Donald Trump is now openly using the power of government to pursue criminal charges against individuals he considers political adversaries — including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. For many legal experts and historians, this represents a deeply troubling moment, as it raises the specter of presidential power being used as a tool of retaliation.
Despite attempts from Trump supporters to compare these prosecutions to Trump’s own legal cases under President Joe Biden, the situations are fundamentally different. Biden has kept distance from Trump’s indictments, while Trump has been personally and directly involved in demanding action against his rivals.
Yet this aggressive legal counteroffensive from Trump could wind up offering a revealing test case for his long-standing accusations against others. After years of calling for prosecutions against his enemies without ever producing evidence, Trump will now actually have to justify these charges in courtrooms—neutral venues bound by legal standards rather than political theater.
There remains a real chance, however, that the prosecutions will collapse. Many career prosecutors reportedly believed the cases against Comey and James lacked legal merit. If these efforts ultimately fail, they could expose the cases as being little more than politically motivated vendettas.
Weak foundations from the start
Reports across major news outlets, including CNN, show that numerous prosecutors refused to participate in the cases, suggesting they saw no path to conviction. The indictments lacked signatures from veteran prosecutors, and even some of Trump’s loyalists inside the Justice Department—such as Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche—expressed hesitation.
To advance the cases anyway, Trump removed a U.S. attorney he had previously appointed, Erik Siebert, after Siebert resisted moving forward. In Siebert’s place, Trump installed Lindsey Halligan, a loyalist attorney with little courtroom experience, especially in federal trials. Halligan reportedly bypassed senior DOJ officials in the James case, and now faces a formidable legal opponent in the Comey prosecution: former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
Although grand juries approved charges against both Comey and James, such approval is hardly proof of strength—a grand jury indictment only requires minimal evidence. In fact, The Washington Post previously found that federal grand juries decline to indict in less than 0.01% of cases. Even so, one of the charges against Comey was rejected entirely—a rare outcome.
Legal analysts also expect motions to dismiss both cases, arguing they are examples of “vindictive prosecution.” Since Trump openly pressured prosecutors to target Comey and James, judges may find evidence of political interference. There are also procedural challenges regarding Halligan’s appointment, which could invalidate the prosecutions altogether.
As for the actual charges, the details remain vague. The indictment against Letitia James reportedly involves a real estate transaction unrelated to previous investigations flagged by Trump’s team. Meanwhile, conservatives and liberals alike have criticized the Comey case, questioning whether the allegedly false statements to Congress were even crimes.
Trump’s history of politically inspired prosecutions isn’t promising
There is precedent for Trump pushing criminal investigations for political purposes—and the results haven’t been good. Special Counsel John Durham, appointed under Trump to probe the origins of the Russia investigation, lost two of his three cases in court. Another prosecution, against Democratic attorney Geoffrey Craig, was widely believed to have been filed due to political pressure; Craig was quickly acquitted.
If the same pattern unfolds here, failed prosecutions could backfire dramatically by reinforcing arguments that Trump is abusing legal power. The contrast would be especially stark since the Trump-related cases brought by state and federal authorities have resulted in convictions—including Trump’s own conviction in New York.
Public opinion shows Trump is taking bigger risks
Despite Trump’s insistence that he is simply fighting back, most Americans view his actions differently. A Pew Research survey found that 62% of Americans—and even 40% of Republican-leaning voters—believe Trump has improperly pushed for investigations into political opponents. When Trump himself was indicted, fewer than half of Americans believed Biden was behind the prosecutions.
Could Trump still benefit—even if he loses?
For Trump, legal defeat may not matter. His goal may not be convictions at all. By dragging his critics into expensive, stressful, and public legal battles, he sends a warning: anyone who challenges him will pay a personal price.
Trump has long used lawsuits and legal threats to intimidate critics in politics, media, business, and higher education. Even if Comey and James win in court, Trump can still rally his supporters by claiming he is a victim of a biased judicial system—especially since both cases were randomly assigned to judges appointed by President Biden, a fact Trump has already used to allege conspiracy.
Trump’s supporters already believe he is under constant persecution from “deep state” prosecutors. Now Trump may be trying to turn that belief into justification for escalating political warfare in the legal arena.
The result may be a defining moment for American democracy—not just because Trump broke precedent, but because those who follow him may feel free to do the same.