How Trump Could Legally Go After His Political Rivals
Trump's campaign has been fueled by a series of retaliatory criminal prosecutions. While he has previously vowed to lock up his opponents, a second term would bring a change in approach.
TroibNews 
In the highly unpredictable presidential campaign of the last five decades, one aspect has notably remained constant: Donald Trump’s declared intention to prosecute a significant number of his political opponents if he secures another term in the White House.
Over the years, the list of those he targets has expanded. It comprises a diverse range of Trump’s perceived adversaries, including President Joe Biden, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Fauci, members of the Jan. 6 committee, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Recently, Trump escalated his threats, implicating hundreds — possibly thousands — more opponents by targeting unspecified Democratic attorneys, political operatives, donors, voters, and election officials.
Trump has openly discussed his vision for a prosecutorial "revenge tour" in speeches, interviews, and numerous social media updates. This theme is subtly reflected in the official Republican Party platform, which seeks to “hold accountable those who have misused the power of Government to unjustly prosecute their Political Opponents.”
Nevertheless, Trump often makes promises that go unfulfilled. Some of his allies and devoted supporters downplay his statements as mere political posturing. “He ran on, ‘I’m gonna lock her up’ with Hillary, and didn’t do shit,” remarks Mike Davis, a staunch Republican lawyer known for vocally criticizing the prosecutors pursuing cases against Trump.
“I would love to be a special counsel or a viceroy and exact painful retribution on all these motherfuckers because I think retribution is a key part of justice,” he stated, “but it’s just not possible” due to the bureaucratic and procedural hurdles involved.
However, Trump’s political foes — along with seasoned federal law enforcement officials — are treating his threats with serious concern.
“All you have to do is listen to the former president himself,” a former top Justice Department official, who requested anonymity, relayed to me. “He has come right out and said that’s what he wants to do, and he was obviously very frustrated during the last administration, when he wasn’t able to have as much influence in that area as he wanted.”
Andrew McCabe, who served as acting FBI director during Trump’s presidency, believes Trump “absolutely will” carry out his threats. “It’s one of the things that actually matters to him,” he asserted, referencing personal experiences where he faced serious professional repercussions from Trump’s unfounded allegations.
The political landscape has also shifted significantly since Trump last held office, increasing the likelihood that he would seek to target his adversaries and making it easier for him to direct the Justice Department.
Facing numerous legal challenges and potential prison time, Trump is unlikely to forget the consequences of his current situation, which could motivate him to retaliate against those he views as threats. He could inflict considerable turmoil in the lives of his opponents through costly and disruptive investigations, even if they ultimately fail to yield convictions. Such actions would serve as punishment in themselves and could undermine public trust in the federal criminal justice system, curbing legitimate political opposition.
The Supreme Court has expanded presidential powers significantly with rulings granting the president broad criminal immunity, effectively making presidential control over the Justice Department virtually unrestricted.
Thus, if Trump desired, he could direct his attorney general to pursue unfounded prosecutions against his adversaries with relative impunity.
Moreover, he may not need to act overtly. By leveraging newly available policy tools and personnel strategies, Trump could manipulate the Justice Department in unprecedented ways, utilizing compliant officials within the FBI and Justice Department to streamline his control and remove those resistant to his agendas.
That said, Trump may not always succeed in his aims for vengeance. As seen during his initial term, numerous legal processes exist beyond presidential control. Prosecutors can opt not to pursue charges, and the necessity of factual support for criminal cases remains paramount; grand juries and trial juries can thwart unsubstantiated prosecutions, as evidenced by past high-profile investigations.
Even an ineffective or sporadic effort at politically motivated prosecutions could cause substantial harm to targeted individuals and to the nation as a whole.
Looking ahead to potential appointments, Trump often expressed dissatisfaction with his administration’s officials who resisted his demands. If he were to be re-elected, he would likely ensure that his subsequent administration comprises unwavering loyalists who wouldn’t oppose his directives.
“It’ll be an entirely different cast of people,” noted McCabe, reflecting on how past officials, like Don McGahn, who threatened to resign in response to Trump's requests, would likely be absent from a second-term team. “They’re not going to be people who stand in his way,” added the former Justice Department official.
Individuals such as Jeff Clark, a former senior DOJ official facing disbarment for attempting to manipulate the department to support Trump’s election challenges, may find roles in Trump’s new administration.
The critical selection of an attorney general could set the stage for aggressive pursuit of retaliatory investigations and prosecutions against Trump’s perceived adversaries. Other key appointments — including to the White House Counsel position, which does not require Senate confirmation — could enable Trump to influence investigations.
Neil Eggleston, a former White House counsel, stated, “If a president were to decide that he wanted to direct the Department of Justice to go after a particular political adversary, he would largely do that through the White House Counsel’s Office.”
Trump’s second administration could also change the dynamics within the Justice Department. Trump supporters have floated using “Schedule F” to convert career positions into political appointments, suggesting such moves could help further his agenda.
The fallout from these potential shifts could have profound implications for U.S. legal structures. Concerns are shared by many former officials and legal experts who worry Trump could misuse the Justice Department, potentially leading to consequences that erode public trust in the rule of law. The nature of such strategies could resemble earlier authoritarian trends observed in countries like Hungary, leading not to a complete breakdown but to a slow deterioration of democratic principles.
