Thwarting Trump’s Persecution of Perceived Political Enemies

Many Americans spent the final weeks of 2025 worrying about spiking health insurance costs. President Donald Trump spent them enacting vengeance. The president aimed a blizzard of threats at over 22 public servants whom he perceives as his personal or political enemies. Some were directed at government officials who had played legal roles seeking accountability for Trump’s actions during his previous term. Others, including members of his own party, appeared to be targeted for sharing different political views. In one instance, Trump went as far as suggesting that several members of Congress were engaging in sedition punishable “by DEATH!”

While Trump’s comments are alarming and abnormal, what is more insidious is how he has made good on threats. The president has spent the past year leveraging, and often abusing, government resources to attack his personal and political enemies through lawsuits, probes, professional punishment, and even force. While previous presidents have been accused of weaponizing the government to hurt rivals—think President Nixon’s secret list of 500 political enemies—no modern president has used his powers to hurt enemies so overtly and comprehensively as Trump. This past year, he retaliated against over 269 federal officials.

This is not good for Americans. The president’s actions harm our democracy’s system of checks and balances, as well as the constitutional right to free speech. Oftentimes, Trump’s retributions call to mind foreign dictators in their obvious self-interest and denial of reality. But Americans must not lose sight of why the founders championed democratic government–namely, to ensure that the president serves the people, not the other way around. And Americans need not look further than their bank accounts, dwindling from high grocery, healthcare, and housing prices, to see how Trump’s preoccupation with political vengeance is hurting them. “[Trump]’s kind of political retribution leads to a loss of trust, which ultimately leads to a failure of governing,” former Defense Secretary Panetta has observed.

The good news is that pro-democracy forces are working to block the president’s abuses of power, often with success. A coalition of government officials, legal experts, charitable organizations, and thousands of people across America is standing in solidarity to push back in court and in their neighborhoods. Democracy Defenders Fund has been fortunate to play a role in many of the legal and political victories that have stymied the president’s attempts to hurt his perceived rivals. As the coalition looks forward, planning for the next three years, it must take stock of these successes, including efforts to protect current and former officials, while also planning for emerging challenges, such as the possibility of judicial impeachments.

“JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

President Trump ended 2025 on a legal back foot in two of his most prominent retribution campaigns after judges ruled against his efforts. His targets are New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the high-profile prosecution of Trump for business fraud, and former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey, who spearheaded probes into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

There is no question that the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision under Trump to indict James and Comey had everything to do with his personal vendettas. In a now-deleted social media post that appeared to be intended as a private message for Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi, Trump opined: “What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell…They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” Comey’s counsel produced 60 pages of threats the President had made against him, while James’s lawyers amassed 113. A particularly illuminating one reads, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

So far, the president’s efforts have been foiled in court. First, interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, analyzed the cases against James and Comey and declined to bring charges. So, Trump hurriedly replaced him with a loyalist willing to do so, Lindsey Halligan. In December, a judge ruled that Halligan’s appointment was unlawful, throwing out charges against both officials. Since then, another judge has ordered Halligan to explain why she continues to attempt to serve in the post.

Trump’s DOJ is facing serious headwinds as it scrambles to renew the charges. In Comey’s case, a judge ruled that the DOJ could no longer rely on a trove of files that they had used to substantiate his initial indictment because they had been obtained unlawfully. Two other grand juries rejected more efforts to charge James. Most recently, a judge ruled that John A. Sarcone, another Trump loyalist working to bring charges against James, had also been appointed unlawfully.

These legal victories reveal a key weakness in Trump’s vengeance tour: in his rush to inflict maximum pain on his enemies, his subordinates have cut corners and underestimated the strength of the legal system. Trump’s pressure to bring flimsy cases, based on improperly obtained evidence, via attorneys with questionable authority, has cost him immense time, resources, and credibility. And the American people are souring as they see him focused on a personal agenda instead of delivering on his promises of affordability.

Trump’s sloppy efforts are also inspiring judges to offer extraordinarily strong orders limiting him. Recently, a judge required the government to turn over grand jury materials, an exceedingly rare request, out of concerns that, among other things, Halligan had “fundamental[ly] misstated the law” to the grand jury. Should the DOJ succeed in another indictment, Comey and James appear to have good odds of winning dismissal based on valid claims of selective and vindictive prosecution–a defense that has rarely succeeded in the past.

