During Donald Trump's second presidency, the Trump administration took a series of actions using the government to target his political opponents and civil society. His actions were described by the media as part of his promised "retribution" and "revenge" campaign, within the context of a strongly personalist and leader-centered conception of politics.[1][2][3][4] During his 2024 presidential campaign, he repeatedly stated that he had "every right" to go after his political opponents.[5]
He undertook a massive expansion of presidential power under a maximalist interpretation of the unitary executive theory,[6] and several of his actions ignored or violated federal laws, regulations, and the Constitution according to American legal scholars.[7][8][9] He threatened, signed executive actions, and ordered investigations into his political opponents, critics, and organizations aligned with the Democratic Party.[10] He politicized the civil service,[6] undertaking mass layoffs of government employees to recruit workers more loyal to himself.[11] He ended the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence, weaponizing it and ordering it to target his political enemies.[12] He utilized several government agencies to retaliate against his political enemies and continued filing personal lawsuits against his political opponents, companies, and news organizations that angered him.[3][13]
By July 2025, Trump had extracted more than $1.2 billion in settlements in a "cultural crackdown" against a variety of institutions that largely chose to settle rather than fight back.[14] He engaged in an unprecedented targeting of law firms and lawyers that previously represented positions adverse to himself.[15][16] He targeted higher education by demanding it give federal oversight of curriculum and targeted activists, legal immigrants, tourists, and students with visas who expressed criticism of his policies or engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy.[17] He detained and deported United States citizens.[18]
Trump frequently promised to exact retribution against perceived political enemies through his 2024 campaign,[25][26][27] and has said he has "every right" to go after political opponents.[5] A central campaign theme for Trump's second presidential bid was "retribution".[28][29] Trump framed the 2024 election as "the final battle", and openly promised to leverage the power of the presidency for political reprisals.[30]
Trump repeatedly suggested that he supports outlawing political dissent that he regards as misleading or that questions the legitimacy of his presidency, for example saying that criticism of judges who ruled in favor of him "should be punishable by very serious fines and beyond that."[31] He also repeatedly called for press companies who have produced unfavorable coverage of him to have their licenses revoked, and said that he would jail reporters who refuse to name the sources of leaks.[32]The New York Times described Trump as using "grievance as a political tool, portraying himself as the victim of what he claims is a powerful and amorphous 'deep state.'"[33]
During his second presidency, White House social media posted an image depicting Trump as a king, and Trump and his allies referred to him with monarchical terminology and claims of divine legitimacy.
Trump undertook mass firings of federal employees, inspectors general, and Democratic members of independent agencies and oversight boards who could attempt to block or constrain his moves in express defiance of existing laws prohibiting such actions.[36] His actions were described by legal experts as unprecedented or in violation of federal law,[37] and with the intent of replacing them with workers more aligned with his agenda.[11] In a peer-reviewed journal article, Donald Moynihan described the exercise as an anti-statist restructuring of American government centered around political loyalty.[4] Legal analysts described such firings as setting up Supreme Court cases that could expand his power over independent executive branch agencies that Congress set up to be insulated from presidential control based on a maximalist interpretation of the unitary executive theory.[36] His actions removed checks and balances within the executive branch by ignoring agencies such as the Office of Legal Counsel.[6]
In an executive order on February 18, Trump declared the executive branch an extension of his own person, and that only he and the United States Attorney General had final say on the interpretation of all executive branch law.[6] He sent teams to administer loyalty tests to some federal employees, intelligence, and law enforcement candidates.[38][39][40] His actions politicized the civil service, especially among law enforcement.[6] His actions against civil society were described by legal experts and hundreds of political scientists as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding,[19][41][42] and as negatively impacting the rule of law.[12]
Targeting the judicial system and judges
Following legal setbacks to his executive orders, Trump increased his criticism of the judiciary and called for impeachment of federal judges who ruled against him.[43] By mid-July, a Washington Post analysis found he defied judges and the courts in roughly one third of all cases against him, actions which were described by legal experts as unprecedented for any presidential administration and threatened to undermine the judiciary's role in checking executive power. It described the Trump administration as providing false information, stonewalling judges, flouting court orders, presenting legal cases with no basis in the law and misrepresenting facts.[44]
His defiance of court orders and a claimed right to disobey the courts raised fears among legal experts of a constitutional crisis.[45] He engaged in an unprecedented targeting of law firms and lawyers that previously represented positions adverse to himself.[46][47] His verbal attacks against the judiciary saw an increase in threats and harassment against judges and their families who ruled against him.[48] On April 25, 2025, the FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly blocking immigration enforcement. The move was widely characterized as an authoritarian act by legal experts.[49][50][51] His actions were described by scholars as potentially creating a "two-track legal system" or "dual state".[6][52]
On June 24, 2025, Trump sued all 15 federal judges in Maryland in a dispute over his deportation orders in an escalation of his conflict with the judiciary.[53] On July 28, Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a misconduct complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg for allegedly violating the presumption of regularity in what Politico described as part of a political effort "to cast as rogue partisans federal judges who have blocked President Donald Trump's priorities".[54]
