Is it law enforcement or is it retribution?

A new tracker and three-part test to spot retaliation

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., is forcibly removed as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem holds a news conference, June 12, 2025. (David Crane/The Orange County Register via AP)

We all know why Lisa Cook is under investigation for a crime.

The Trump administration wanted her gone from her position on the Federal Reserve Board. So it seems Trump loyalists went digging to find something, anything, that could be used as a pretext to fire her. And they allegedly found something: a potential error — whether knowing or accidental — on a loan application.

Even if the Trump administration has evidence of some impropriety in Cook’s mortgage applications, this is textbook weaponized justice. The administration’s handling of the allegations — including a guilt-presuming social media announcement by the president himself — clearly reveals a retaliatory motive.

In case there was any doubt, new reporting by ProPublica found that three members of Trump’s cabinet — Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin — all did the exact same thing as Cook. (Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. Needless to say, they don’t appear to be under investigation.)

Cook, however, is not the only adversary, opponent, critic, or political target on the receiving end of law enforcement.

The administration has leveled the same mortgage-related accusations against other Trump political opponents: New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the successful fraud suit against the Trump Organization, and Adam Schiff, one of the president’s most vocal critics on Capitol Hill and the overseer of his first impeachment.

And in recent months, a number of leaders who publicly demonstrated their opposition to federal policy have been detained. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Rep. LaMonica McIver were arrested while attempting to access an ICE detention facility in Newark (McIver was subsequently indicted). SEIU President David Huerta was arrested while protesting an ICE operation in Los Angeles. Also in L.A., U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla was tackled and handcuffed while asking Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question at a press conference. And NYC Comptroller Brad Lander, then a mayoral candidate, was arrested while escorting an immigrant in a federal building.

Our new interactive database released today tracks potential instances of retaliatory criminal actions. Visit the tool here:

While the legality of each action is fact-specific, and no one is above the law, the pattern is becoming clear: The administration is invested in using the power of law enforcement to punish opponents, chill dissent, and achieve its own political objectives — norms and guardrails be damned.

So how can Americans evaluate these and other politically consequential arrests, accusations, and investigations? What about when the facts are murkier and the motives less clear? How can we tell which instance fits the pattern or is just a coincidence?

Read more: Investigating and prosecuting political leaders in a democracy.

Here is a simple three-question framework for determining whether the administration is unlawfully targeting a political opponent.

First: Is there evidence suggesting political interference with the investigations?

For decades both Democratic and Republican-led Justice Departments have followed norms and policies aimed at preventing law enforcement operations from becoming politicized. Think about it like a firewall between the country’s law enforcement apparatus and political actors (namely, the president). This firewall existed to prevent not only the exploitation of law enforcement activities for political purposes but even the appearance of such. In part, that’s because law enforcement relies on the public’s trust to give it legitimacy.

Read more: MAGA discovers the downsides of a politicized DOJ.

No other administration has so openly disclaimed adherence to the very idea that law enforcement should be independent of the president’s personal political interests. President Trump and his senior political appointees have repeatedly and explicitly announced their intention to engage in retaliatory law enforcement. Indeed, Trump announced his presidential campaign by promising retribution against those who had prosecuted or otherwise opposed him. And he’s kept that promise.

Since re-taking office, Trump has directly ordered criminal investigations of certain foes, such as Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor, while using language like “treason.” And it was the president who called on DOJ to investigate James and Schiff for mortgage fraud.

That’s not how these things are supposed to work. Investigations should be initiated by apolitical law enforcement professionals who follow the evidence, law, and DOJ policy to arrive at a conclusion about wrongdoing. And they shouldn’t discuss their cases in the court of public opinion.

Second: Is there evidence to support the investigations and indictments, and are the subjects being treated the same as similarly situated others?

To quote U.S. Magistrate Judge Andre Espinosa during the proceeding against Newark mayor Ras Baraka:

An arrest, particularly of a public figure, is not a preliminary investigative tool. It is a severe action, carrying significant reputational and personal consequences, and it should only be undertaken after a thorough, dispassionate evaluation of credible evidence.

When there isn’t credible evidence to support an investigation or indictment or if law enforcement is handling a case differently when it involves a political opponent, those are indications that a subject is being targeted for political reasons.

This can show up in many ways. The Trump administration seems to have a proclivity for charging matters as federal crimes and subsequently executing public arrests in cases that do not involve bodily injury, other indicators of serious offenses, or a credible flight risk in cases involving its political opponents. And in many cases, publicly announcing investigations before any charges, including cases that are eventually dropped without charges. This is a blatant contradiction of DOJ guidelines that suggests selective enforcement.

One recent example is the handling of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan’s case. While it is true a grand jury found probable cause to indict her and a judge has so far declined to dismiss the charges, the Trump administration is not treating her case the same way that other similar cases — those not involving political opponents — are handled. Instead of issuing a summons and following standard procedure for proceedings that don’t involve violence or a known flight risk, the Trump administration forcibly and publicly arrested Dugan days after the alleged incident at issue occurred.

The only purpose apparently served by this show of authority was to threaten others similarly situated that they could be next.

Third: Have courts and other legal validators upheld the Justice Department's actions?

One indication that a case is legitimate and not politically motivated is that apolitical legal actors agree on the merits. While not all cases brought by the Department of Justice should be expected to lead to indictments, the failure to present enough credible evidence to indict should be the exception and not the norm.

The Trump administration’s notable pattern of conducting high-profile arrests only to drop (or be forced to drop) the charges days or weeks later has led judges and prominent legal commentators to sharply criticize the administration’s actions, both in the courtroom and out. Fewer than 15% of the cases dominating the Trump administration’s social media and press coverage have survived scrutiny by the judicial system.

At a hearing formally dismissing the charge against Ras Baraka, the Newark mayor who was arrested at an ICE detention facility, Judge Andre Espinosa called DOJ’s rush to arrest Baraka and its subsequent dismissal of the complaint against him an "embarrassing retraction” that suggested “a failure to adequately investigate, to carefully gather facts, and to thoughtfully consider the implication of your actions before wielding your immense power.” He then admonished the United States Attorney’s Office to “uphold your solemn oath … to justice itself.”

What can be done?

The norms we have long relied on to uphold the rule of law are no longer sufficient on their own to prevent the federal government from wielding its law enforcement power to target people and organizations for political reasons.

Congress can and should use the Trump administration’s open weaponization of justice as an opportunity to enact new and more robust protections to deter abuse, empower individuals and organizations to defend themselves, and create meaningful accountability.

But remember, the ultimate goal of weaponized law enforcement is to intimidate and silence critics. The abuse of law enforcement powers helps the autocrat only if we let it. Don’t obey in advance. Continue to voice your opposition, make your wishes known to our elected representatives, participate in protests, and dissent.

In the meantime, we’re putting this framework to use ourselves. We’ve built a brand new tool to track politicized law enforcement actions.

This tool aims to support greater clarity and accountability and to help separate the signal from the noise — not to reflexively label every politically sensitive case as political, but rather to identify when the evidence shows retaliation. Learn more by reading our new analysis, which applies our guide to assess the difference between the rule of law and abuses of power to the Trump administration’s actions: Assessing the Trump DOJ’s investigations and prosecutions.

You might even bookmark the tracker so that you don’t miss an update.