The recent casual acknowledgement by the White House Chief of Staff that the President is engaged in prosecutorial “score settling” marks a dangerous departure from the rule-of-law norms that restrain executive power in a constitutional democracy. This admission that the State is using its legal authority to punish perceived enemies is antithetical to core Constitutional principles and the rule of law.
The American experiment was built on the rejection of personal rule and political revenge, replacing it with laws that bind even those who hold the highest offices. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” The essence of these words can be found in our Constitution that deliberately placed power in the hands of three co-equal branches of government–Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.
In the past year, however, the executive branch has asserted its power in ways that undermine the core founding principles of this country by weaponizing agencies and authorities throughout government to take actions based on personal vendettas, rather than the interests of the American people. The nation’s once exalted law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice, has diminished itself through its complicity, targeting individuals and institutions at the direction of the White House.
Examples of retributive actions taken by the administration
-On January 11, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell revealed that he is under criminal investigation in connection with the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. Powell called the threatened criminal indictment charges “pretexts” and “a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.” This provoked a rare rebuke from Senator Thom Tillis, who sits on the Senate Committee overseeing nominations for the Fed: “If there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump Administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none. It is now the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice that are in question.”
-The administration has removed security clearances from numerous individuals against whom the President had grievances, including former US Presidents, CIA chiefs, and other officials. As of November 2025, 470 individuals and organizations had been subjected to some form of retribution.
-The Department of Justice has investigated and sought to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James at the apparent direction of the President based on his desire to seek retribution against them.
-After Senator Mark Kelly and five other members of Congress posted a video reminding U.S. military members that they are obligated to not follow illegal orders, the President called their statements “seditious behavior punishable by death." The Pentagon escalated a military review of the Senator, and on Jan. 5, 2026, sent him a letter of censure, initiating the process of demoting him. The President has called for all those in the video to be “arrested and put on trial."
How do we know that this is retribution?
We know these actions reflect retribution because the White House has been explicit about personal motives. The President sent a direct message over social media to Attorney General Pam Bondi, instructing her to initiate actions against James Comey, Letitia James, and Senator Adam Schiff (Truth Social, Sept 20, 2025), stating: “…What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Letitia??? They’re all guilty as hell… JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles confirmed this behavior in a Vanity Fair interview where she stated, “We have a loose agreement that the score settling will end before the first 90 days are over.”
Why does this matter?
Trust in our government requires a belief that it exercises its authority based on facts and the law, not on politics or revenge. Indeed, the framework of our entire form of government was designed to ensure that no one can direct government actions based on personal agendas. When the Department of Justice and other government agencies behave arbitrarily and launch vindictive investigations and prosecutions, we are all at risk of being wrongly punished.
Retaliatory prosecutions, such as those cited above, violate key elements of our Constitution, for example:
· The First Amendment by punishing speech and/or association.
· The Due Process clause, which was designed to ensure that the law is applied to everyone equally.
· Separation of Powers, if the investigation lacks a legitimate law enforcement purpose or is done in retribution or to coerce or undermine the role of a member of Congress.
It is a long-held principle in this country that our justice system cannot be used to advance a personal agenda. Unfair retaliatory actions place everyone’s rights and freedoms at risk – even people who have no connection to the target.
What can we do?
We must all speak up and explain the dangers of a weaponized government.
1. Remind people that the federal government works for them. The people have a right to know what the government is doing–and to make sure it is following the facts and not a government leader’s personal or political agenda. The government is not there to do one individual’s bidding, even if that individual was elected by the people.
2. Speak out when learning of government retaliation. Doing so reminds those in office that public power is not a personal weapon for revenge.
Why we all must act now
The greatest danger of retaliatory use of government power is not any single investigation or individual target, but the precedent it sets. When retaliation becomes normalized—when investigations, prosecutions, or administrative punishments are understood as tools for settling political or personal scores—it reshapes incentives throughout government in a way that is dangerous to all of us.
In particular, career officials learn that independence carries risk, dissent invites punishment, and loyalty to individuals matters more than fidelity to law. Over time, this corrodes public trust in the justice system itself, chills lawful speech and opposition, and weakens the institutional safeguards that protect everyone’s rights.
All of us all have a responsibility to speak out and demand that our leaders follow the Constitution and the law.
Lauren Stiller Rikleen, Susan Rubel, Amanda Cats-Baril, and Arabella Meyer are the leadership team for the Meeting the Moment initiative of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, an organization dedicated to galvanizing lawyers and other members of the public “to defend the rule of law in the face of an unprecedented threat to American Democracy.” Its work is not political or partisan.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.