During his second presidency, Trump bypassed the Senate and the Courts to install loyalist prosecutors through the use of loopholes in federal law. Trump appointed prosecutors on an "interim" 120 day basis, voided the court-ordered replacement or preempted them, then re-installed them as an "acting" attorney for an additional 210 days.[55] Notably on July 29, Trump fired Acting Attorney for New Jersey Desiree Leigh Grace in favor of his personal attorney, Alina Habba, despite the expiration of Habba's 120 day appointment.[56]
Trump and his administration targeted and condemned judges globally who were involved in trials against his political allies such as in Brazil, France, Israel and Britain, arguing that they were biased and suppressing free speech rights. According to scholars in constitutional law and democracy, the rebukes "violate long-standing diplomatic norms, challenge a key tenet of national sovereignty, and signify a potential retreat from the United States' long-standing approach of promoting the independent rule of law in other democracies".[57]
He notably took aim to control the IRS, firing thousands of career staff and installing political allies in their place in an attempt to end its independence, and shared its tax data with ICE to deport migrants that led to several departures at the agency and privacy concerns. Historians described Trump's efforts to politicize the IRS as more brazen than prior actions taken by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, noting his public announcement of his intention for the IRS to strip Harvard of its tax-exempt status due to his disputes with the university.[58] His efforts bypassed rules established by Congress to prevent presidential meddling at the agency.[59] As a result of Trump's targeting of liberal activists, law firms, and news organizations, some liberal donors slowed their charitable giving to organizations out of fear of investigations and organizations being stripped of their tax-exempt status by the IRS.[60]
Compiling data on Americans
Trump tasked Palantir Technologies and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to compile and merge data across federal agencies into a master list containing information on every American.[61]The New York Times estimated such collection would entail roughly 314 areas, including Americans' Social Security numbers, disability status, bank accounts, student debt, medical claims, credit history, alimony paid, charitable contributions, child support, gambling income, IP addresses, educational attainment, marriage status, criminal history, voting records, and more. Trump's efforts to gather this data were described as having "elbowed past the objections of career staff, data security protocols, national security experts and legal privacy protections".[62]
The move received criticism from privacy experts and civil society groups, who noted the siloed nature of government data made it hard to hack and leak in a single data breach. It was also criticized for potentially allowing Trump to target and harass his political opponents and grant the president "untold surveillance power".[61] Trump made requests to all 50 states to give his administration access to all personally sensitive data held by them on American citizens, saying it needed the data to verify election integrity, to identify waste and fraud and to keep ineligible immigrants off benefit rolls. Critics described such efforts as an attempt to monitor immigrants and ideological opponents, surveil Americans, and spread false claims of fraud.[63] The moves broke longstanding norms and legal protections.[64]
Trump ended the post-Watergate norm of independence for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and weaponized it to investigate his political opponents,[12] calling them "scum".[65] His administration publicized actions against local leaders, judges, and federal officials who opposed his agenda along with what The New York Times described as "people who have simply gotten on the president's bad side" in an attempt to stigmatize them.[65] Trump made numerous suggestions, requests and demands to arrest, investigate or prosecute his political opponents,[66] including by explicitly or indirectly ordering investigations into political opponents and celebrities such as James Comey, Beyoncé, Oprah Winfrey, Bruce Springsteen, Chris Krebs.[12] Trump's interim DC Attorney General Ed Martin and head of the Weaponization Working Group stated the Justice Department would publicly name and shame individuals they did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute. Legal experts described this approach as violating the department's ethical and procedural rulebook,[66] and that many of his other actions publicizing investigations were "so outside the bounds that it could undermine any criminal case".[67]
Trump used the Justice Department to punish his enemies and reward his allies while making unfounded claims of prior "weaponization" against him.[68][69] Trump ordered the attorney general to investigate the Biden administration for "weaponization of the federal government" and "government censorship of speech". The Guardian described the investigations as "politically charged reviews into his personal grievances".[70] The orders made misleading[71] accusations against the Biden administration and asserted they had committed criminal conduct against him and his supporters and demanded evidence be found to "correct past misconduct".[33] On June 5, 2025, Trump ordered his administration to investigate former President Joe Biden for his executive actions arguing he was too mentally impaired to do the job and casting doubts as to the legitimacy of his pardons, although he admitted he had no evidence to back up his claims. Legal experts described the investigation as unlikely to do anything except fire up his core supporters.[72]
On January 27, the DOJ fired more than a dozen officials who worked on criminal cases against Trump alleging a lack of trust in faithfully executing his agenda. It also announced a "special project" to investigate prosecutors who had previously brought charges against January 6 rioters,[73] and launched a "weaponization working group" to review and investigate officials at both the state and federal levels who previously investigated Trump and provide the White House quarterly reports on its findings.[74] Several FBI agents and the FBI Agents Association sued the Trump administration to prevent the publication of the names of 5,000 FBI agents for their involvement in investigating the January 6 attack,[75] and Trump later said he would fire some agents involved in investigating the attack.[76]
