Trump’s Retribution Campaign Is Misfiring — And Risks Backfiring

Overview

Federal grand juries almost never decline to return indictments: in fiscal year 2013 it happened only five times out of more than 165,000 matters, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics — roughly one in 33,000 cases, or about 0.003%.

Yet President Donald Trump and officials in the Justice Department have now produced that rare outcome in two high-profile efforts to use criminal charges against his opponents. A grand jury rejected one of three charges against former FBI Director James Comey, and later indictments tied to Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were tossed after a judge found the prosecutor had been serving illegally. When the Justice Department located a new prosecutor to seek a fresh indictment against James, a grand jury again declined to return charges.

Procedural Missteps and Personnel Questions

Reports indicate career prosecutors were reluctant to present these matters to grand juries. Media accounts noted resistance from some senior DOJ officials and other Trump-aligned figures. With the statute of limitations approaching on the Comey matter, the administration replaced the U.S. attorney handling the case and moved quickly to install a special prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. A judge later disqualified Halligan and noted she had "no prior prosecutorial experience," and that flawed appointment chain created grounds to vacate related indictments.

Those procedural defects — irregular appointments, hurried handling to meet time limits, and other technical flaws — are now a central reason both matters have stalled. If the administration tries to refile charges, those same defects and any new irregularities will remain a risk for defense challenges and judicial scrutiny.

Evidence, Politics, And Public Perception

A key practical weakness is the perceived thinness of the underlying evidence. The mortgage-fraud allegations against James and the perjury charge tied to Comey have drawn skepticism from commentators across the political spectrum, including some conservative legal scholars. By contrast, other prosecutions (for example, classified-document charges against former national security adviser John Bolton) were opened independently of Trump and appear stronger on their face.

Unlike claims that President Biden directed prosecutions of Trump, Trump’s involvement in pushing the Comey and James matters has been conspicuous and public. That difference — both factual and perceptual — makes the campaign look less symmetrical and more politically driven to many observers.

Polling reflects this divide: a Marquette University Law School poll found a majority viewed the indictments against Trump as warranted (55%–45%), while a larger share said charges against Trump’s opponents were not justified (58%–42%). Earlier polls likewise showed higher skepticism and greater perception of political motivation in the Comey and James matters.

Legal And Political Risks

Repeated or high-profile attempts to press these charges could strengthen defense claims of selective or vindictive prosecution — a constitutional concern judges take seriously. Grand juries do not require unanimity and use a lower probable-cause standard, while convictions at trial require a much higher burden of proof and, in federal court, jury unanimity. If prosecutors struggled to secure indictments from grand juries, it raises questions about whether a trial conviction would be realistic.

Internally, the campaign has reportedly deepened divisions within DOJ and inspired additional inquiries into how these matters were handled. For example, a separate grand-jury probe in Maryland reportedly examines handling of a mortgage-fraud allegation connected to Representative Adam Schiff, centering on whether someone impersonated a federal agent and improperly shared grand-jury materials. If investigators themselves come under scrutiny, political and institutional fallout could eclipse the original cases.

What's Next

The Justice Department has signaled it may try again to indict Letitia James, but any refiling will face legal and political headwinds. Continued pursuit of politically charged prosecutions risks further judicial reversals, claims of vindictive prosecution, and public skepticism — all of which could backfire on the administration.

Bottom line: Procedural missteps, thin public evidence and growing perception of political motivation have made Trump’s retribution campaign vulnerable to legal defeats and reputational blowback that could harm both the Justice Department and the administration politically.