Former President Donald Trump’s persistent threats to prosecute his perceived adversaries, recently reiterated, are troubling to legal and democratic experts. They worry that, based on his past actions, Trump might follow through on these threats if elected again.
Over the weekend, Trump claimed on Truth Social that the 2020 election was marred by “rampant Cheating and Skullduggery,” despite numerous audits disproving his allegations of voter fraud. He extended these claims to the 2024 election, warning that those he accuses of cheating should be prepared for prosecution if he wins.
This comes shortly after Trump called for military tribunals against former President Barack Obama and the House committee that investigated the January 6 Capitol attack. He also shared posts depicting prominent Democrats in jumpsuits.
Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer, compared Trump’s rhetoric to that of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where political opponents often face criminal charges. Painter warned that such actions threaten democratic principles.
Trump’s campaign asserts that he simply believes in prosecuting anyone who breaks the law, including those involved in election fraud. However, critics argue that Trump’s call for revenge against his rivals ignores the differences between his legal issues and his threats.
Trump has a history of attempting to use the justice system against his opponents, as shown by his efforts to get the FBI and Justice Department to investigate rivals like Hillary Clinton and James Comey during his first term. Critics fear that Trump could have more success in undermining legal checks and balances if re-elected.
Amanda Carpenter, a former staffer and current advocate for Protect Democracy, believes that Trump could more easily compel underlings to pursue such prosecutions in a future administration, given weakened checks on presidential power.
Some supporters, like UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo, argue that prosecuting rivals could deter future political charges against presidents. Meanwhile, others, like George Mason law professor Ilya Somin, argue that Trump’s suggestions for retaliation overlook the need for evidence of actual crimes.
Trump’s threats also include vague accusations against his rivals without clear legal grounding, potentially using his influence to target them unfairly. This concern is heightened by the possibility of weakened institutional resistance if Trump prioritizes loyalty over legal norms in future appointments.