On March 14, 2025, Trump gave a norm-breaking political speech at the Justice Department's Great Hall promising it would "expose" his enemies in what The Associated Press described as "the latest manifestation of Trump's unparalleled takeover of the department".[77]The Economist described Trump as "paying a price for erasing any expectation the department would operate independently" in reducing its credibility in its response to the Epstein files.[78] Foreign diplomats described the Justice Department's seeming politicization, the apparent decline of the rule of law, and integrity of the US legal system as potentially complicating transnational criminal investigations.[79] By August 4, The New York Times reported that judges had increasingly doubted "the fundamental honesty and credibility of Justice Department lawyers in ways that would have been unthinkable only months ago" following instances of the Justice Department having "repeatedly misled the courts, violated their orders and demonized judges who have ruled against them".[80]
Investigating Democratic and liberal organizations
Trump threatened, signed executive actions, and ordered investigations into his political opponents, critics, and organizations aligned with the Democratic Party.[10] On April 24, 2025, Trump directed the Justice Department in a presidential memorandum to investigate the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue in an attempt to cripple the Democratic Party's political infrastructure.[81][82] It marked the third time in three weeks Trump ordered the government to target his perceived enemies and domestic opponents, which The New York Times described as "eroding a post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence far more than he ever did in his first term".[81]
Following the killing of Charlie Kirk in September 2025, the Trump administration announced a widespread crackdown of liberal groups and donors, claiming without evidence that a network of liberal organizations promoted violence and would be dismantled. Trump stated he was looking into labeling some "terrorist organizations", and JD Vance promised to go after non-profits such as the Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation that had provided financial support for liberal and progressive causes. Critics widely condemned the moves, and warned the administration was using the killing as a pretext to crack down on political opponents.[83][84][85]
Eric Adams investigation
It was reported on February 14 that the efforts by Trump to dismiss the case into New York City Mayor Eric Adams, which caused the resignation of seven government prosecutors, came in the same week as the administration was negotiating with the mayor over immigration enforcement initiatives and Trump's "border czar" Tom Homan made reference to an "agreement".[86] Earlier, Adams had agreed with Homan to give access to the city's Rikers Island jail for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without—via a "loophole... [Adams] appears to have found"—violating the city’s sanctuary laws,[87] and joined Homan in a joint interview conducted by Phil McGraw, among one or more other joint interviews.[88]
The report came after February 10, 2025, when the DOJ under Trump instructed federal prosecutors to drop charges against Adams, citing concerns that the case had been affected by publicity and was interfering with his ability to govern.[89] The memo directing this move, written by acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, stated that the prosecution had limited Adams' capacity to focus on issues such as immigration and crime. The Justice Department's decision did not assess the strength of the evidence or legal arguments in the case. The memo was issued months before the city's Democratic primary, where Adams is seeking reelection. The charges were to be dropped "as soon as is practicable" pending a further review of Adams' case following the general election in November 2025.[90]Danielle Sassoon, the US attorney in charge of the case, refused to dismiss the charges, telling Attorney General Pam Bondi that "I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations". Sassoon later resigned, accusing Bove and the Trump administration of making an illicit deal with Adams to dismiss the charges, becoming the first of seven prosecutors to resign due to the order to dismiss charges.[91]
In March 2025, Trump said that he would be targeting law firms, a move experts call unprecedented.[15][16] He first ordered that security clearances be revoked for all of the attorneys at Covington & Burling who are involved in the firm's representation of former special counselJack Smith. Smith led federal investigations and prosecutions of Trump in both an election obstruction case and a classified documents case.[15] Trump then signed executive orders14230 and 14237, each aimed at another firm.[92][93] The first ordered that the security clearances of all Perkins Coie employees be suspended, and also prohibited the firm from receiving money from federal contractors and barred its attorneys from entering federal buildings. Perkins Coie had represented Hillary Clinton in her 2016 presidential campaign, and in that capacity paid for opposition research that led to the Steele dossier.[15][94] The second involved similar orders for the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (known as Paul, Weiss), and for Mark Pomerantz, a previous partner at the firm. Pomerantz had worked with the Manhattan district attorney's office, which subsequently prosecuted Trump for falsifying business records. The firm had done pro bono work in January 6 cases.[15][94][95][96]
Trump subsequently rescinded order 14237 after Paul, Weiss agreed to a set of conditions, such as promising to provide $40 million in free legal services to the administration and end its diversity policies.[97][98] Within days, Trump issued executive order 14246, this time aimed at Jenner & Block, a firm that employed Andrew Weissmann after he worked on the Mueller special counsel investigation.[99] Two days later, Trump issued another executive order directed at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (known as WilmerHale), where Robert Mueller had been a partner; the firm also employed Aaron Zebley and James Quarles, who had worked with the Mueller special counsel investigation.[100]Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the goal of these executive orders was to "intimidate professionals, to intimidate the legal profession from engaging in professional activities that go against Donald Trump and the current administration."[15]
Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit challenging executive order 14230, and on March 12, Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order for parts of Trump's executive order.[101] Howell said that the order likely violated several constitutional amendments and "casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportion across the entire legal profession".[102] The Department of Justice attempted to have Howell removed from the case, alleging that she is "insufficiently impartial", but the motion was denied.[99] On March 28, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale also filed suit in the District of Columbia challenging their respective executive orders.[103] The same day, Judge John Bates issued a temporary restraining order for the executive order directed at Jenner & Block, and Judge Richard Leon issued a temporary restraining order for the executive order directed at WilmerHale.[99]
Trump also issued a presidential memorandum, "Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court", targeting lawyers and law firms more generally if they filed "frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation" against the administration, as judged by the attorney general. The menacing memo, again including revocation of security clearances and preventing any company that uses such a firm from getting federal contracts, has been seen as a threatening escalation and broadening of the president's campaign of retaliation against judges and lawyers who don't share his political views.[104][105] A variety of people in the legal profession condemned the memorandum as an attempt to intimidate firms so that they wouldn't take on clients who oppose government actions.[106] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also contacted 20 law firms, telling them that they were being investigated in relation to their DEI practices.[107]
The series of actions against lawyers and law firms quickly started having the desired effect of making it harder for those who oppose Trump administration actions to find lawyers who would agree to represent them.[108][109][110]University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Law professor Scott Cummings and a former senior Justice Department official have both called Trump's moves attacking law firms and targeting lawyers "authoritarian".[111][99] Senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Ben Wizner said Trump's threats are an attempt to "chill and intimidate" lawyers who challenge him.[112] In remarks delivered with the governor of Louisiana, President Trump told reporters that he thinks "The law firms have to behave themselves, and we've proven that."[113][114]
Within the legal community, there have been varied responses to Trump's attacks on the profession. Law firms that haven't been targeted by Trump have largely been silent in response. A few firms have issued public statements, such as Albert Sellars LLP, whose response was a concise "Fuck that fascist nonsense."[115] The American Bar Association released a statement encouraging everyone in the profession to stand up against the Trump's "efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession", following that with another statement joined by over 50 smaller bar associations across the country.[116][117] The deans of nearly 80 law schools from across the country also signed a joint letter condemning the administration's actions, stating that "Punishing lawyers for their representation and advocacy violates the First Amendment and undermines the Sixth Amendment."[118] Democratic state attorneys general sent a joint letter as well, condemning Trump's attempts to undermine the rule of law.[119] Rachel Cohen, an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (also known as Skadden), organized an open letter, inviting other associates to sign on. The letter, addressed to large law firms, called on them to take a stand, and as of March 27, 2025 over 1500 associates had signed it.[120][121] Cohen also submitted a conditional resignation letter, calling on Skadden to fight Trump's actions, and they let her go the same day.[122] Skadden later proactively approached the Trump administration before Trump targeted them with an executive order, coming to an agreement with the administration along the same lines as that reached by Paul, Weiss.[103]
Pulling security protection and clearances
Within 24 hours of being elected, Trump revoked the security clearance of his former national security adviser John Bolton as well as the clearances of 50 officials who signed onto a letter about the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, including ex-DNI director James Clapper and ex-CIA directors John Brennan and Leon Panetta.[123] Trump also revoked the security protection for his former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, his aide Brian Hook, and Bolton, who all had faced assassination threats from Iran. The revocation of security protection was described as part of Trump's vow to target those he perceives as adversaries.[124] He also revoked protection for Anthony Fauci who had received several death threats, and said to reporters that he would not feel any responsibility if harm befell the former government officials he revoked security details from.[125]
On January 29, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suspended former chair of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley's security clearance, withdrew the authorization for his security detail, and ordered a review of his actions as Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a view to demote him in rank.[126][127] Hours after Trump was inaugurated, the official portrait of General Milley was removed from a Pentagon hallway where the portraits of all former chairmen are displayed.[128][129][130]
On August 29, 2025, President Trump announced that effective September 1, Vice President Kamala Harris would no longer receive Secret Service protection, which also had included continual monitoring of intelligence information.[131] She had been Trump’s opponent in the 2024 election.[132] Reportedly, a recent threat assessment had found nothing alarming, and this decision was made several weeks before Harris’ book tour for 107 Days, about her campaign.[133] Former vice-presidents typically receive such protection for 6 months. However, President Joe Biden had signed an executive order extending this for an additional year for Harris.[131][132]
Actions against corporations and business
Trump sought an unprecedented amount of control over US business, publicly attacked companies and their executives, demanded firings of corporate leaders who criticized or contradicted him, and demanded cuts of business profits by the federal government.[134] His administration confirmed that it maintained a loyalty scorecard of 553 American companies based on their "support of present and future administration initiatives".[135]
