This article reviews five 2025 prosecutions and DOJ actions that illuminate the Trump administration’s approach to criminal law. It covers broad Jan. 6 clemencies, the collapse of a corruption case against Eric Adams after DOJ intervention, grand jury refusals and trial acquittals in Sidney Reid and Sean Dunn’s cases, dismissed indictments tied to an unlawfully appointed prosecutor, and Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s illegal transfer to El Salvador and subsequent return. Together, these episodes highlight allegations of political favoritism, prosecutorial overreach, and judicial pushback.
Five 2025 Criminal Cases That Reveal the Trump DOJ’s Use of Power
One of government’s most consequential powers is its control over criminal law. How an administration uses — or withholds — that power reveals its priorities and political instincts. In 2025, a string of prosecutions and prosecutorial decisions under the Trump administration highlighted concerns about favoritism, vindictiveness, and strained legal strategy.
“For My Friends, Everything”: The Jan. 6 Purge
At the start of his second term, President Donald Trump issued broad clemencies for many individuals convicted in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, including some convicted of assaulting law enforcement and several found guilty of seditious conspiracy. He also directed the attorney general to dismiss pending Jan. 6 indictments.
“For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”
Columnist Steve Benen invoked that epigram to describe the administration’s early approach. Throughout 2025, parts of the Department of Justice pursued cases that critics said prioritized political retribution over neutral law enforcement.
Corruption: Eric Adams
Former New York City Mayor Eric Adams — charged under the prior administration — saw the corruption case collapse after intervention by the Trump Justice Department. DOJ prosecutors asked the court to temporarily put the charges on hold, a maneuver critics argued could be used to pressure Adams on cooperation with federal priorities such as immigration enforcement.
The move was driven by Emil Bove, a former Trump defense lawyer who joined the DOJ and later became a judge. Republican career prosecutors assigned to the matter resigned rather than implement the plan, and the presiding judge, Biden appointee Judge Dale Ho, ultimately dismissed the case permanently, writing that “everything here smacks of a bargain.”
Prosecutorial Failures: Sidney Reid and Sean Dunn
The DOJ suffered notable setbacks when grand juries refused to indict defendants in cases tied to aggressive immigration enforcement. In Washington, D.C., grand jurors declined to indict Sidney Reid three separate times on allegations she pushed an FBI agent’s hand against a wall. Grand jurors also refused to indict Sean Dunn, who gained attention after throwing a sandwich at an immigration agent.
Prosecutors proceeded on misdemeanor charges that do not require grand-jury approval, but trial juries acquitted both defendants. The outcomes underscored limits to the administration’s ability to translate enforcement zeal into sustained criminal convictions.
From left: James Comey, Letitia James, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Eric Adams, and rioters at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021(MS NOW; Carsten Koall/Getty Images; Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images; Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
Vindictiveness Claims: James Comey and Letitia James
Indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were dismissed after a judge found the prosecutor who obtained those charges, Lindsey Halligan, had been unlawfully appointed. Halligan — a former personal lawyer to Trump with no prior prosecutorial background — secured the indictments over the objections of career prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. The office’s prior leader had been removed after refusing to pursue the matters.
The DOJ twice failed to reindict James and faces litigation over evidence it seeks to use against Comey, but it has appealed the dismissals and is trying to revive both prosecutions and Halligan’s authority. If revived, the cases will likely face additional pretrial motions asserting unconstitutional vindictiveness and other procedural defenses.
Desperation: Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Kilmar Abrego Garcia alleges he was the target of vindictive and illegal actions by U.S. officials. In March, he was sent to El Salvador and held at that country’s Terrorism Confinement Center despite not being charged with a crime there. A U.S. court ordered his return, and he was brought back to the United States in June, where prosecutors already had a criminal case pending.
The administration continues to seek Abrego’s deportation, which could moot the criminal case. But U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered his release from immigration custody after finding the government lacked a lawful removal order, noting that officials had not yet complied with the law.
Conclusion
Across these five episodes, courts, grand juries, and trial juries repeatedly checked the DOJ’s prosecutorial choices in 2025. The pattern raises broader questions about the use of criminal law for political ends, the independence of career prosecutors, and the judiciary’s role in policing those boundaries.
Originally published on MS NOW.
