Rule Of Law—or Political Payback?

June 20, 2026

A female politician speaking at a podium with microphones

When both parties now promise to “investigate the investigators,” the real danger is a justice system that serves the powerful first and the public last.

Story Snapshot

Kamala Harris told Don Lemon that Trump-era Justice Department officials should face investigation if evidence shows they abused their power.
Her view sits inside a wider, bipartisan war over “weaponization” of government, where each side claims to be restoring the rule of law.
Watchdog groups have raised serious concerns about past Justice Department misconduct, but hard proof of specific illegal orders is still limited.
Both Harris and Trump now argue they are “ending weaponization” by going after their predecessors, deepening public distrust in federal power.

What Harris Told Don Lemon About Going After Trump’s DOJ

During the 2020 primary season, Senator Kamala Harris told CNN anchor Don Lemon that if she became president, the Justice Department would have “no choice” but to pursue obstruction-of-justice charges against Donald Trump, based on the special counsel report she said showed “ten clear incidents” of obstruction.^[1] Pressed on whether that meant directing prosecutors, she replied that she would not “direct” the department, but argued that no one, including a president, should be above the law and that accountability must apply even to powerful officials.^[1]

That core idea has now resurfaced in a new form: Harris and her allies say that if evidence shows Trump-era Justice Department officials opened baseless or political cases, those officials should be investigated too. Harris has built a record of backing more aggressive tools against corruption, including a 2021 legislative package, transmitted under her name as vice president, that sought stronger powers to go after kleptocracy, foreign money laundering, and human rights abuses.^[4] Supporters point to that package as proof she frames Justice Department power as a tool for accountability, not immunity for insiders.^[4]

How This Fits a Larger Fight Over “Weaponization”

This clash is not happening in a vacuum. In his second term, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government,” directing the attorney general to review enforcement agencies, including the Justice Department, for past “misconduct” and to recommend “remedial actions.”^[19] That order claims the prior administration abused law enforcement and intelligence powers and makes “accountability” for that alleged weaponization official White House policy, echoing language Harris once used about Trump.

Attorney General Pam Bondi then created a “Weaponization Working Group” inside the Justice Department to review “politicized prosecutions,” including cases against Trump himself, January 6 defendants, and anti-abortion protesters.^[18] Critics argue that this working group has itself been used “as part of a broad use of federal powers against the political opponents of Donald Trump,” pointing to indictments or threatened prosecutions of figures such as James Comey, John Bolton, and Adam Schiff.^[18] For many Americans, it now appears that each new administration forms a task force to scour the last one, while ordinary people still struggle with crime, prices, and broken institutions.

What We Actually Know About Trump-Era DOJ Conduct

Nonpartisan and left-leaning watchdogs have documented serious accountability problems inside the Justice Department long before today’s fight. The Brennan Center reports that federal courts have chastised department lawyers for making false or unsupported claims, evading court orders, and overstepping their authority, concluding that such a department should not automatically get the benefit of the doubt.^[9] Another Brennan Center analysis describes internal systems that often shield Justice Department attorneys from consequences for misconduct rather than exposing it to public view.^[14]

During the first Trump term, the Center for American Progress says the department’s inspector general did not complete any major public investigations into possible corruption tied to Trump administration officials, calling this “lack of oversight” a sign of an internal accountability gap rather than proof that all was well.^[10] Advocacy group American Oversight has highlighted claims that a United States attorney faced pressure to pursue a mortgage fraud case against a state attorney general, despite not finding evidence of a crime, as part of its probe into alleged attempts to use federal law enforcement against political opponents.^[11]

Is Harris Talking Accountability or Revenge?

The hard question is whether Harris’s promise to “go after” Trump-era Justice Department abuses would follow rule-of-law standards or would simply mirror the political targeting critics see in Trump’s current approach. A detailed guide from Protect Democracy lays out a simple test: ask whether a case has solid evidence that fits real criminal laws, whether similar cases against non-politicians have been brought, and whether Justice Department safeguards meant to keep politics out are actually being followed.^[23] Under that view, politicians are not exempt from prosecution, but they also cannot be hunted just because of their politics.^[23]

Right now, there is a lot of smoke and not enough clear fire. The public record includes strong claims that the Trump Justice Department was misused and that later reviews under Trump’s second term are also politically slanted, but there is little publicly released, case-by-case evidence proving a specific illegal order from a named official regarding the Newsom-related disputes.^[10] Courts and inspectors general have not yet issued detailed findings on those episodes. That vacuum lets both sides shout “weaponization” while most citizens are left guessing who, if anyone, is telling the full truth.

Why Ordinary Americans Feel Squeezed Either Way

For citizens watching from the sidelines, this fight reinforces a grim pattern. When liberal leaders talk about accountability, many conservatives hear a threat to punish political enemies while crime, illegal immigration, and high costs go unresolved. When conservative leaders launch “weaponization” reviews, many liberals see a purge meant to shield Trump and his allies while ignoring real abuses of power. Both sides can point to real, documented Justice Department failures, yet neither side has fixed the deeper culture of impunity at the top.^[9]

That is why distrust of Washington is growing across the spectrum. People see presidents, attorneys general, and members of Congress trading accusations and sometimes indictments, while the same institutions struggle to protect free speech online, secure the border, keep communities safe, and defend equal justice. Harris’s call to investigate Trump-era Justice Department officials, and Trump’s campaign to investigate the Biden era, fit the same cycle. Without full transparency, strict evidence standards, and equal treatment for allies and opponents alike, “justice” risks becoming what many fear it already is: punishment for “just us,” not for the powerful who break the rules.