Retribution and the Machinery of Government: When Presidential Power Becomes Personal

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — October 13, 2026

A president is allowed to have enemies.

He is allowed to criticize them. He is allowed to believe prosecutors treated him unfairly, journalists misrepresented him, universities became ideologically captured, former officials betrayed him, and political opponents abused governmental power.

The Constitution does not require presidential forgiveness.

It does require something considerably more important: the powers of the United States government belong to the United States, not personally to the president.

Donald Trump openly promised retribution before returning to office. During his second presidency, federal authority has subsequently been directed toward numerous people and institutions with histories of opposing, investigating, prosecuting, criticizing or otherwise angering him.

That sequence is evidence worth examining.

It is not, by itself, proof of unconstitutional retaliation.

The constitutional question is narrower: Has Trump used governmental authority to punish perceived personal or political enemies because they are his enemies?

THE EVIDENCE: FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS

Former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were prosecuted after Trump publicly demanded action against adversaries including them. Comey had overseen the FBI investigation involving Trump’s 2016 campaign before Trump fired him. James successfully brought a civil fraud case against Trump and his business after his first presidency (Reuters, 2026a).

Both denied criminal wrongdoing and alleged retaliatory prosecution.

The cases encountered an unusual procedural problem. Lindsey Halligan, a Trump ally and former personal attorney who lacked previous prosecutorial experience, obtained the indictments after the previous U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, left the position amid pressure surrounding the investigations. A federal judge subsequently dismissed the prosecutions after concluding Halligan had been unlawfully appointed. The Justice Department appealed (Reuters, 2026a).

As of September 15, 2026, judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals were considering the government’s attempt to revive those cases (Reuters, 2026a).

Those are documented events.

They do not establish that Comey or James could never legitimately be prosecuted. They do not establish that Trump fabricated evidence. They do not establish, by themselves, that the prosecutions were ordered for retaliatory reasons.

What they establish is a sequence that Congress could legitimately investigate: Trump publicly demanded action against political adversaries; prosecutorial personnel changed; indictments followed; and a federal court later found the prosecutor’s appointment unlawful.

The conclusion that this constituted presidential retribution requires additional evidence concerning motive, direction and prosecutorial decision-making.

THE EVIDENCE: INVESTIGATING THE INVESTIGATORS

The Justice Department has also pursued a criminal investigation examining whether Trump was victimized by a conspiracy involving former federal law-enforcement and intelligence officials.

The investigation has examined matters involving the intelligence assessment concerning Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and the federal investigation involving classified documents retained at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property after his first term. Former CIA Director John Brennan has been informed that he is a target of that investigation (Reuters, 2026b).

Again, the evidence and conclusion must be separated.

Former government officials do not become immune from investigation because they previously investigated a president. If officials committed crimes, the Justice Department has authority to investigate them.

The existence of an investigation therefore does not prove retaliation.

The relevant questions are why particular investigations were initiated, whether normal evidentiary standards were followed, whether career prosecutors supported the decisions, and whether presidential demands influenced prosecutorial judgments.

Those questions require records and testimony.

THE EVIDENCE: TRUMP’S OWN WORDS

Trump’s public statements provide another category of evidence.

He has repeatedly named people he believes wronged him and called for investigations or prosecutions of adversaries. Public presidential statements are not themselves unlawful. Presidents retain broad political and expressive rights.

But statements can become relevant evidence of intent when governmental action subsequently affects the people being discussed.

That does not mean Trump’s rhetoric automatically proves retaliatory motive.

It means Congress examining possible abuse of power would be justified in comparing his statements with subsequent governmental actions.

The sequence matters.

So does evidence establishing who ordered what.

THE EVIDENCE: LAW FIRMS

The administration also took action against major law firms associated with lawyers or causes Trump opposed, including Perkins Coie.

Trump issued executive actions affecting matters including government contracts, security clearances and access to federal facilities.

Perkins Coie challenged the action.

A federal judge struck Trump’s order down, concluding that it violated constitutional protections including the First Amendment. The administration appealed (Reuters, 2025b).

That judicial ruling is evidence considerably stronger than political accusation because a federal court actually evaluated the government’s conduct.

Even here, however, precision matters.

The federal government legitimately controls security clearances, contracts and access to government facilities.

The constitutional problem arises if those authorities are exercised to punish lawyers because of clients they represented or political positions associated with their firms.

A court concluded that constitutional lines had been crossed in the Perkins Coie case.

Whether that episode forms part of a broader presidential system of retaliation is a separate conclusion requiring broader evidence.

