Listen to the article
In a stark departure from promises made during his second inaugural address, Donald Trump’s administration has systematically targeted political opponents and officials who have resisted his demands, raising concerns about the weaponization of federal power.
During his January 20, 2025 address, Trump vowed to end what he called the “vicious, violent and unfair weaponization of the Justice Department,” pledging fair application of the law. However, in the months since taking office, his administration has launched investigations against numerous elected officials and appointees who have opposed him.
The latest targets include Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, along with four other officials in the state. Federal prosecutors served grand jury subpoenas to their offices during a sweeping immigration operation across the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. The subpoenas seek records as part of an investigation into whether these officials obstructed federal immigration enforcement through public statements or actions.
The subpoena sent to Mayor Frey’s office demands “any records tending to show a refusal to come to the aid of immigration officials.” Both Walz and Frey, both Democrats, have characterized the probe as intimidation designed to silence political opposition.
Simultaneously, the administration has Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell in its crosshairs. Powell revealed in an unusual video statement that the Justice Department has subpoenaed the central bank and threatened criminal indictments following his testimony to the Senate Banking Committee. The investigation came after Powell defended the Fed’s $2.5 billion office renovation project in Washington against Trump’s criticism and maintained the Fed’s independent stance on interest rate decisions.
Powell, who was originally appointed by Trump in 2017, called the Justice Department’s actions a “pretext” to undermine the Federal Reserve’s historic independence from political influence. The move represents a significant escalation in Trump’s ongoing struggle with the central bank and his broader challenge to traditional checks and balances in the U.S. government.
Another Federal Reserve board member, Lisa Cook, has also faced Trump’s wrath. The president attempted to remove Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the seven-member board and a Biden appointee, over allegations of mortgage fraud pushed by Trump’s Federal Housing Finance Agency director, Bill Pulte. Cook sued to retain her position, and the Supreme Court temporarily ruled she could remain on the board while her case advances.
The administration’s pattern of targeting critics extends beyond financial regulators. Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted for allegedly lying to Congress, though a federal judge in Virginia later dismissed the case after finding that prosecutor Lindsey Halligan was illegally appointed by the Justice Department. The indictment came shortly after Trump publicly urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to punish Comey, who had overseen investigations into Russian electoral interference during Trump’s first term.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who won a major civil fraud case against Trump in 2024, has likewise been targeted. James was indicted on federal mortgage fraud charges two weeks after Comey, but her case was dismissed by the same judge for identical reasons. Despite these setbacks, the administration has continued pursuing James, though grand juries have twice declined to issue indictments after reviewing evidence from federal prosecutors.
Former CIA Director John Brennan is also under scrutiny. His lawyers say they’ve been informed he’s the target of a grand jury investigation in Florida related to the U.S. government assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Even Jack Smith, the former federal prosecutor who led multiple Trump investigations, including the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection probe, faces an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel into allegations of partisan political activity. Smith has maintained that his team “developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt” regarding Trump’s actions and that his decisions were based on “what the facts and the law required.”
California Senator Adam Schiff, a vocal Trump critic who pushed for impeachment during Trump’s first term, is under investigation regarding his mortgages and personal finances. This probe, conducted by prosecutors in Maryland, is now itself being investigated regarding the roles of Justice Department official Ed Martin and FHFA director Pulte.
White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has openly acknowledged the retaliatory nature of some of these actions, telling Vanity Fair, “There may be an element of that from time to time. Who would blame him? Not me.”
As these investigations continue, questions intensify about the administration’s use of federal law enforcement power against political opponents – precisely the practice Trump promised to end during his inaugural address.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
This seems like a concerning escalation of tensions between the Trump administration and state/local officials. I hope the investigation is conducted in a fair and impartial manner, without any political motivations.
Well said. Maintaining the integrity of federal institutions is critical, regardless of political affiliations.
Interesting development, though it raises concerns about the use of federal power against political opponents. I wonder if there is more to this story than what is presented here. A balanced and fair application of the law is crucial for a healthy democracy.
I agree, the weaponization of federal agencies against political adversaries is a worrying trend. Transparency and due process are essential to maintain public trust.
While the allegations are serious, the use of federal power against political adversaries is a dangerous precedent. I hope the investigation is handled with the utmost professionalism and objectivity.
Well said. Maintaining the independence and impartiality of federal agencies is critical for a healthy democracy.
The targeting of state and local officials by the federal government is a concerning development that warrants close monitoring. I hope the investigation is conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
This situation highlights the delicate balance between federal and state/local authority. I’m curious to learn more about the specific allegations and the legal rationale behind the subpoenas.
Agreed. Transparency and due process are essential to maintain public trust in the integrity of government institutions.
The use of federal power to target political opponents is troubling and could undermine democratic norms. I hope the details of this case are thoroughly examined to ensure a just and unbiased outcome.
This situation highlights the ongoing tensions between the federal government and state/local authorities. I’m curious to see how the investigation unfolds and whether the concerns about political motivations are substantiated.