On September 26, 2025, the U.S. political landscape was rocked by the criminal indictment of former FBI director James Comey—a move that has ignited fierce debate over the independence of the Justice Department and the scope of presidential power. The case, which many see as the latest salvo in a campaign of retribution against perceived enemies of President Donald Trump, has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, former prosecutors, and elected officials across the spectrum.
Comey, who led the FBI during some of the most turbulent years in recent American history, now finds himself at the center of a legal storm. The indictment, handed down in Virginia federal court, charges him with making false statements to Congress and obstructing its investigation into the much-scrutinized Russia probe. According to Axios, the charges came just days after President Trump took to Truth Social on September 20, demanding prosecutions not only of Comey but also of Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James—both prominent critics and political adversaries.
“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump posted. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” The Department of Justice, for its part, declined to comment on the president’s public call for action, and the White House also remained silent when pressed by Axios.
Comey, undeterred by the charges, took to Instagram to offer his own response: “We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either.” He also expressed “great confidence in the federal judicial system,” signaling his willingness to fight the charges in open court and clear his name. But as New York Magazine noted, the stakes go far beyond the fate of one man. The indictment is widely seen as a test of the Justice Department’s independence and the boundaries of presidential authority, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.
At the heart of the controversy is a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, in Trump v. United States. The decision granted the president sweeping immunity over official acts and cemented his control over the Justice Department. In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote that the president “may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials,” and even threatening to fire an acting attorney general for disobeying orders falls within the “conclusive and preclusive” authority of the chief executive. “The President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority,” Roberts asserted.
This language, critics argue, has emboldened the Trump administration to pursue politically motivated prosecutions with little fear of judicial oversight. As New York Magazine observed, the ruling “categorically places the president in direct control of the attorney general, her Justice Department, and any other federal prosecutor down the chain of command.” The administration is already invoking the decision to justify other controversial actions, such as the unprecedented attempt to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve board—a move that has alarmed economists and former government officials alike.
The reverberations of the Comey indictment extend well beyond his own case. President Trump has made no secret of his intention to target other political opponents. On September 26, he told reporters, “I think there'll be others. I mean, they're corrupt. These were corrupt, radical left Democrats.” Both Adam Schiff and Letitia James have found themselves in the president’s crosshairs. Schiff, who led the first impeachment inquiry into Trump and played a key role in the January 6 investigation, called the indictment “a blatant abuse” of the Justice Department, writing on X that “the DOJ is now little more than an arm of the president’s retribution campaign.” Letitia James has also accused the administration of weaponizing the government after she was referred for potential prosecution for alleged mortgage fraud—a charge she has vigorously denied.
The pattern is clear: a president emboldened by legal precedent, a Justice Department led by loyalists, and a growing list of political adversaries facing investigation or indictment. Former DOJ prosecutor Ryan R. Crosswell, who resigned earlier this year over the dismissal of federal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, minced no words in his assessment. Speaking to CNN, Crosswell called Comey’s indictment “a continuation of the abuse of power” he had witnessed firsthand. “You have a president who put out an enemies list essentially, then prevailed upon his Attorney General to pursue one of the people on that list, which he did, and now you have the Attorney General saying that there’ll be more to come.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi, for her part, defended the department’s actions. Posting on X, she declared, “No one is above the law,” emphasizing the DOJ’s “commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people.” But Crosswell found that claim “the most galling part about all this,” pointing to what he sees as selective law enforcement that favors Trump’s allies. “Eric Adams is above the law. Tom Homan is above the law. Apparently, anybody in the Epstein files is above the law and really, anyone who’s a friend of Donald Trump’s is above the law,” Crosswell told CNN’s Laura Coates.
The role of the new acting U.S. Attorney in Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, has also come under scrutiny. Crosswell questioned her experience and the quality of the indictment she presented to the grand jury, describing it as “so sloppy, the paragraphs were misnumbered, and there was two ‘count twos’.” He noted that Halligan’s background was in insurance law, not criminal prosecution, and suggested she was left to handle the case alone because “no one else in the office is willing to do it.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s aggressive posture extends to civil litigation as well. Letitia James, who brought a high-profile civil fraud case against Trump that resulted in a $465 million fine (later overturned on appeal), has been a frequent target of presidential ire. Trump has accused both James and Schiff of corruption and mortgage fraud, using these allegations as political cudgels. Schiff, in turn, has dismissed these attacks as “baseless attempts” to smear him.
As the legal and political battles unfold, the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States loom large. The ruling has not only shielded the president from prosecution for official acts but also, critics argue, given him a “sword” to wield against his adversaries. The Justice Department’s ongoing investigations—reportedly including more than six U.S. attorney offices looking into the George Soros-funded Open Society Foundations—underscore the extent to which prosecutorial power is now seen as a tool of presidential authority.
For many observers, the Comey indictment is a watershed moment—a test of whether the federal judicial system can withstand political pressure and uphold the rule of law. Comey himself remains defiant, insisting on his faith in the courts. But as the nation watches the drama play out, the broader question persists: can the guardrails of American democracy hold when the very institutions meant to provide checks and balances are themselves under siege?