While James and Comey are the highest-profile victories in the legal pushback against Trump’s personal retribution campaign, Democracy Defenders Fund and others have secured wins across the board. Last month, Mark Zaid, who represented a whistleblower whose complaint led to Trump’s first impeachment, won an injunction stopping the president’s attempts to revoke his security clearance. The judge wrote that a restoration was warranted because “Zaid's representation of whistleblowers and other clients adverse to the government was the sole reason for summarily revoking his security clearance.” As Trump is weaponizing his office in unprecedented ways, American democracy is rising to the challenge.

“Traitors to our Country” and “Crooked Judges”

One area where Trump has been more successful is in his targeting of newer political opponents. While the years-long fraught history between Trump and Comey provides ample evidence for vindictiveness, public officials who have more recently questioned the legality of the president’s policies are having a tougher time proving their case. And as Trump’s political ire increasingly turns towards the judges who are handing him legal defeats, he’s responding by pushing for their impeachment. These emerging threats require renewed effort and creativity from the pro-democracy coalition in the service of maintaining robust checks and balances between branches of government.

Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) became one of Trump’s targets after carrying out her legally protected duty to monitor a migrant detention facility amidst growing legal concerns about Trump’s immigration policies. She was present when federal officers arrested Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark. While authorities quickly dropped the charges against the mayor, with a judge characterizing his arrest as a “worrisome misstep,” Trump loyalist Alina Habba still proceeded to charge Congresswoman McIver with obstruction. “The days of woke are over,” Trump commented after Habba announced that she was bringing charges. In June of last year, McIver was indicted by a grand jury, and judges have subsequently denied her motions to dismiss the case.

Her case highlights how, even though it appears that the DOJ’s actions are intended to advance Trump’s campaign to chill congressional immigration oversight, the legal bar for dismissal based on vindictiveness is extremely hard to meet in court. Judge Hannah Dugan faced similar challenges when defending herself against an obstruction charge in another immigration case, even as the government led a hasty investigation with an unusual charging procedure.

The Trump administration is also coming up with new ways to harass those who stand for the U.S. Constitution. Take the emerging retribution campaign against Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ). Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers recently made a video imploring servicemembers not to follow illegal orders. This got under Trump’s skin and he took to social media to suggest that they could be punished “by DEATH!” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth then issued a letter of censure against Kelly and initiated proceedings to reduce his military retirement grade. Thankfully, Senator Kelly appears poised to come out on top. Military law experts agree that Hegeseth’s case for reduced retirement benefits is incredibly flimsy, and military censure is “purely symbolic” for retired servicemembers like Kelly. It is reasonable to expect further action in his case soon.

On another front, the Trump administration is seeking ways to undermine judges who have thrown up legal barriers to the president’s agenda. Trump has increasingly targeted federal judges who are fulfilling their constitutional responsibility to call out government misconduct, labeling them “Radical Left Lunatic[s],” “troublemaker[s] and agitator[s],” and “Crooked Judge[s].” Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District of Columbia persistently ruled against the Trump administration in immigration cases, pointing out how the government has failed to follow constitutional processes for deporting migrants, including to the notorious CECOT torture prison in El Salvador. His efforts have made him a key target for Trump’s vitriol. AG Bondi even filed a misconduct complaint against Boasberg that bipartisan judicial experts have characterized as “judicial intimidation.”

But Trump wants Boasberg out–fast. So the president is pushing for his impeachment. Recently, the Republicans on a Senate Judiciary subcommittee took up the President’s suggestion by holding a hearing. Subcommittee Chair Ted Cruz also called for Speaker Mike Johnson to advance articles of impeachment against the judge. These efforts will face a coalition working to preserve judicial independence, including Democracy Defenders Fund. The facts appear to be on the coalition’s side: only a handful of judges have been impeached, and none in modern times on the apparent basis of their rulings against the administration. Indeed, Chief Justice John Roberts has warned that impeachment “is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

Rule of Law Shock and Awe

The United States is a democracy, built upon strong systems of independent checks and balances, regardless of how much Trump may wish this were not so. Although the country is experiencing an unprecedented campaign of retribution meant to punish and silence rivals waged from the highest office in the land, so too is it witnessing exceptional bravery from the federal servants who continue to play their role in maintaining a check on executive overreach in the face of Trump’s threats. The democracy movement has had officials’ backs in court, with much success. In the next year, there is no doubt that it will rise to meet Trump’s new tactics and threats.