Weekend Extra: The Shoe Is on the Other Foot
When Trust in Institutions Becomes a Partisan Tug-of-War
Not that long ago, it was Democrats urging trust in institutions—the CDC, the FDA, the DOJ. During the COVID pandemic, they leaned on public health agencies while Republicans accused them of authoritarian overreach. When the Justice Department investigated then-President Trump and his associates, Democrats framed it as the system working, while Republicans cried “witch hunt” and “deep state.”
But now, with Trump back in office and remaking the DOJ in his image, Democrats find themselves in the uncomfortable position of sounding eerily like their opponents once did—raising alarms about government overreach, political targeting, and the rule of law.
It's a jarring reversal. And for some, it triggers that old trope: “Both sides do it.” Maybe this is just what power looks like now—use the system when you have it, cry foul when you don't.
It’s an uncomfortable shift. And it raises a difficult question: Are both sides doing the same thing now, just from opposite vantage points?
Or is something fundamentally different happening?
Reversal vs. Reality
It’s tempting to throw up our hands and say, “Everyone cries foul when they’re out of power.” That politics is just about narratives—who gets to define what’s legitimate and what’s not. And yes, there’s always some of that. Distrust of institutions tends to be higher in the party out of power. That’s not new.
But that explanation misses something important.
Under the Biden administration, critics of the DOJ pointed to perceived bias or selectivity. They questioned how certain investigations were prioritized or timed. They accused officials of playing politics under the surface.
Under Trump’s second administration, the effort to politicize the DOJ is no longer covert. It’s explicit. It’s structural. And it’s being broadcast in real time.
What’s Actually Different
Most prominent conservative critics do not currently believe the DOJ is being unfairly politicized under the second Trump administration. Instead, leading conservative voices and officials argue that the DOJ was previously weaponized against Trump and conservatives during the Biden administration, and that the current changes are corrective measures aimed at restoring fairness and the rule of law.
However, this position contrasts with concerns raised by nonpartisan experts. There are even some critics on the conservative side—including some legal experts and former DOJ officials—who argue that the Trump administration's actions amount to a new form of politicization, with the DOJ being reshaped to serve Trump’s personal and political interests.
Let’s look at what’s happening now:
Explicit Threats Against Political Opponents
Public rhetoric: Trump has issued over 100 direct or implied threats to investigate, prosecute, or imprison political rivals since 2023, including Joe Biden, senators, judges, and journalists. These threats escalated during his 2024 campaign, with calls to deploy the National Guard or military against domestic political opponents.
DOJ speech (March 2025): In a unprecedented move, Trump delivered a speech inside the DOJ's Great Hall demanding prosecutions of MSNBC/CNN journalists, former special counsel Jack Smith, and legal analysts critical of him. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel attended without objection.
Systemic Erosion of DOJ Independence
Legal scholars, former prosecutors, and democracy advocates overwhelmingly stress that the independence of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is fundamental to a functioning democracy.
The Trump administration has systematically dismantled safeguards for DOJ independence through both rhetoric and policy. Unlike previous presidents who generally respected institutional norms (even when testing boundaries), Trump has openly framed the DOJ as a tool for political retribution, codifying this approach through executive orders, personnel changes, and investigatory mandates.
Personnel purges:
Mass firings of career prosecutors and FBI officials involved in prior Trump-related investigations.
Replacement of nonpartisan officials with loyalists, including Patel (FBI) and Bondi (DOJ).
Politicized case handling:
Attempted quid pro quo with NYC Mayor Eric Adams: Dropping corruption charges in exchange for immigration enforcement cooperation.
Creation of the "Weaponization Working Group" to investigate perceived enemies, including officials who investigated Trump.
Legal justification:
Invoked the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling to claim "exclusive authority" over DOJ functions.
Issued Day 1 executive order ("Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government") to enable political targeting.
Examples of DOJ Weaponization in Trump’s Second Administration (so far)
Direct Investigations of Political Critics:
President Trump issued formal directives ordering the DOJ to investigate two senior officials from his first administration—Miles Taylor (a prominent critic and author of an anti-Trump op-ed) and Christopher Krebs (former election security official who contradicted Trump’s 2020 fraud claims). Trump publicly accused Taylor of “treason” and used the DOJ to pursue these former officials after they became vocal opponents.Creation of the “Weaponization Working Group”:
Attorney General Pam Bondi established this DOJ unit specifically to investigate individuals and officials who, according to the administration, “weaponized” law enforcement during the previous administration. The group’s targets include prosecutors who brought cases against Trump, such as Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg, and Letitia James. The group’s mandate and public statements make clear its focus on Trump’s political adversaries, not on neutral law enforcement.Andy McCarthy, a prominent conservative legal analyst and Fox News contributor, has publicly rebuked Attorney General Pam Bondi’s creation of the “weaponization working group.” McCarthy warned that these actions risk turning the DOJ into an instrument of “partisan law enforcement.”
Retaliatory Criminal Probes and Public Shaming:
The administration has launched criminal investigations into a wide array of perceived enemies, including Democratic politicians, judges, universities, and law firms. In cases where prosecution is not possible, DOJ officials have stated they will “shame” and publicly name individuals to damage their reputations, even in the absence of criminal evidence.Selective Prosecution and Pardons:
The DOJ has dropped cases against Trump allies (such as New York Mayor Eric Adams) and issued pardons for Capitol rioters, while simultaneously pursuing aggressive actions against critics and political opponents.Politically Charged Immigration Enforcement:
The DOJ’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, following his wrongful deportation in defiance of a court order, has been cited as an example of politicized law enforcement. The administration’s refusal to comply with a Supreme Court order to facilitate his return further illustrates the politicization and disregard for judicial independence.Broad Campaign of Retaliation:
NPR’s review found that, in Trump’s first 100 days, the administration targeted over 100 individuals and organizations, including journalists, former officials, universities, and even international student protesters, using DOJ investigations, ICE detentions, and other federal powers.
The Cognitive Dissonance of Role Reversal
It’s a strange thing to hear Democrats—many of whom spent years defending the integrity of institutions like the DOJ, the FBI, and the CDC—now expressing doubts that those same institutions will act independently under a Trump administration. And it’s equally strange to hear Republicans, who railed against the “deep state” and “weaponized government,” now shrug or cheer as Trump openly uses federal power to settle political scores.
This isn’t just political whiplash. It’s cognitive dissonance—an internal discomfort that arises when our values collide with the behavior of the political figures we support. And increasingly, Americans across the spectrum are being forced into that uncomfortable space.
In 2020, Democrats urged the country to “trust the process,” to have faith in judges, investigators, and public health experts. Now many of those same voices are warning that these institutions may not be able to withstand a second Trump presidency—because the very norms and guardrails they once relied on are being torn down in real time.
So which is it? Can we trust institutions, or not? Was the DOJ ever independent—or was that just a story we told ourselves when it served our political goals?
That’s the uncomfortable question at the heart of this moment. And facing it honestly means acknowledging that both of these things can be true:
Yes, Trump and his allies have crossed lines that no modern administration has dared to breach.
And yes, some of the concerns Republicans raised in earlier years—about the consolidation of federal power, about selective enforcement, about political bias—may deserve more scrutiny than many on the left were willing to give at the time.
But acknowledging that tension doesn’t mean giving up on the truth. It means being willing to separate real institutional abuse from partisan grievance. It means recognizing when the “shoe on the other foot” isn’t just uncomfortable—but also revealing.
Because in the end, democracy isn’t just about trusting institutions. It’s about building institutions worthy of that trust—even when our preferred candidate is the one in charge.