Payback and Projection: Trump’s Approach to Justice

President Trump’s governance has consistently revolved around two key themes: payback and projection. From the moment he took office, Trump has made it clear that he will settle scores for every perceived slight and accuse his opponents of the very misdeeds he himself has been accused of. This approach has now bled into the legal system, with dangerous consequences. The Justice Department has become a tool for Trump to not only punish his enemies but also reward his allies, undermining the independence that has long been a cornerstone of the Department’s operations.

Under Trump, the federal government has weaponized the Justice Department to target political adversaries. Launching an investigation can impose crippling reputational and financial costs, even if no conviction is ultimately secured. At the same time, Trump has used his executive power to halt ongoing investigations, end prosecutions, and even overturn settled cases, all while wielding the unparalleled power of the pardon. The Constitution places no limits on the president’s ability to pardon anyone, at any time, giving Trump a potent weapon to reward loyalty and protect his supporters.

The Erosion of Justice Department Independence

For decades, the Justice Department has maintained a degree of independence from the president’s political interests. This tradition, particularly strong among career prosecutors and law enforcement agents, was meant to ensure that the Department’s work remained apolitical and grounded in the law. However, from his first day in office, Trump and his allies shattered this understanding. On January 20, Trump issued an executive order claiming to address the "weaponization of prosecutorial power" under the Biden administration. The order directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to focus on "perceived political opponents," particularly those associated with the January 6 Capitol riot, whom Trump pardoned the same day.

The Trump administration moved quickly to purge lawyers and FBI agents who had led prosecutions of January 6 defendants. These career employees were not fired for misconduct or because their cases lacked merit; they were simply punished for offending Trump. Ed Martin, Trump’s handpicked interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been the primary enforcer of this revenge campaign. Martin, who once described his office as "President Trump’s lawyers," has fired or demoted prosecutors involved in January 6 cases, including some where he himself represented defendants in private practice. He has also launched dubious investigations into Biden-era initiatives, such as the $20 billion in environmental grants, and even threatened to prosecute Democratic lawmakers for speeches he deemed threatening to Trump’s allies.

Rewarding Allies: The Carrot-and-Stick Approach

While Trump has weaponized the Justice Department to punish his enemies, he has also used it to reward his allies. This dual approach—punishing adversaries and rewarding supporters—has become a defining feature of his second term. For example, when New York Mayor Eric Adams faced bribery charges in the final months of the Biden administration, he began a charm offensive toward Trump, visiting him in Florida and attending his inauguration. Trump’s Justice Department promptly moved to dismiss the case against Adams, citing no defects in the evidence or misconduct by prosecutors, but instead arguing that the charges distracted Adams from addressing illegal immigration and violent crime.

Similarly, the Department has gone out of its way to support Tina Peters, a former Colorado county clerk convicted of tampering with voting machines in an attempt to prove fraud in the 2020 election. Despite the Justice Department’s usual reluctance to intervene in state prosecutions, Trump’s officials filed a brief in support of Peters’ federal court challenge to her conviction. These actions demonstrate how Trump has transformed the Justice Department into a tool for rewarding loyalty and advancing his political agenda.

Targeting Legal Firms and Institutions

Trump’s campaign of retribution has not stopped at individuals. He has also set his sights on law firms that have represented clients who oppose him. Covington & Burling, a prominent Washington firm that provided pro bono legal work for Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating Trump, has been targeted. Trump ordered the federal government to sever ties with the firm, revoked its lawyers’ security clearances, and barred Perkins Coie, another firm that represented Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, from accessing federal buildings. These actions are designed to make the firms "toxic," driving away clients and damaging their reputations.

Denise Cheung, a veteran prosecutor in the District of Columbia, resigned rather than carry out orders from Ed Martin to rescind $20 billion in environmental grants awarded by the Biden administration. Martin’s threat to Georgetown University Law Center—to stop hiring students from the institution or any law school that teaches diversity, equity, and inclusion—further highlights Trump’s broader assault on the rule of law and academic freedom.

Pardons and the Expansion of Presidential Power

Trump’s use of the pardon power has been both unprecedented and politically calculated. He began his second term by pardoning nearly all of the 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6 Capitol riot. Since then, he has continued to issue pardons aligned with his political agenda, including 23 anti-abortion protesters, Ross Ulbricht, a cryptocurrency figure, and Rod Blagojevich, a former Illinois governor turned Trump supporter. Unlike previous presidents who reserved controversial pardons for the end of their terms, Trump has signaled his intent to use this power throughout his second term.

This strategy creates a steady stream of supplicants eager to curry favor with the president, cementing their loyalty and creating a culture of dependence. The courts and Congress have little authority to challenge Trump’s decisions on law enforcement or pardons, leaving only historical norms and moral standards as checks on his power. However, these norms have proven insufficient to constrain a president determined to weaponize the legal system for his own gain.

The Broader Implications for Democracy

While Trump’s actions have drawn legal challenges, the courts have shown limited ability to check his authority over the Justice Department and the pardon power. In contrast to his other initiatives, such as spending cuts led by Elon Musk, which have faced pushback in the courts, Trump’s manipulation of the legal system has proceeded with far less oversight. This lack of accountability underscores the fragility of democratic norms in the face of a president willing to exploit the full extent of his power.

The systemic erosion of justice under Trump has far-reaching implications. By targeting law firms, purging career prosecutors, and rewarding allies, Trump has fundamentally altered the role of the Justice Department. His actions send a clear message: loyalty to Trump is the ultimate metric for justice, and anyone who opposes him will face consequences. This approach not only undermines the rule of law but also chillingly demonstrates the dangers of unchecked presidential power.