Trump abandoned traditional Republican orthodoxy about protecting and promoting the free market,[136][137][138] and sought greater and direct government control over private business which was widely described by academics, economists, commentators, and former corporate CEOs as an embrace of right-wing socialism,[139]Chinese Communism,[140][141][142] or state capitalism.[143][144][145] His demand and agreement with NVIDIA and AMD to provide the government with 15% of all overseas chip sales to China were described by critics as a "shakedown" and as potentially illegal and unconstitutional.[136][141] In an unprecedented move, the Pentagon became the largest shareholder of MP Materials, bypassing US procurement and contracting laws in the process.[146] As part of an agreement to allow Japan-based Nippon Steel buy US Steel, Trump was granted a personal, not governmental, golden share in US Steel, allowing him to influence board decisions and maintain veto power over certain decisions set to expire at the end of his presidential term, after which the Treasury and Commerce Departments would exercise control under all future presidents.[147]Intel agreed to grant the government a 10% equity stake in its company with no power to influence board decisions "with limited exceptions" in what NBC News described as "the president's latest extraordinary move to exert federal government control over private business".[137]
Writing for Time magazine in 2024, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld described Trump's moves against capitalism from his first term as sharing "more in common with far-left progressive positions than with traditional GOP views, and are often far more progressive than the Biden Administration" and wrote that he expected such attacks to continue into his second term.[148]
Trump's actions against the media and those who expressed certain viewpoints were described as negatively impacting free speech.[22][23][24] He criticized and fired officials who reported facts, statistics, and analysis that went against his opinions, and ordered them removed or redone to suit his preferences.[149] Scientists expressed fear of expressing viewpoints contrary to administration preferences, and the government undertook widespread online resource removals.[150] His deportations of activists and political dissidents were described as violating their free speech rights.[151]
Trump's actions were described as part of a revenge tour against the media, which some experts described as a "broad, systematic assault" on free speech. Trump claimed that some media groups should be "illegal", and frequently assaulted the "fake news" and suggested using law enforcement against them.[152] Sitting Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Anna M. Gomez called Trump's lawsuit against 60 Minutes' parent company CBS News part of "a campaign to censor and control" and to harass the media "into covering the news the way they want it to be covered".[153] As a result of Trump's threats, media executives instructed journalists and their staff to self-censor and reduce criticism of Trump.[154]
On July 24, Trump passed an executive order encouraging tech companies to censor their chatbots to prevent "woke AI". This action marked the first time the federal government explicitly attempted to shape the ideological behavior of AI. The order stated that companies selling their AI to the federal government must ensure their programs did not promote "destructive" diversity, equity and inclusion, and "concepts like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism". The order drew comparisons by scholars to the Chinese Communist Party's efforts to censor and control AI to reflect the core values of the Communist Party, although they described Trump's efforts as taking a softer and coercive route by instead encouraging self-censorship.[155]
Trump ordered cultural institutions, museums, and the Smithsonian to a comprehensive ideological review of its content. The review resulted in the widespread removal of information by the National Park Service at museums and parks across the country after the agency interpreted the order to include removing any mentions of racism, sexism, slavery, gay rights or persecution of Indigenous people.[156]
In July 2025, Trump sued The Wall Street Journal for publishing a story relating to his past friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, marking the first time a sitting president sued a media organization for alleged defamation.[157] In September, he also sued The New York Times for defamation. Following comments by Attorney General Pam Bondi that the administration would go after "hate speech" in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's death, Jonathan Karl of ABC News asked the president for his opinion on comments made by some of his allies who considered hate speech to be free speech. In response, Trump said that his administration would "probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly, it's hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart."[158]
FCC investigations
On January 22, Trump's FCC chair Brendan Carr revived three investigations into claims of bias from CBS, ABC, and NBC, but not Fox News, and Carr previously promised to punish news broadcasters he saw as unfair to Trump or Republicans in general.[159] On January 29, Carr ordered an investigation into underwriting announcements on NPR and PBS stations, and recommended that Congress stop funding these organizations (which aligns with the section of Project 2025 that Carr had authored).[160][161] In his first-term budgets, Trump had previously proposed eliminating funding for public broadcasting, art, libraries, and museums.[160] Carr sent a letter to the heads of NPR and PBS with his complaints, but ignored requests for a copy from a Democratic FCC commissioner.[160] On May 1, NPR and PBS were targeted by an executive order instructing the cessation of their funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the investigation of all other federal funds they received.[162][163] On February 12, Carr launched investigations into Comcast, the parent company of NBC News and Universal Studios, over having diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.[164]
