In a series of sweeping moves that have sent shockwaves through Washington, President Donald Trump and his administration have escalated their campaign against perceived political adversaries, employing the levers of government to target both prominent public officials and career intelligence professionals. Over the past week, the administration has leveled serious allegations of mortgage fraud against high-profile Democrats while simultaneously revoking the security clearances of dozens of current and former national security officials, deepening concerns about the politicization of federal power.
On September 5, 2025, President Trump’s administration publicly accused several of his political opponents—most notably Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook and New York Attorney General Letitia James—of committing mortgage fraud by listing multiple properties as their primary residences. According to theGrio.com, the allegations led Bill Pulte, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to issue criminal referrals to the U.S. Department of Justice. Pulte’s message was clear and unyielding: “Fraud will not be tolerated in President Trump’s housing market.”
Letitia James, who earlier this year successfully prosecuted Trump in a civil fraud case related to his real estate business, became a focal point in April when she was referred for criminal investigation. The accusation: allegedly claiming both a Virginia property and her New York residence as primary homes. The administration’s dragnet also ensnared Democratic U.S. Senator Adam Schiff of California, a longtime antagonist of Trump, who was accused of similar mortgage fraud for a property purchased in Maryland.
Yet, as the administration’s rhetoric about rooting out fraud intensified, a new investigative report from ProPublica revealed a striking twist: at least three members of Trump’s own Cabinet—Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin—have also listed multiple homes as their primary residences on mortgage records. For example, Secretary Chavez-DeRemer maintains two primary residences, including a vacation property near an Arizona country club, while Secretary Duffy and Administrator Zeldin each have primary-residence mortgages in both the D.C. area and their home states.
When pressed about this apparent double standard, a White House spokesperson told ProPublica, “Secretary DeRemer, Secretary Duffy, and Administrator Zeldin own multiple residences, and they have followed the law and they are fully compliant with all ethical obligations.” The spokesperson drew a sharp distinction, adding, “Unlike [Fed Gov.] Lisa ‘Corrupt’ Cook, who blatantly and intentionally committed mortgage fraud.” The administration dismissed the investigative report as a “hit piece,” accusing ProPublica of attempting to “smear President Trump’s incredible Cabinet members.”
However, the legal basis for the administration’s accusations appears shaky. Real estate experts cited by ProPublica noted that claiming multiple primary residences on different mortgages at the same time is often legal and rarely prosecuted, a nuance that throws the administration’s aggressive approach into question.
Joel Payne, a Democratic strategist, voiced alarm at what he described as targeted attacks, particularly against Black women in positions of power. “The weaponization of government and the weaponization of the law, and of the idiosyncrasies of the law—that’s what this administration becomes very proficient at…they’re shameless about it,” Payne told theGrio.com. He emphasized that the focus on Lisa Cook and Letitia James, apart from Senator Schiff, “feels like an intentional targeting of Black people, specifically Black women.” Payne lamented that aside from public shaming and sporadic litigation, there is little recourse to halt what he sees as an abuse of executive power: “And it’s not just abusing power to target their political enemies. It’s abusing power to enact a very unpopular political agenda.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s campaign against dissent has extended beyond the realm of housing and into the heart of the national security establishment. On September 2, 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced the revocation of security clearances for 37 current and former national security officials, as reported by the Associated Press. The memo from Gabbard accused the targeted individuals of “politicization or weaponization of intelligence” for personal or partisan gain, failure to safeguard classified information, and other unspecified “detrimental” conduct. Notably, the memo did not provide concrete evidence to support these accusations.
Many of those whose clearances were stripped had left government service years ago, some after working on matters that have long irked Trump—most prominently, the intelligence community’s 2017 assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit his campaign. Several of the targeted officials had also signed a 2019 letter critical of Trump, a move highlighted recently on social media by his ally Laura Loomer.
The White House’s use of clearance revocations as a tool of retribution has become increasingly common, with critics warning of a chilling effect on the intelligence community’s willingness to offer candid, dissenting views. Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer who lost his own clearance in the sweep, condemned the move, stating, “These are unlawful and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well-settled, decades-old laws and policies that sought to protect against just this type of action.”
Defending the decision, Gabbard asserted on X (formerly Twitter), “Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right. Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold.”
The clearance revocations coincide with a broader push by the Trump administration to revisit and declassify documents related to the 2017 intelligence community assessment of Russian election interference. Despite multiple government investigations concluding that Russia did, in fact, interfere in sweeping fashion—including through hacking Democratic emails and orchestrating a social media campaign to sway public opinion—Trump has consistently rejected the idea that Russian President Vladimir Putin acted on his behalf. His Justice Department has even authorized a grand jury probe that could bring renewed scrutiny to officials from the Obama era.
In a further escalation, Trump has previously revoked the security clearances of high-profile Democrats, including former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, and has attempted to do the same for lawyers at prominent law firms—efforts that were ultimately blocked by federal judges.
For many in Washington, the message is unmistakable: the administration is willing to wield its power to punish dissent and reward loyalty, even at the risk of undermining long-standing norms and the impartiality of federal institutions. Some of those caught in the latest clearance purge, including members of Biden’s national security team, only learned of the action through news reports. The uncertainty has left many pondering legal action, though the path forward remains unclear.
As the administration doubles down on its campaign against perceived enemies, the boundaries between legitimate oversight and political retribution have grown increasingly blurred. Whether these tactics will withstand legal scrutiny—or further erode trust in the nation’s governing institutions—remains to be seen. For now, the reverberations are being felt across the capital, as officials and observers alike grapple with a new era of government power wielded with unapologetic force.