On September 22, 2025, the White House found itself at the center of a political firestorm, doubling down on President Trump’s demands for the prosecution of several of his most prominent critics. The move comes just eight months after Trump’s inaugural address, in which he declared that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would "never again" be used to target political opponents. Yet, the events of the past weekend and the administration’s subsequent defense have raised alarms across the political spectrum, igniting fierce debate about the nature of accountability, the specter of political retribution, and the future of American democracy.
During a press briefing on Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt faced pointed questions about whether the president was reneging on his promise to end the weaponization of the DOJ. The queries stemmed from Trump’s recent posts on Truth Social, where he urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to expedite prosecutions against former FBI director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and New York Attorney General Letitia James—all of whom have played pivotal roles in investigating Trump for alleged wrongdoing.
"We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me five times over nothing. Justice must be served now!" Trump wrote, his frustration palpable. The president’s demand was not merely rhetorical; it followed the resignation of U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert on September 19, 2025, who reportedly stepped down under pressure after declining to prosecute Letitia James, citing insufficient evidence of criminal conduct.
Leavitt, for her part, was unequivocal in her defense of the administration’s actions. "It is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand accountability for those who weaponize the Department of Justice," she told reporters, as reported by Axios. She went further, accusing critics and media figures of "gaslighting" the public. "We are not going to tolerate gaslighting from anyone in the media or from anyone on the other side who is trying to say that it’s the president who is weaponizing the DOJ," Leavitt insisted. She added, "[Trump] wants accountability for these corrupt fraudsters who abused their power, who abused their oath of office, to target the former president and then candidate for the highest office in the land."
On Fox News Channel the same evening, Leavitt sharpened her rhetoric, labeling Letitia James as "actively and openly engaged in lawfare"—a term increasingly used by Trump loyalists to describe what they see as the legal harassment of political figures. According to Fox News, Leavitt’s appearance was part of a broader effort to frame the administration’s push as a necessary correction to what they argue was years of partisan misuse of the DOJ under previous administrations.
But the president’s pressure campaign has not gone unchallenged, and the backlash has been both swift and bipartisan. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), while calling the dropped charges against Trump "lawfare," nonetheless cautioned, "it’s also wrong if Republicans do it." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was even more direct, warning that Trump’s actions were steering the country "down the path to a dictatorship." As Axios reported, these warnings reflect deep concerns about the precedent being set and the potential erosion of democratic norms.
The administration’s justification for its actions hinges on a narrative of restoring "accountability" to the DOJ. Leavitt, when pressed by reporters about the apparent contradiction between Trump’s inaugural pledge and his current demands, replied, "No. In fact the president is fulfilling his promise to restore a Department of Justice that demands accountability. It is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand accountability for those who weaponized the Department of Justice." She specifically accused Adam Schiff, James Comey, and Letitia James of "abusing their power and targeting Trump," arguing that the president’s frustration is both justified and rooted in a desire to right past wrongs.
Yet, critics argue that this rationale is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize political retribution. A scathing analysis published by The New Republic accused Leavitt of engaging in "mental gymnastics" to justify actions that amount to a "crackdown on free speech." The article pointed to other instances of Trump allegedly using state power to target critics—not just at the DOJ, but also at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The president reportedly pressured FCC Chair Brendan Carr to take action against ABC and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel for negative reporting, declaring such coverage "really illegal" on September 19, 2025. "Ninety-seven, 94, 95, 96 percent of the people are against me in the sense of the newscasts, are against me.… They’ll take a great story, and they’ll make it bad," Trump said on Friday. "See, I think that’s really illegal, personally."
For many observers, this pattern of behavior raises troubling questions about the boundaries between legitimate oversight and the abuse of executive power. The fact that U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert resigned after allegedly refusing to prosecute Letitia James due to lack of evidence only adds fuel to the fire. While the White House maintains that such actions are about restoring trust and credibility to the justice system, detractors see them as evidence of a broader campaign to silence dissent and punish adversaries.
As the debate rages, the American public is left to grapple with the implications. On one hand, the administration’s supporters argue that holding those who "weaponized" the DOJ accountable is essential for restoring faith in government institutions. On the other, critics warn that the relentless pursuit of political opponents, especially in the absence of clear evidence, risks undermining the very foundations of democracy. The bipartisan nature of the pushback—featuring voices from both the left and the right—underscores the gravity of the moment.
Meanwhile, the story continues to unfold in real time. The White House, when pressed for further comment, referred reporters back to Leavitt’s public statements, declining to elaborate. A representative for former President Biden did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The fate of the investigations into Comey, Schiff, and James remains uncertain, as does the broader trajectory of Trump’s "accountability" campaign.
In the end, the events of September 2025 may well be remembered as a turning point—one that forced the nation to confront uncomfortable questions about power, justice, and the limits of presidential authority. Whether this moment leads to meaningful reform or further polarization remains to be seen, but the stakes could hardly be higher.