Given the stakes involved, extensive caution is warranted regarding the implications of Trump’s return to power — both for individuals entangled in his sights and for the broader political landscape.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
Over the years, the list of those he targets has expanded. It comprises a diverse range of Trump’s perceived adversaries, including President Joe Biden, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Fauci, members of the Jan. 6 committee, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Recently, Trump escalated his threats, implicating hundreds — possibly thousands — more opponents by targeting unspecified Democratic attorneys, political operatives, donors, voters, and election officials.
Trump has openly discussed his vision for a prosecutorial "revenge tour" in speeches, interviews, and numerous social media updates. This theme is subtly reflected in the official Republican Party platform, which seeks to “hold accountable those who have misused the power of Government to unjustly prosecute their Political Opponents.”
Nevertheless, Trump often makes promises that go unfulfilled. Some of his allies and devoted supporters downplay his statements as mere political posturing. “He ran on, ‘I’m gonna lock her up’ with Hillary, and didn’t do shit,” remarks Mike Davis, a staunch Republican lawyer known for vocally criticizing the prosecutors pursuing cases against Trump.
“I would love to be a special counsel or a viceroy and exact painful retribution on all these motherfuckers because I think retribution is a key part of justice,” he stated, “but it’s just not possible” due to the bureaucratic and procedural hurdles involved.
However, Trump’s political foes — along with seasoned federal law enforcement officials — are treating his threats with serious concern.
“All you have to do is listen to the former president himself,” a former top Justice Department official, who requested anonymity, relayed to me. “He has come right out and said that’s what he wants to do, and he was obviously very frustrated during the last administration, when he wasn’t able to have as much influence in that area as he wanted.”
Andrew McCabe, who served as acting FBI director during Trump’s presidency, believes Trump “absolutely will” carry out his threats. “It’s one of the things that actually matters to him,” he asserted, referencing personal experiences where he faced serious professional repercussions from Trump’s unfounded allegations.
The political landscape has also shifted significantly since Trump last held office, increasing the likelihood that he would seek to target his adversaries and making it easier for him to direct the Justice Department.
Facing numerous legal challenges and potential prison time, Trump is unlikely to forget the consequences of his current situation, which could motivate him to retaliate against those he views as threats. He could inflict considerable turmoil in the lives of his opponents through costly and disruptive investigations, even if they ultimately fail to yield convictions. Such actions would serve as punishment in themselves and could undermine public trust in the federal criminal justice system, curbing legitimate political opposition.
The Supreme Court has expanded presidential powers significantly with rulings granting the president broad criminal immunity, effectively making presidential control over the Justice Department virtually unrestricted.
Thus, if Trump desired, he could direct his attorney general to pursue unfounded prosecutions against his adversaries with relative impunity.
Moreover, he may not need to act overtly. By leveraging newly available policy tools and personnel strategies, Trump could manipulate the Justice Department in unprecedented ways, utilizing compliant officials within the FBI and Justice Department to streamline his control and remove those resistant to his agendas.
That said, Trump may not always succeed in his aims for vengeance. As seen during his initial term, numerous legal processes exist beyond presidential control. Prosecutors can opt not to pursue charges, and the necessity of factual support for criminal cases remains paramount; grand juries and trial juries can thwart unsubstantiated prosecutions, as evidenced by past high-profile investigations.
Even an ineffective or sporadic effort at politically motivated prosecutions could cause substantial harm to targeted individuals and to the nation as a whole.
Looking ahead to potential appointments, Trump often expressed dissatisfaction with his administration’s officials who resisted his demands. If he were to be re-elected, he would likely ensure that his subsequent administration comprises unwavering loyalists who wouldn’t oppose his directives.
“It’ll be an entirely different cast of people,” noted McCabe, reflecting on how past officials, like Don McGahn, who threatened to resign in response to Trump's requests, would likely be absent from a second-term team. “They’re not going to be people who stand in his way,” added the former Justice Department official.
Individuals such as Jeff Clark, a former senior DOJ official facing disbarment for attempting to manipulate the department to support Trump’s election challenges, may find roles in Trump’s new administration.
The critical selection of an attorney general could set the stage for aggressive pursuit of retaliatory investigations and prosecutions against Trump’s perceived adversaries. Other key appointments — including to the White House Counsel position, which does not require Senate confirmation — could enable Trump to influence investigations.
Neil Eggleston, a former White House counsel, stated, “If a president were to decide that he wanted to direct the Department of Justice to go after a particular political adversary, he would largely do that through the White House Counsel’s Office.”
Trump’s second administration could also change the dynamics within the Justice Department. Trump supporters have floated using “Schedule F” to convert career positions into political appointments, suggesting such moves could help further his agenda.
The fallout from these potential shifts could have profound implications for U.S. legal structures. Concerns are shared by many former officials and legal experts who worry Trump could misuse the Justice Department, potentially leading to consequences that erode public trust in the rule of law. The nature of such strategies could resemble earlier authoritarian trends observed in countries like Hungary, leading not to a complete breakdown but to a slow deterioration of democratic principles.
Given the stakes involved, extensive caution is warranted regarding the implications of Trump’s return to power — both for individuals entangled in his sights and for the broader political landscape.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
