The Führer Posted, the Führer Acted - "Trump's New Assault on the Justice System"

Donald Trump once again showed over the weekend how much he regards the justice system as a personal instrument of power. In an angry post on his homegrown network he addressed his attorney general Pam Bondi directly - and demanded that she "move now" to bring charges against those he considers his fiercest enemies. "We can’t wait any longer, it’s killing our credibility," he wrote, then branded names such as James Comey, Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James as supposedly "guilty as hell." It was an open assault on the principles of separation of powers - and a breach of taboo even by this president’s standards.

Already the day before, Trump had dismissed U.S. attorney Erik Siebert because he had not brought charges against either James or Comey. The message was clear: loyalty weighs more for Trump than law and evidence. Siebert’s seat is to be filled by Lindsey Halligan, a lawyer from Trump’s personal defense circle who to date can point to almost no practical experience in criminal trials. That the top posts in one of the country’s most important U.S. attorney’s offices are being turned into a playground for partisan lawyers shows just how far Trump is now willing to go to interfere with the very substance of the rule of law.

Donald Trump lost no time filling the vacuum he himself had created. Only hours after the dismissal of U.S. attorney Erik Siebert he announced on his network that Lindsey Halligan, a close confidante from his legal orbit, should now lead the powerful U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Precisely the office that has been at the center of political tensions for months because Trump wants to force charges there against his arch-foe Letitia James.

Lindsey Halligan has so far had little to no experience as a prosecutor or as a senior federal prosecutor. Her work was more in the field of insurance law and as counsel in specialized matters. Critics see this lack of experience as a problem, especially if she is now to take over a large U.S. attorney’s office.

Halligan, our research shows, was tasked, together with Vice President JD Vance, with removing "improper ideology" from Smithsonian institutions. In particular, this concerns history lessons and the claim - according to her - that certain negative aspects of U.S. history are overemphasized and could divide society. Many critics see this as an attempt to whitewash historical facts or to inject ideology into state-funded education and cultural institutions.

The case against New York’s attorney general so far rests merely on formal discrepancies in property paperwork - there is no evidence of criminal conduct. Nevertheless, Trump reaches for the lever to staff the office with a loyal defender who already represented him in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents affair. Halligan, with no prior experience as a federal prosecutor, is to bring "justice for all," as Trump pompously wrote - in truth this is about revenge and control. The message to Bondi was unmistakable: those who do not deliver will be replaced. That almost simultaneously Mary Cleary, another right-wing lawyer, introduced herself to staff in an email as acting head of the office makes the chaos complete. Trump staged himself as the man of action: Siebert did not quit, he fired him, he wrote, adding the poisonous remark that the lawyer could next run "as a Democrat." That once again shows that the president sees the U.S. attorneys not as independent bodies but as pawns in his campaign for retribution and the consolidation of power - an unprecedented assault on the heart of the American legal system.

Bondi herself has previously been drawn into controversial decisions - for example when she halted a case in Utah against a doctor accused of selling fake vaccination cards. But Trump’s latest attacks escalate the politicization of the Justice Department to a new level. Now other U.S. attorneys such as Kelly Hayes in Maryland are also in the crosshairs. Hayes is leading inquiries into John Bolton and Adam Schiff, both fierce critics of the president. Insiders report that she is well aware of the enormous pressure she would face, yet not willing to bring unfounded cases. She thus recalls a generation of prosecutors who, after Watergate, fought for a depoliticized justice system - a tradition that now threatens to break apart.

Trump sees it differently. He told reporters he had been "indicted five times" for "nothing" and that he now wanted to see evidence or charges - whatever it takes. That this posture threatens not only independence but also the functioning of the justice system is obvious. U.S. attorneys are the backbone of federal law enforcement. If their decisions in future depend on how well they please the president, the foundation of the rule of law will crack. History and the present supply warning examples. In 2006 Alberto R. Gonzales, George W. Bush’s attorney general, stumbled over the politically motivated dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys. Today, however, what then forced a resignation no longer seems to trouble Trump. He ignores the concerns of close allies like Pam Bondi or Todd Blanche, who pleaded for Siebert to stay. Instead he trusts figures like Ed Martin, who openly calls for a "weaponization" of the Justice Department against political opponents, and William Pulte, an agency head without a criminal law background.

It is this permanent drive for revenge that propels Trump. The names change - Comey, James, Schiff, Bolton - but the method remains the same: pressure, dismissals, personnel shuffles. All this serves the aim of turning U.S. attorney’s offices into subordinate branches of the White House. With every dismissal and every loyalty test, America moves further away from the consensus that the law must be applied independently of the political day-to-day. Trump’s latest demand shows he has not learned from history. He has seen how investigations caught up with him after his first term. Now he is trying to bring the justice system into line permanently to shield himself from the future - and to crush his opponents at the same time. Yet precisely this attempt to make the rule of law an instrument of personal revenge could in the long run inflict the deepest wound on American democracy.