Trump, Bondi, and the Weaponization of the Justice Department: When Law Becomes Political

In recent weeks, the trials involving New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey have shocked the public, revealing how the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi appears to be turning into a political tool. A recent hearing in federal court in Alexandria highlighted this issue even further when Judge Curry asked a final, striking question:

“Do you believe US v. Trump was wrongly decided?”

This question goes beyond legal technicalities—it strikes at the heart of consistency in how the Justice Department evaluates cases. When Trump previously won the dismissal of prosecutor Jack Smith in Florida due to improper appointment, Judge Curry asked whether the DOJ was applying the same standard to the current prosecutions of Letitia James and Comey under federal prosecutor Lindsay Halligan. The DOJ responded that “it’s a different situation,” eliciting gasps in the courtroom.

Pam Bondi and the Political Use of the DOJ

Pam Bondi, Trump’s loyal ally and U.S. Attorney General, immediately pursued aggressive prosecutions against Trump’s political opponents, including Comey, James, and even Congressman Adam Schiff. Previously, another prosecutor had declined to pursue these cases, citing insufficient evidence. Bondi’s sudden revival of these prosecutions raises serious questions about political motivation.

The situation becomes even more alarming when considering Trump’s public pressure via social media:

“Pam Bondi needs to prosecute Comey now.”

“We can’t wait any longer. We need to go after James and Schiff.”

These posts serve as clear, public evidence of Trump directly pressuring the Attorney General to target his political rivals—a breach of DOJ independence.

Judicial Pushback: A Historic Ruling

On November 24, 2025, a federal judge in New York dismissed the indictments against Comey and James, ruling that the prosecutions were politically tainted. The judge noted that Bondi’s decision to pursue these cases appeared to be retaliatory and inconsistent with the prior prosecutor’s assessment. This ruling is a stark warning about the dangers of political interference in law enforcement and provides concrete evidence for those advocating for impeachment.

Rule of Law, Politics, and Threats to Democracy

Advocates for impeachment argue that Trump and Bondi’s actions constitute clear abuse of power, exactly the type of presidential misconduct the Constitution designed impeachment to address. When a president can pressure the DOJ to pursue political enemies, the foundation of democracy and the rule of law is at risk.

Yet, the political reality complicates matters. With Republicans controlling Congress, there is little likelihood of impeachment, despite the clear evidence of abuse. This sets a dangerous precedent: a president may publicly demand prosecutions, the Attorney General may comply, and no one is held accountable.

Conclusion

Judge Curry’s final question was more than a procedural inquiry—it was a warning about the erosion of the rule of law. The cases of Letitia James and James Comey, combined with Trump’s public pressure on Bondi, illustrate a clear pattern of weaponizing the Department of Justice for political purposes.

If Congress fails to act, the consequences extend beyond one administration. The precedent being set allows future presidents to manipulate law enforcement for political gain. The real question is not just about Trump or Bondi—it’s about the future of the Justice Department, the rule of law, and democracy in the United States.