Seven months into his second term, President Donald Trump is at the center of a political firestorm over his use of presidential power. Critics argue that Trump, once a vocal opponent of what he called a "weaponized deep state," is now wielding the full force of the U.S. government to pursue personal grievances, punish perceived enemies, and advance his agenda. Supporters, meanwhile, see his actions as a bold fulfillment of campaign promises and a necessary assertion of executive authority.
According to the Associated Press, Trump’s approach to power can be summed up by his favorite poker analogy: “We have much bigger and better cards than they do.” This worldview has been on full display since January, as Trump has rapidly expanded the boundaries of presidential authority. His administration has targeted universities, media companies, law firms, and individuals, using tools that many observers say cross traditional constitutional lines.
One of the most striking examples came in early September 2025, when hundreds of federal agents and National Guard troops were deployed across Washington, D.C. Trump invoked a rarely used law that allowed him to centralize control over law enforcement in the nation’s capital. According to Reuters, he threatened similar interventions in other major cities led by Democrats, including Baltimore, Chicago, New York, and New Orleans.
The administration’s reach has extended far beyond city streets. Trump fired a Federal Reserve governor over unproven allegations of mortgage fraud, a move that stunned financial observers and raised questions about the independence of key economic institutions. He also threatened to block a stadium plan for the Washington Commanders football team unless the team readopted its former, racially charged moniker—a demand that reignited a long-running debate over sports, race, and political interference.
Universities have not escaped the administration’s attention. Billions of dollars in federal research funds were revoked, and international students at elite institutions faced new hurdles. Under pressure, Columbia University agreed to a $220 million settlement, while the University of Pennsylvania revoked records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas. The presidents of the University of Virginia and Northwestern University resigned amid mounting scrutiny. According to Newslooks, these actions were widely interpreted as direct responses to perceived slights or opposition from these institutions.
Legal professionals have also found themselves in the crosshairs. Trump’s administration revoked security clearances and sought to block government facility access for attorneys at law firms he disfavors. On March 6, 2025, he signed a sweeping order targeting a prominent law firm representing Democrats. Just a month later, he issued presidential memoranda directing the Justice Department to investigate two officials from his first administration, Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor.
Media organizations have faced their own battles. The administration secured multimillion-dollar settlements in lawsuits that many legal analysts considered weak cases. Critics argue that these legal actions are designed to intimidate and silence dissenting voices in the press, while supporters claim they are necessary to counteract what they see as biased reporting.
The Justice Department, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has also been drawn into the fray. Bondi convened a grand jury to review the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation and appointed a special prosecutor to scrutinize New York Attorney General Letitia James and U.S. Senator Adam Schiff—both prominent Trump critics. These moves, according to Associated Press and Newslooks, are seen by many as part of a broader campaign to settle political scores.
Even local officials have not been immune. Trump dropped corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams in exchange for Adams’ cooperation on immigration enforcement. Federal employees, including prosecutors involved in cases against Trump, have been fired or reassigned, further fueling concerns about the politicization of the justice system.
All of this marks a dramatic shift from Trump’s 2024 campaign rhetoric. Back then, he railed against what he called “the Biden administration’s weaponized Department of Injustice” and promised to end government persecution. “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on August 4, 2023. In a November 2023 interview with Univision, he said, “If I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say, ‘Go down and indict them.’” Asked on Fox News whether he would use power responsibly, he replied in December that year that he would not be a dictator “except on day one.”
After his second inauguration in January 2025, Trump declared, “Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents — something I know something about.” He repeated this message in subsequent speeches, insisting that he had put an end to government weaponization. Yet, as the months have unfolded, his actions have told a different story.
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields rejects the charge of weaponization. “What the nation is witnessing today is the execution of the most consequential administration in American history,” Fields said. “One that is embracing common sense, putting America first, and fulfilling the mandate of the American people.”
This divide is reflected in public reactions. Trump’s base, according to University of Kansas sociologist David N. Smith, sees these moves as a long-overdue counterattack in the culture wars. “They didn’t like it when the state was mobilized to restrain Trump, but they’re happy to see the state acting to fight the culture war on their behalf,” Smith told Associated Press.
Critics, however, warn that Trump’s aggressive tactics are eroding the guardrails that protect American democracy. Political theorist Steven Lukes argues that Trump exemplifies all three dimensions of power: coercion, agenda control, and preference-shaping. Lukes adds that Trump’s innovation is “epistemic liberation”—a willingness to make up facts without evidence. “This idea that you can just say things that aren’t true, and then it doesn’t matter to your followers and to a lot of other people ... that seems to me a new thing,” Lukes said.
The contrast between Trump’s campaign promises and his governing style has never been more apparent. No longer hemmed in by tradition-bound lawyers, Congress, or the courts, Trump is testing—and, some say, redefining—the limits of presidential power. For his supporters, it’s a show of strength and resolve. For his detractors, it’s a dangerous precedent that could reshape American politics for years to come.
As the nation watches, the debate over the weaponization of government continues to rage, with both sides convinced the stakes could not be higher.