THE EVIDENCE: THE PRESS

Trump’s confrontations with news organizations provide another documented example.

During his second term, the White House restricted Associated Press access after the organization declined to adopt Trump’s preferred “Gulf of America” terminology for the Gulf of Mexico.

A federal district judge appointed by Trump concluded that the government likely violated the First Amendment by retaliating against the AP because of its editorial choices and ordered access restored. Subsequent appellate proceedings continued over the scope of White House authority concerning press access (Reuters, 2025c).

The dispute expanded in September 2026 when Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be barred from the White House, describing their reporting as “FAKE NEWS” (Reuters, 2026c).

The affected organizations challenged the decision.

Legal experts told Reuters that Trump’s stated justification created significant First Amendment concerns because government generally cannot distribute access according to whether officials approve of a news organization’s viewpoint (Reuters, 2026d).

Again, evidence and conclusion are different.

The president possesses substantial authority over access to sensitive White House spaces. Journalists do not possess unlimited rights to enter every presidential workspace.

But when the stated reason for excluding particular organizations is their journalism, the First Amendment question becomes substantially different from an ordinary security or logistical decision.

THE EVIDENCE: UNIVERSITIES

Harvard University has also become a major battleground.

The administration has challenged Harvard over federal funding, hiring practices, international students, antisemitism and diversity policies.

Some of those matters fall squarely within legitimate federal authority. Universities receiving federal funds must comply with federal law.

On September 30, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Harvard seeking records connected to an investigation of alleged discriminatory hiring practices. Harvard denies discrimination and has characterized the administration’s broader actions as retaliation for refusing to comply with administration demands concerning academic and hiring policies (Reuters, 2026e).

Harvard’s characterization is an allegation.

The federal investigation is a fact.

Neither proves the other.

Determining whether enforcement is legitimate or retaliatory requires comparing the government’s treatment of Harvard with applicable law, enforcement standards, comparable institutions, internal communications and the reasons officials gave when decisions were made.

THE EVIDENCE: JUDGES

On September 30, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against Minnesota federal judges who publicly discussed immigration litigation and what they described as administration disregard for judicial orders.

Justice Department officials argued that the judges violated ethical restrictions and demonstrated bias.

Defenders of the judges pointed to federal judicial ethics guidance allowing judges in some circumstances to defend judicial independence and the rule of law publicly (Reuters, 2026f).

Here the evidence establishes a dispute.

It does not establish retaliation.

Judges have ethical obligations. The Justice Department may raise complaints it considers legitimate.

The relevant constitutional question would require evidence showing that disciplinary mechanisms were being used not to enforce judicial ethics but to intimidate judges because their rulings or public statements opposed administration interests.

That conclusion cannot simply be assumed.

THE EVIDENCE: TAXPAYER-FUNDED MESSAGING

Another controversy emerged shortly before the 2026 midterm elections.

Nationally broadcast advertisements featuring Trump aired with disclaimers stating that they were “Paid for by the US Government.”

The advertisements promoted themes associated with Trump’s political messaging, including a “golden age of America” and criticism of the “deep state.” Reuters reported that one closely resembled a Trump campaign advertisement from 2024 (Reuters, 2026g).

The White House described the advertisements as public-service announcements promoting patriotism.

Critics, including members of both parties, questioned whether taxpayer money was effectively financing political promotion shortly before an election and whether restrictions involving government propaganda or political activity were implicated (Reuters, 2026g).

The existence and government financing of the advertisements are evidence.

The conclusion that they constitute unlawful campaign activity requires a separate legal analysis.

THE PATTERN IS EVIDENCE TOO — BUT NOT A VERDICT

Prosecutors.

Former intelligence officials.

State attorneys general.

Law firms.

Universities.

Journalists.

Judges.

The number and variety of confrontations involving institutions or individuals previously opposed to Trump are themselves relevant evidence.

Patterns can matter when determining intent.

But patterns can also mislead.

A president undertaking enormous changes across the federal government will inevitably clash with many political opponents. The existence of numerous disputes therefore cannot automatically establish that those disputes share a retaliatory purpose.

Congress would need something more.

Internal communications.

Presidential directives.

Testimony from officials.

Departures from ordinary enforcement procedures.

Evidence that career personnel objected.

Comparisons showing political allies were treated differently under equivalent circumstances.

Records connecting presidential demands to governmental decisions.

Those are the kinds of evidence that could transform suspicion of retaliation into a demonstrable abuse-of-power case.

POLICY IS NOT RETALIATION

This limitation is essential.

Trump was elected to change government policy.

