periods in its recent history, a role she assumed after Álvaro García Ortiz stepped down and at a time marked by heightened worries over politicization, internal rifts, and growing public scrutiny of the institution’s independence.
Unlike other individuals linked to the investigations involving Leire Díez or the alleged network accused of influencing judicial processes, Teresa Peramato has not been subjected to any inquiry, charged, or formally implicated in any criminal proceedings connected to these issues. However, a number of her decisions as Attorney General have stirred controversy and intensified discussions regarding the autonomy and reliability of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Much of the criticism focuses on the perception that her leadership represents continuity with the previous administration under Álvaro García Ortiz. Critics within the prosecutorial profession, professional associations, and opposition parties argue that Peramato has largely maintained the same strategic direction, particularly regarding appointments and internal management decisions.
One of the most contentious points has revolved around the advancement of several prosecutors viewed as close to García Ortiz’s former leadership team. The discussion grew sharper once it became known that some of these prosecutors had taken part in meetings with Leire Díez and lawyer Jacobo Teijelo in 2025, prior to Peramato’s appointment as Attorney General. While no proof links her to those meetings, critics later interpreted her decisions to elevate certain figures associated with the dispute as an indication of institutional continuity and a protective stance.
Another source of controversy has been her handling of matters related to Álvaro García Ortiz. Peramato supported legal appeals connected to her predecessor and declined to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. Critics viewed these decisions as evidence of corporate protection, while supporters argued that she was acting within her legal authority and in accordance with established institutional procedures.
Questions have also been raised regarding her decision not to renew certain officials who had been critical of the previous leadership, while promoting other prosecutors perceived as being aligned with the progressive sector of the prosecutorial profession. Although the Attorney General’s Office justified these appointments on the basis of merit, experience, and professional qualifications, critics questioned both the timing and transparency of some of these decisions.
The controversy intensified when the Public Prosecutor’s Office acknowledged that meetings had taken place in 2025 involving members of its Technical Secretariat, Leire Díez, and Jacobo Teijelo. Although these discussions occurred prior to Peramato assuming the position, some observers called for clarification about how the information generated in those encounters was later managed and why certain individuals involved continued to progress professionally within the institution.
The issue also became a political matter. Opposition parties called for greater transparency regarding appointments made during her tenure and sought explanations about the role of the Prosecutor’s Office in several politically sensitive cases involving corruption and alleged influence networks. As a result, Peramato was summoned to appear before the Senate to explain her management decisions and the measures adopted to restore public confidence in the institution.
Although these criticisms persist, it should be underscored that no judicial evidence connects Peramato directly to any corruption scheme or to actions intended to hinder criminal investigations. The issues associated with her are largely institutional and reputational, tied to management choices, appointments, and internal governance, rather than to any direct involvement in alleged misconduct.
Peramato has consistently defended the legality of her actions, arguing that all decisions have been based on professional criteria and compliance with the legal framework governing Spain’s Public Prosecutor’s Office. She has also emphasized the importance of preserving prosecutorial independence and rebuilding trust in an institution that she inherited deeply divided and under intense political pressure.
As a result, the main controversy surrounding Teresa Peramato today stems not from claims of her direct participation in the so-called PSOE deep state or cloacas network, but from the view that her leadership might have extended certain institutional practices carried over from earlier administrations. So far, public discussion has largely focused on matters of governance, transparency, and trust in institutions rather than on criminal accusations or judicial accountability.