Carr revived a 1960's-era policy prohibiting "news distortion" to target media outlets, and his actions were condemned by former Republican and Democratic FCC chairs and independent watchdog groups. Legal experts told Ars Technica that the investigations could be used to "harass licensees and hold up applications related to business deals", and Carr stated that a news distortion complaint against 60 Minutes' Kamala Harris interview would factor into an FCC review of a CBS transfer of TV broadcast station licenses to Skydance.[165] On July 2, CBS agreed to pay Trump's presidential library $16 million to settle the lawsuit while admitting no guilt, which led to allegations of bribing a public official owing to its payment ahead of a merger between Paramount and Skydance Media that required FCC approval.[166] CBS later canceled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert for financial reasons, although its timing ahead of the merger and after recent criticism Colbert made against the settlement payment which Colbert had criticized on the air three days earlier as "a big fat bribe" led to further allegations of political interference and potential bribery.[167] As part of the agreement, CBS agreed to create an Ombudsman to monitor its news channels to root out "bias" at CBS News,[168] and on the same day, Trump also claimed the company had agreed to give it $26 million dollars worth of free airtime.[169]
By July 25, 2025, liberal nonprofit group Media Matters reduced criticism of Trump and Republicans and contemplated shutting down entirely after numerous lawsuits launched against it by the FCC, Republican state attorney's general, and Elon Musk strained its cash reserves. The action was described by The New York Times as "offering a glimpse of what might be in store for even well-funded targets of his retribution campaigns".[170] Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan issued an injunction against the FCC investigation, writing that "It should alarm all Americans when the government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate".[171]
Restricting media access to the White House
Following his reelection, Trump launched lawsuits and created blacklists against certain media outlets, and took over the process run by the White House Correspondents' Association to choose what outlets could gain access to him.[172] He kicked out and prohibited certain outlets from access to events, and allowed right-wing outlets such as Real America's Voice, Blaze Media, and Newsmax into the press pool.[152]
In February 2025, Associated Press journalists were barred from entry to press briefings in the White House after the Trump administration objected to the Associated Press using the name "Gulf of Mexico" instead of "Gulf of America" as chosen by Trump.[173][174] The Associated Press had recommended both names were to be used, as "Mexico, as well as other countries and international bodies, do not have to recognize the name change", and "the Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years."[175] The Associated Press protested the Trump administration's action as violating the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, while White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later commented: "If we feel that there are lies being pushed by outlets in this room, we are going to hold those lies accountable", as she described the name of 'Gulf of America' as a "fact".[176][177] The administration followed up by banning Associated Press journalists indefinitely from the Oval Office and Air Force One, citing the gulf naming issue.[178] Trump said that month that the Associated Press would continue to be banned "until such time as they agree that it's the Gulf of America".[179] Associated Press filed a lawsuit on February 21, in which it states "The press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government, ... The Constitution does not allow the government to control speech. Allowing such government control and retaliation to stand is a threat to every American's freedom."[180]
On April 8, 2025, federal district judge Trevor McFadden granted the preliminary injunction sought by AP and ruled that the White House must lift the access restrictions they have imposed on the Associated Press while the AP v. Budowich lawsuit moves forward.[181][182] On April 13, even though a court order was placed, the Trump administration blocked the AP from covering a meeting between Trump and Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office.[183][184] On July 21 2025, Trump banned The Wall Street Journal from access to him after it published a story about Trump's relationship with convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.[185]
Trump's actions targeting higher education were described as part of an intimidation campaign against institutions viewed as hostile to his political views.[186][187] He targeted higher education by demanding it give federal oversight of curriculum and targeted activists, legal immigrants, tourists, and students with visas who expressed criticism of his policies or engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy.[188] Trump froze billions of dollars in federal funding for multiple universities in express defiance of existing laws prohibiting such actions without following proper legal processes that did not happen.[189] Emboldened by Columbia University's decision to pay a $221 million fine to the Trump administration to resolve its claims and install an outside monitor to ensure compliance, Trump expanded his university targets to include additional universities.[14]
The deals and demands made by Trump were criticized as coercive, a shakedown, and legalized extortion in what Axios described as pursuit of a "cultural crackdown".[14][189] In April 2025, the American Association of Colleges and Universities published a statement signed by more than 150 university and college presidents that condemned "unprecedented government overreach and political interference" in education from the Trump administration.[190] Also in April, faculties at several universities in the collegiate Big Ten Conference voted to approve a "mutual-defense compact" against Trump administration actions.[191] Historian of academic freedom in the United States Ellen Schrecker has compared the Trump administration's actions unfavorably to McCarthyism, saying that Trump's actions against universities are more severe and far-reaching than the persecution of communists in academia during the Second Red Scare.[192] On September 3rd, Judge Allison D. Burroughs found Trump's efforts to freeze billions of dollars of funding for Harvard illegal, writing that the government had infringed upon Harvard's free speech rights and that it was "difficult to conclude anything other than that defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country's premier universities".[193]
↑ Mazaetti, Mark; Swan, Jonathan; Haberman, Maggie; Schmidt, Michael S. (January 28, 2025). "In Exacting Retribution, Trump Aims at the Future as Well as the Past". The New York Times. ISSN0362-4331. Retrieved January 28, 2025. In his first week in office, President Trump made clear that his promises to exact revenge on his perceived enemies were not empty campaign pledges — and that his retribution is intended not just to impose punishment for the past but also to intimidate anyone who might cross him in the future.
