Trump's Retribution Campaign Derailed by Federal Judges

Judges strike down indictments and block grand jury subpoenas targeting Trump's political adversaries

Mar. 16, 2026 at 11:07am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

President Donald Trump's efforts to use the Justice Department to prosecute his political rivals have been systematically blocked by federal judges, who have quashed grand jury subpoenas and dismissed indictments, citing a lack of evidence and concerns about politically motivated prosecutions.

Why it matters

This pattern of judicial resistance signals that despite Trump's control over the Justice Department, the courts remain a significant constraint on his ability to weaponize law enforcement for political retribution. It reflects an eroding trust between federal courts and Justice Department lawyers, who have lost credibility through repeated violations of court orders and vindictive prosecutions.

The details

In one recent case, a judge ruled that grand jury subpoenas seeking information about Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell were politically motivated and intended to "harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the president, or to resign and make way for a Fed chair who will." Other judges have dismissed indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, and blocked efforts to indict Democratic lawmakers for sedition. Prosecutors have also quietly abandoned some investigations due to a lack of evidence, despite Trump's demands.

  • In November, a judge dismissed indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
  • In February, a Washington grand jury rejected efforts to indict six Democratic lawmakers whom Trump wanted prosecuted for sedition.
  • On March 12, 2026, Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. quashed grand jury subpoenas targeting Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

The players

Donald Trump

The former president of the United States who has been pursuing a campaign of political retribution against his rivals.

Jerome Powell

The current Chair of the Federal Reserve, who was the target of politically motivated grand jury subpoenas.

James Comey

The former FBI Director who had indictments against him dismissed by a judge.

Letitia James

The New York Attorney General who also had indictments against her dismissed by a judge.

Jeanine Pirro

A U.S. Attorney and longtime ally of Trump who has vowed to appeal the decision to quash the subpoenas targeting Powell.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The subpoenas' dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the president, or to resign and make way for a Fed chair who will.”

— Judge James E. Boasberg, Federal District Court Judge in Washington, D.C. (New York Times)

“Judges are not required to exhibit a naïveté from which ordinary citizens are free.”

— Judge James E. Boasberg, Federal District Court Judge in Washington, D.C. (New York Times)

What’s next

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has vowed to appeal the decision to quash the subpoenas targeting Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

The takeaway

This pattern of judicial resistance to Trump's attempts to use the Justice Department for political retribution highlights the continued independence of the federal courts, even in the face of a president seeking to wield law enforcement as a weapon against political rivals. It underscores the importance of the separation of powers and the rule of law in the American system of government.