He may lawfully reverse Biden administration priorities.

He may replace political appointees.

He may investigate genuine misconduct.

He may enforce immigration law aggressively.

He may challenge university practices his administration believes violate federal civil-rights statutes.

He may criticize journalists.

He may change Justice Department priorities.

He may seek prosecution when prosecutors possess legally sufficient evidence.

Calling every Trump policy “retribution” would make the term meaningless.

The constitutional case becomes serious only when governmental authority is exercised because a person or institution opposed, investigated, represented clients against, criticized or otherwise personally offended the president.

That is a conclusion that must be demonstrated from evidence rather than presumed from political disagreement.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

If Congress were eventually able to establish that Trump systematically directed federal powers against personal or political enemies, the constitutional theory would be familiar.

Trump’s first impeachment involved a related abuse-of-power argument: the House alleged that presidential authority involving Ukraine had been used to advance Trump’s personal political interests rather than the national interest. The Senate acquitted him.

The broader constitutional principle remains important.

Presidential powers are granted for public purposes.

Prosecution exists to enforce laws.

Government contracting exists to obtain goods and services.

Security clearances exist to protect national security.

Federal grants exist to execute programs authorized by law.

Regulatory investigations exist to enforce statutes.

Press-access rules exist to manage presidential facilities and security.

If those powers are deliberately redirected toward punishing personal enemies, the issue ceases to be ordinary policy disagreement.

It becomes a possible abuse of office.

But the word “if” matters.

The evidence must establish the connection.

THE COST OF NO ACCOUNTABILITY

Remove Donald Trump’s name from the problem.

Imagine a future Democratic president.

A conservative newspaper publishes damaging investigations. The White House removes its reporters.

A law firm represents Republican officials challenging the administration. Federal contracts involving that firm disappear.

A conservative university refuses administration demands. Federal grants freeze and regulators arrive.

A former Republican attorney general investigates the president. After leaving office, that attorney general becomes the subject of federal criminal investigations.

A television network relentlessly criticizes the president. Federal agencies begin scrutinizing its corporate parent.

Republicans would immediately ask whether presidential power was being used for retaliation.

They would be right to ask.

Reverse the parties and the constitutional principle remains identical.

Government cannot become an extension of presidential grievance.

The larger danger is not limited to people who actually experience retaliation.

Others begin anticipating it.

Law firms may decline controversial clients.

Universities may avoid confrontations with government.

Corporations may hesitate before criticizing policy.

Journalists may reconsider aggressive coverage.

Civil servants may learn that objection carries professional risk.

Prosecutors may discover which cases leadership wants.

Officials may decide loyalty is safer than independence.

None of that proves it has already happened throughout the federal government.

It explains why evidence of presidential retaliation must be taken seriously.

The president controls enormous machinery: prosecutors, investigators, regulators, contracts, grants, security clearances, immigration enforcement and the extraordinary public influence of the presidency itself.

Congress must determine from evidence whether Trump has used that machinery primarily to execute his administration’s lawful policies or whether portions of it have been redirected toward settling personal and political scores.

That determination cannot responsibly begin with the conclusion.

It must begin with the evidence.

And if the evidence ultimately establishes systematic presidential retaliation, Congress will then face the constitutional question it was given the impeachment power to answer:

When does the use of public power for personal purposes become a high crime or misdemeanor?

REFERENCES

Congressional Research Service. (2025). Impeachment and the Constitution (R46013). U.S. Congress.

Reuters. (2025a, November 26). Trump’s campaign of retribution: At least 470 targets and counting.

Reuters. (2025b, November 17). Law firms Ashurst, Perkins Coie agree merger to create global top-20 outfit.

Reuters. (2025c, November 24). U.S. appeals court to rule if Trump can ban AP from Oval Office.

Reuters. (2026a, September 15). Judges question DOJ bid to revive cases against Trump foes Comey, James.

Reuters. (2026b, September 29). Ex-White House election official leaves DOJ probe of Trump foes, sources say.

Reuters. (2026c, September 18). Trump says he is banning media outlets CNN, MS NOW, Politico from White House.

Reuters. (2026d, September 22). White House media ban faces long odds in court, legal experts say.

Reuters. (2026e, September 30). Harvard sued by U.S. agency seeking records in anti-white hiring probe.

Reuters. (2026f, September 30). U.S. Justice Department files complaint against Minnesota judges who gave interviews about immigration surge.

Reuters. (2026g, September 28). Trump government ads draw scrutiny weeks before midterm elections.

U.S. Constitution, amend. I; art. II, § 4.