If Donald Trump were to win the 2024 election, he could attempt unprecedented actions to prosecute a wide array of political opponents and officials, having already voiced intentions to target at least 16 rival politicians, numerous military and intelligence officers, tech moguls, and other influential figures.
Trump’s repeated calls for investigations into perceived political adversaries, coupled with threats against those involved in the 2024 election, signal his desire to wield the Justice Department (DOJ) as a tool for political retribution.
Legal experts worry that such moves would undermine long-established norms that the DOJ operates independently from the White House, a principle reinforced after the abuses of the Nixon administration.
Legal scholars and former DOJ officials have warned that Trump could exploit certain structural weaknesses to carry out these plans. Although there are checks in place to prevent direct presidential influence over federal prosecutors, Trump’s administration could bypass these restrictions by appointing loyalist officials willing to act on his directives.
These officials, especially U.S. attorneys, would be in positions of power across the nation, making it feasible to initiate politically motivated prosecutions. Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney, cautions that a corrupt few in powerful roles can wreak substantial havoc within the DOJ.
Donald Trump
One way Trump could implement his plans is through “Schedule F,” a proposal allowing for the reclassification of thousands of civil servants. This measure would grant the president greater control over hiring, promoting, or firing DOJ personnel, potentially replacing career prosecutors with those who might prioritize political loyalty over legal standards.
Experts argue that even without such drastic steps, Trump’s return could lead to chaos, further polarizing the department and hindering its ability to carry out essential national security responsibilities.
If career DOJ officials resist such initiatives, Trump could turn to special counsels to pursue specific investigations, regardless of DOJ pushback.
Former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade predicts that many DOJ employees would resign rather than comply with politically motivated orders. This scenario could lead to a “loyalist” DOJ where the remaining staff are chosen based on willingness to carry out Trump’s directives, potentially prioritizing political prosecutions over impartial law enforcement.
Trump’s focus on reshaping the DOJ is shared by his running mate, Senator JD Vance, who has publicly criticized the current DOJ as corrupt and suggested that the next attorney general would be pivotal in “cleaning house.”
Vance’s statements underscore a potential agenda where Trump’s administration may sideline or replace existing legal frameworks in favor of partisan objectives. Yet, many current and former DOJ officials dismiss Vance’s claims of systemic DOJ corruption, pointing to current cases against Democrats, which illustrate that the DOJ pursues justice regardless of political affiliation.
Donald Trump
A shortlist of potential attorney general nominees under Trump includes individuals with controversial histories, such as U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who previously dismissed a case against Trump, and Jeffrey Clark, who supported Trump’s unfounded election fraud claims.
The prospect of using acting attorney generals—who can temporarily serve without Senate confirmation—has also been discussed. Trump supporters like Mike Davis have openly advocated for extreme actions, including indicting President Biden and pardoning January 6 defendants, further raising concerns about DOJ partisanship under Trump.
Critics fear that Trump would have little trouble finding attorneys willing to advance his agenda within the DOJ. Legal ethicist Stephen Gillers expresses concern that, even though many lawyers involved in Trump’s 2020 efforts have faced sanctions, the vast pool of American attorneys would likely yield enough individuals willing to compromise DOJ’s impartiality.
The legal community is troubled by a recent Supreme Court decision that affords the president immunity for DOJ-related actions, potentially enabling a president to direct prosecutions against political opponents without legal repercussions.
Historically, DOJ leaders have resisted presidential interference, as in the Watergate scandal when top DOJ officials resigned rather than carry out Nixon’s demands.
While this suggests some hope for DOJ resistance, former officials worry that the DOJ’s independence would be severely tested under a second Trump administration, potentially undermining public trust and significantly hampering the department’s ability to function effectively. The scale of these proposed changes raises questions about whether the DOJ could retain its integrity or would become a tool of partisan influence.
