Trump's DOJ Now a Weapon Against Political Foes

A year into Donald Trump's second term, the Justice Department has become his private law firm. The chairman of the Federal Reserve disclosed that the DOJ attempted to blackmail him into lowering interest rates with the threat of a federal indictment. The governor of Minnesota, the mayor of Minneapolis, the former FBI director, the New York attorney general, and a member of the Federal Reserve Board all face indictment or investigation for opposing or challenging the president.

Federal authorities refused to investigate a masked government agent who shot an unarmed woman in the face in Minneapolis. Half a dozen federal prosecutors resigned after being pushed to investigate the woman's widow instead.

The Supreme Court's 2024 decision granting presidents absolute immunity for official acts gives Trump cover. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that allegations that requested investigations were shams or pursued for an improper purpose do not strip the president of exclusive authority over the Justice Department's investigative and prosecutorial functions. Legal experts told The Atlantic the ruling effectively lets Trump direct prosecutions against his enemies without fear of criminal liability.

"When Trump says Article II lets me do whatever I want, that's exactly how he hears what the Court has said," Peter Shane, a law professor at NYU, told The Atlantic. "And it's very hard, given the Court's wording, to explain to him, no, that's wrong."

The attempt to pressure Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell marks the most direct threat to central bank independence in modern U.S. history. Markets have long priced in the Fed's insulation from political pressure as a foundational assumption. A credible threat to that independence would likely raise risk premiums on U.S. sovereign debt, weaken the dollar, and unanchor inflation expectations. Investors and foreign central banks view the Fed's autonomy as a key reason for the dollar's reserve currency status.

The Justice Department has not confirmed the blackmail attempt. Powell's disclosure came in a public forum. The New York Times reported that the week before Powell's revelation, Trump told dozens of U.S. attorneys they were too weak and needed to step up the pace of investigations of his enemies.

Legal experts noted that the prohibition on presidents directing specific prosecutions has always been more a norm than a requirement. "There have obviously been moments in our history where various different administrations have pushed their ability to influence the Department of Justice," Rebecca Roiphe, a former prosecutor and law professor at New York Law School, told The Atlantic. Since Watergate, every attorney general has reiterated the importance of DOJ independence during confirmation hearings, she said.

Trump's public demand on Truth Social in September that Attorney General Pam Bondi indict Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James shows the direct line from the White House to specific cases. "A subtler authoritarian might try to keep his lawless directives secret," Roiphe said. "The only reason why we are so aware of this is because President Trump has just not been even remotely shy about the fact that he's doing this."

Michael Bromwich, a former DOJ inspector general, told The Atlantic that attorneys general historically believed in a Justice Department where law-enforcement decisions were made on the facts and the law. Independence is "the only thing that can give the country the belief that decisions that can ruin people's lives are being made fairly by people who are weighing the evidence" instead of according to a political agenda or a personal vendetta, Todd Peterson, a law professor at George Washington University, said.

The only obstacles so far have come from outside the executive branch: juries refusing to indict or convict, and courts maintaining proper legal procedure despite pressure. The judiciary can set its own ethical guidelines. Under the logic of the Supreme Court ruling, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law restricting the executive branch to ensure DOJ independence. That would require a constitutional amendment.

Bill Barr, who threatened to resign in 2020 over Trump's DOJ remarks, at least had "an ethos," the article notes. Pam Bondi does not. The current attorney general has shown no resistance to Trump's directives.

Corporate directors and executives face heightened legal exposure. Any company whose policies or statements have been critical of the president could become a target. The uncertainty itself is a tax on business investment and risk-taking. Sectors most exposed include financials, where regulatory decisions can be weaponized, and media companies whose coverage has drawn Trump's ire.

The New York Times reported that Trump had told dozens of U.S. attorneys to step up the pace of investigations of his enemies. Roiphe put it plainly: "It's not clear that the public would ever know that this was going on."