↑ Collinson, Stephen (January 28, 2025). "Trump sets about his retribution agenda with relish". CNN. Retrieved January 28, 2025. The president is wasting no time in following through on his frequent campaign trail vows for retribution – with a torrent of purges and pardons.
1 2 3 Dreisbach, Tom (April 28, 2025). "Trump has used government powers to target more than 100 perceived enemies". NPR. Retrieved April 29, 2025. In the first 100 days of his second term, President Trump has moved aggressively to fulfill his promise of retribution against an extraordinary range of individuals and organizations, targeting political opponents, news organizations, former government officials, universities, international student protesters and law firms.
1 2 3 4 5 Savage, Charlie (April 30, 2025). "Trump's Maximalist Assertion of Presidential Power Tests the Rule of Law". The New York Times. Retrieved May 4, 2025. The president, far more than in his first term, has cast aside a post-Watergate norm that the White House should stay out of law enforcement decisions. After years of baselessly accusing Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of directing investigations into him, he has made a reality the very weaponization of the Justice Department he once railed against.
1 2 3 Basu, Zachary (July 30, 2025). "Trump's billion-dollar settlement spree". Axios. Retrieved July 30, 2025. America's most elite institutions have largely succumbed to the Trump administration's cultural crackdown, opting to pay up — often to the tune of tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars — rather than fight back.
1 2 Riccardi, Nicholas (March 1, 2025). "Trump's moves test the limits of presidential power and the resilience of US democracy". AP News. Retrieved April 13, 2025. "Trump is using the classic elected authoritarian playbook," said Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College, who joined more than 800 other political scientists in signing a letter warning that Trump is undermining the rule of law and the basic constitutional principle of checks and balances.
↑ Tau, Byron (January 22, 2025). "Trump's perceived enemies worry about losing pensions, getting audited and paying steep legal bills". Associated Press News. Archived from the original on January 23, 2025. Retrieved January 23, 2025. Revenge played a central role in many of Trump's remarks after he left the presidency in 2021. He said at a 2023 rally, "For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution."... But hours after being sworn in, he issued executive orders aimed at settling scores, including the one stripping clearances from 50 former intelligence officers. He also rescinded Secret Service protection for Bolton, whose life has been threatened by Iran.
↑ Oreskes, Benjamin (February 19, 2025). "'Long Live the King': Trump Likens Himself to Royalty on Truth Social". The New York Times. Retrieved July 22, 2025. Some of his policy moves have rested on a far more expansive legal theory — known as the unitary executive theory — of presidential power.
↑ Baker, Peter (January 22, 2025). "'The Return of the King': Trump Embraces Trappings of the Throne". The New York Times. Retrieved July 22, 2025. Perhaps it is a fitting metaphor as Mr. Trump takes control in Washington again this week with royal flourishes and monarchical claims to religious legitimacy. In his Inaugural Address, he claimed that when a gunman opened fire on him last summer, he "was saved by God to make America great again," an echo of the divine right of kings.
↑ Jouvenal, Justin (July 21, 2025). "Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 1, 2025. A comprehensive analysis of hundreds of lawsuits against Trump policies shows dozens of examples of defiance, delay and dishonesty, which experts say pose an unprecedented threat to the U.S. legal system. [...] The Post examined 337 lawsuits filed against the administration since Trump returned to the White House and began a rapid-fire effort to reshape government programs and policy. As of mid-July, courts had ruled against the administration in 165 of the lawsuits. The Post found that the administration is accused of defying or frustrating court oversight in 57 of those cases — almost 35 percent. Legal experts said the pattern of conduct is unprecedented for any presidential administration and threatens to undermine the judiciary's role as a check on an executive branch asserting vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution.
↑ Duehren, Andrew; Rappeport, Alan; Buettner, Russ (April 18, 2025). "With Harvard Threat, Trump Tries to Bend the I.R.S. to His Will". The New York Times. Retrieved August 2, 2025. In the years after President Richard Nixon enlisted the Internal Revenue Service to investigate his political opponents, Congress passed a series of laws to make sure the agency would focus on collecting taxes and not use its vast powers to carry out political vendettas. But President Trump has moved swiftly to suppress that independence in the first few months of his second term and, tax experts and former agency officials warn, return the I.R.S. to darker days when it was used as a political tool of the president.
↑ Schleifer, Theodore (July 8, 2025). "Liberal Fund-Raising Drive Seeks $250 Million to Aid Pushback Against Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved August 2, 2025. Mr. Trump's attacks on law firms, news organizations and liberal activists have accelerated in his second term, causing some liberal donors to slow their giving in the opening months of the new Trump presidency. That is in part because some philanthropists harbor concerns that Mr. Trump could go after the philanthropies themselves, including by directing the Internal Revenue Service to strip them of their tax-exempt status.
