On August 10, 2025, the political landscape in the United States was once again thrust into turmoil as former National Security Advisor John Bolton leveled a pointed accusation against President Donald Trump. Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Bolton didn’t mince words, describing Trump’s second term as a “retribution presidency.” The charge, aired during an interview with host Jonathan Karl, was more than a passing remark—it was a direct response to what Bolton and many legal observers see as an escalating campaign of political retaliation from the White House.
Karl, setting the stage, asked Bolton about Trump’s ongoing “retribution campaign” targeting his perceived enemies within the FBI and the Justice Department. The question was pointed: was Bolton worried that he might be next? Bolton’s answer was unequivocal. “Well, I think he’s already come after me and several others in withdrawing the protection that we had for the—” he began, referencing the security measures previously in place for officials involved in the 2020 targeted killing of Iranian commander Qasem Suleimani. Karl interjected to clarify, “The Iranian threat.” Bolton confirmed, “For the Iranians for the attack on Qasem Suleimani. So I think, and I said in the new forward to the paperback edition of my book, I think it is a retribution presidency.”
Bolton’s comments didn’t emerge in a vacuum. They landed amid a flurry of headlines, many of which were already scrutinizing the Trump administration’s latest maneuvers. As reported by Raw Story and analyzed by legal commentators across the spectrum, Trump’s appointment of longtime ally Ed Martin as special counsel to investigate Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James has been met with a mixture of ridicule, disbelief, and deep concern from legal experts and political observers alike.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly claimed that the Department of Justice was being “weaponized” against him, particularly in connection with investigations into his retention of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Now, critics say, he appears to be turning that very accusation on its head—using the machinery of government to pursue those he deems political adversaries.
According to The Atlantic’s legal commentator Quinta Jurecic, the move to appoint Martin as special counsel is both highly unusual and legally questionable. Citing a CNN report, Jurecic noted that a grand jury in Albany, New York, has been convened to investigate Letitia James, focusing on allegations of deprivation of rights against Trump. “My instinct is that they’re going with deprivation of rights under section 242 because Trump was prosecuted under section 241, and this administration operates according to the venerable legal principle of ‘I know you are, but what am I,’” Jurecic wrote on Bluesky. It’s a biting observation, but it underscores a broader sentiment among legal experts: that the use of civil rights statutes in this context is not just rare, but perhaps fundamentally misguided.
Jurecic went on to highlight a New York Times report, which described the invocation of civil rights law—typically reserved for investigating racial, religious, or sex discrimination—as “a highly unusual use” in the context of political retribution. “This is not really how the statute works,” Jurecic concluded, a sentiment echoed by many in the legal community.
Former Justice Department appointee Eric Columbus weighed in as well, questioning the status of a previously reported mortgage fraud investigation against Letitia James. “Unless I missed something, we haven’t heard about that in a while,” Columbus remarked. Jurecic’s reply was curt but telling: “Spaghetti, wall, etc.” The implication? That the Trump administration’s legal strategy is less about the merits of any particular case and more about throwing as many accusations as possible at political foes, hoping something sticks.
Other legal scholars have raised concerns about the procedural legitimacy of Martin’s appointment. National security analyst Marcy Wheeler pointed out that, under Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling, appointing a special prosecutor to investigate James and Schiff “is patently illegal.” Wheeler was even more direct in her criticism of Martin’s credentials, noting, “All the better given that he was pointedly NOT confirmed.” The lack of Senate confirmation for Martin’s appointment adds another layer of controversy to an already fraught situation.
Constitutional scholar Robert Black offered a broader perspective, noting that Trump’s tendency to accuse others of the very infractions he’s been accused of—such as “election interference”—reflects a pattern of deflection and projection. “He latched onto that phrase as a Bad Thing after 2016 but he doesn’t actually understand it or why it’s bad,” Black commented. The suggestion is that Trump’s retribution campaign isn’t just about settling scores; it’s about muddying the waters, blurring the lines between legitimate legal inquiry and personal vendetta.
The grand jury probe into Letitia James, focused on deprivation of rights, is particularly noteworthy because it mirrors some of the very statutes used to prosecute Trump himself. As The Atlantic and Raw Story both report, this tit-for-tat approach has led many to question whether the administration’s actions are driven by genuine legal concerns or by an impulse for revenge. The use of section 242—a civil rights law more commonly applied to cases of discrimination—has been described as “not really how the statute works,” raising eyebrows even among those with no love lost for Trump’s political opponents.
For many observers, these developments are emblematic of a broader pattern: the use of government power to pursue personal and political vendettas. Bolton’s characterization of Trump’s presidency as one defined by “retribution” resonates with the concerns raised by legal analysts, constitutional scholars, and former Justice Department officials. The pattern is clear—Trump’s administration has embarked on a series of retaliatory investigations, targeting those who have crossed him or challenged his authority, from high-profile figures like Schiff and James to former insiders like Bolton himself.
Of course, not everyone sees these moves as purely vindictive. Some of Trump’s supporters argue that the investigations are a necessary corrective to what they perceive as years of politically motivated attacks against the former president. They point to the various probes into Trump’s conduct as evidence of a double standard, insisting that turnabout is fair play. But for many others, the spectacle of a president using the levers of power to target his enemies is a troubling sign for American democracy.
As the dust settles on another week of high-stakes political drama, one thing is clear: the debate over retribution, revenge, and the proper use of government authority is far from over. With legal analysts, former officials, and political commentators weighing in from all sides, the nation is left to grapple with the implications of a presidency that, in the words of one of its most prominent critics, seems increasingly defined by its quest for payback.
The story of Trump’s “retribution presidency” isn’t just about one man’s grievances or one administration’s tactics. It’s about the enduring tension between justice and vengeance, the rule of law and the rule of power. And as the investigations, accusations, and counter-accusations continue to unfold, Americans are left to wonder: where does accountability end, and retribution begin?
