Trump politicizes Justice Department

Why it matters

President Donald Trump’s Justice Department is facing an unusual problem inside the criminal justice system it controls: judges and grand juries are increasingly refusing to go along. The pattern has surfaced across several federal districts as prosecutors pursue cases tied to Trump’s political priorities, including cases against perceived opponents and other high-profile targets. The New York Times reported on May 26 that prosecutors have repeatedly failed to persuade grand juries to approve charges and have also been rebuked by judges for misconduct. Grand juries are typically deferential to prosecutors, making the resistance notable. ### Why is grand-jury resistance getting so much attention? Federal grand juries usually decide only whether probable cause exists, not guilt, and they operate in secret with prosecutors controlling the presentation of evidence. That low bar produced the long-running legal cliché that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict almost anyone. Politico reported on Jan. 7 that majorities of 16 to 23 jurors are enough to return an indictment, and that recent “no bills” in Washington and elsewhere have become a growing obstacle for Trump-era prosecutions. (politomix.com) The New York Times account, as described in secondary reports, said those refusals would have seemed “unthinkable” a year earlier because the department traditionally sought indictments only in cases with strong evidence. Mediaite, summarizing the Times report, said prosecutors have been admonished at least three times since November by federal judges who accused them of misconduct. (politico.com) ### Which cases show the breakdown most clearly? James Comey and Letitia James are among the most prominent examples cited in recent coverage. Mediaite reported that cases against the former FBI director and the New York attorney general were dismissed after a judge found that Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s appointee to lead the Eastern District of Virginia office, had been improperly appointed. It said prosecutors then returned to grand juries, which repeatedly declined to indict both Comey and James. (mediaite.com) Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney in Washington, was also tied to one of the most closely watched failed efforts. The Conversation, citing a Feb. 10 grand-jury decision, said prosecutors sought to indict six Democratic lawmakers after they issued a November 2025 video telling military and intelligence personnel they need not obey illegal orders. The grand jury rejected the request. John E. Jones III, a former federal judge and Dickinson College president, called the broader pattern a “remarkable loss of credibility” with judges and citizens serving on grand juries. (mediaite.com) ### Are judges pushing back too, or only grand juries? Federal judges have also criticized how some cases were brought. Mediaite, again summarizing the Times report, said federal judges had accused prosecutors of misconduct at least three times since November. It also cited a written opinion by federal magistrate judge Zia Faruqui faulting a pattern of errors in Washington prosecutions and noting that more than one in five criminal cases brought by the U.S. attorney’s office there had been dismissed, compared with 0.5% over the previous decade. (theconversation.com) Chicago, Los Angeles, Alexandria, Norfolk and Washington, D.C., are among the jurisdictions where Politico said grand juries recently rebuffed federal prosecutors. Kevin Washburn, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told Politico that grand juries are now “on the radar screen” in a way they had not been for a long time. ### What does this mean for prosecutors trying to bring future cases? (mediaite.com) Liz Oyer, the former U.S. pardon attorney who was fired in March, told Politico that grand-jury refusals are a reminder that citizens still have power to resist prosecutors. Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a University of Dayton law professor, told Politico that grand juries had effectively been “resurrected” after years of being treated as passive institutions. Those comments describe a practical problem for the department: prosecutors who lose credibility with judges and grand jurors may face more scrutiny before charges are approved. (politico.com) The next evidence will come from the docket, not from rhetoric. Pending and renewed federal matters involving Comey, Letitia James and other defendants targeted in Trump-backed prosecutions will show whether judges allow the cases to proceed and whether grand juries keep refusing to indict. (mediaite.com) (politico.com)

Key numbers

• The New York Times reported on May 26 that prosecutors have repeatedly failed to persuade grand juries to approve charges and have also been rebuked by judges for misconduct.
• 7 that majorities of 16 to 23 jurors are enough to return an indictment, and that recent “no bills” in Washington and elsewhere have become a growing obstacle for Trump-era prosecutions.
• 10 grand-jury decision, said prosecutors sought to indict six Democratic lawmakers after they issued a November 2025 video telling military and intelligence personnel they need not obey illegal orders.
• attorney’s office there had been dismissed, compared with 0.5% over the previous decade.

What happens next

• The pattern has surfaced across several federal districts as prosecutors pursue cases tied to Trump’s political priorities, including cases against perceived opponents and other high-profile targets.
• The New York Times reported on May 26 that prosecutors have repeatedly failed to persuade grand juries to approve charges and have also been rebuked by judges for misconduct.
• That low bar produced the long-running legal cliché that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict almost anyone.

Sources

• politomix.com
• politico.com
• mediaite.com
• theconversation.com

Quick answers