1 2 Thrush, Glenn (May 29, 2025). "Trump's Flurry of Pardons Signals a Wholesale Effort to Redefine Crime". The New York Times. Retrieved June 4, 2025. President Trump is employing the vast power of his office to redefine criminality to suit his needs — using pardons to inoculate criminals he happens to like, downplaying corruption and fraud as crimes, and seeking to stigmatize political opponents by labeling them criminals.
1 2 Thrush, Glenn; Feuer, Alan (May 21, 2025). "If Justice Dept. Can't Prosecute Trump's Foes, It Will 'Shame' Them, Official Says". The New York Times. Retrieved June 4, 2025. President Trump has kept up a steady bombardment of suggestions, requests and demands to arrest, investigate or prosecute targets of his choosing — the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, various Democrats, officials who refuted his election lies, Beyoncé, the Boss.
↑ Thrush, Glenn; Kanno-Youngs, Zolan (March 14, 2025). "Trump to Deliver Speech to Justice Dept. After Triumph in Battles Against It". The New York Times. ISSN0362-4331. Retrieved March 14, 2025. The president could also unveil new steps to combat "weaponization" of the department, even as his officials use its powers to punish his enemies and reward his allies. ... In justifying nearly all of his actions, Mr. Bove has not introduced evidence of wrongdoing or incompetence.
↑ Yourish, Karen; Smart, Charlie (May 24, 2024). "Trump's Pattern of Sowing Election Doubt Intensifies in 2024". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 25, 2024. Retrieved March 14, 2025. Long before announcing his candidacy, Mr. Trump and his supporters had been falsely claiming that President Biden was 'weaponizing' the Justice Department to target him.
↑ Rogers, Katie; Kanno-Youngs, Zolan (September 15, 2025). "White House Plans Broad Crackdown on Liberal Groups". The New York Times. Retrieved September 15, 2025. But Mr. Trump and his top allies suggested that the suspect was part of a coordinated movement that was fomenting violence against conservatives, without presenting evidence that such a network existed.
↑ Barett, Devlin (March 25, 2025). "Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting New Law Firm, Jenner & Block". The New York Times. Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 27, 2025. ... singling out a firm where a former prosecutor who investigated him once worked as the White House pursues vengeance against the profession he blames for his legal troubles. ... Mr. Trump's accusations against the firm range from the personal to the political, ... .
↑ Scarcella, Mike (March 26, 2025). "Why target these law firms? For Trump, it's personal". Reuters. Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 27, 2025. ... his perceived grievance that an attorney linked to the firm has personally done him wrong. ... 'The administration is going after law firms that the president perceives as having been hostile to him personally.'
1 2 Wile, Rob (August 22, 2025). "U.S. takes 10% stake in Intel as Trump flexes more power over big business". NBC News. Retrieved August 24, 2025. Trump continues to bulldoze through long-held norms regarding government and business, departing from the free-market ethos that has long prevailed in both major U.S. political parties.
↑ Sutton, Sam; Guida, Victoria (August 22, 2025). "Trump is turning the government into an investment firm". Politico. Retrieved August 24, 2025. From tariff carveouts to pro bono legal work from white-shoe law firms, Trump is exerting power over U.S. businesses in ways that go beyond even Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) aspirations. His ability to inject his agenda into private enterprises and dealmaking has shaken the guardrails that protect businesses from sudden political shifts and defied the free-market orthodoxy that was a hallmark of Republican economic policymaking.
1 2 "Trump wants to command bosses like Xi does. He is failing". The Economist. August 13, 2025. Retrieved August 24, 2025. Ignore for a moment Donald Trump's shakedown of Nvidia, in which he has allowed the world's most valuable firm to resume limited exports of its artificial-intelligence (AI) chips to China in return for giving a 15% cut of the proceeds to Uncle Sam.
↑ Morrow, Allison (August 13, 2025). "Trump is tightening his grip on the economy, taking a page from China". CNN. Retrieved August 24, 2025. Trump's realignment of American business also bears similarities to China's model of 'state capitalism' — a mix between socialism and classic free-market capitalism in which the state is involved in, but doesn't directly own, private businesses.
↑ Northey, Hannah (August 18, 2025). "Trump's mineral megadeal is bypassing US laws". E&E News. Retrieved August 24, 2025. It's an unprecedented, though legally defensible, strategy that invites both risk and reward, said Joel Dodge, director of Industrial Policy & Economic Security at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator.
↑ McKenzie, Carrier; Carothers, Thomas (August 25, 2025). "U.S. Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved September 7, 2025. In July, Trump sued the Wall Street Journal for publishing a story he did not like relating to his past friendship with Jeffrey Epstein—the first time in U.S. history that a sitting president has sued a media organization for alleged defamation.
1 2 "What Donald Trump is teaching Harvard". The Economist. July 30, 2025. Retrieved July 30, 2025. Maybe so, but the settlement was still a shakedown. Mr Trump skipped the legal process by which the government can cancel funds. By law the administration has to offer a hearing and submit a report to Congress at least 30 days before the cut-off takes effect. None of that happened. Of course coercive, bilateral deals are Mr Trump's métier—he has achieved them with law firms and trading partners.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
