How Trump is weaponising the Department of Justice, and the ‘dark’ tactic he’s using to get away with it
- Written by Stephen Harrington, Associate Professor, School of Communication, Queensland University of Technology
It’s hard to keep track of US President Donald Trump’s many notable acts since returning to the White House. His recent pro-Russia stance[1] on the war in Ukraine has, rightly, received a lot of attention[2].
But for every big moment, there are others that fly under the radar. One such issue is the politicisation of the Department of Justice (DoJ).
Although there is longstanding precedent[3] that the DoJ remains politically neutral in its operations, recent events have indicated a dramatic break from that tradition.
And, importantly, Trump has been laying the groundwork to justify this for nearly two years, using a propaganda tactic that’s been employed by authoritarian governments throughout history.
Strategic sidelining
The current administration has attempted to fire or sideline[4] anyone at the DoJ who was involved with prior investigations and prosecutions of the now-president.
This includes special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations[5] into several aspects of Trump’s wrongdoing, which have since ended. Several lawyers have been fired[6], ostensibly because “the Acting Attorney-General does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda”.
This action is not only vindictive, but likely designed to intimidate would-be investigators and make them think twice before further examining any wrongdoing by Trump or his associates.
Equally noteworthy has been the department’s attempts to drop corruption charges[7] against New York mayor Eric Adams. The official reason is that pursuing the charges might “interfere” with Adams’ reelection campaign.
In reality, however, Adams has been accused of cutting a deal[8] with the administration: he agrees to assist[9] with Trump’s immigration crackdown in return for having the charges against him withdrawn (although not dropped entirely).
Adams denies the existence of a quid pro quo, but he did joke about it on national television[10] with Tom Homan, Trump’s “Border Czar”.
So deeply problematic was all this that two US attorneys for the Southern District of New York opted to resign in protest[11], rather than be party to what they saw as a nakedly corrupt act.
The whole scenario is eerily reminiscent of 1973’s “Saturday Night Massacre[12]”, when President Richard Nixon ordered his Attorney-General Elliot Richardson to fire the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal.
Nixon eventually had his way, but not before refusals and resignations from both Richardson, and the Deputy Attorney-General William Ruckleshaus.
But, where Nixon’s move dramatically hastened his own downfall, Trump’s actions have barely raised an eyebrow. Why?
The propaganda play
The answer lies in a propaganda technique known as “accusation in a mirror”, which entails accusing one’s opponents of the very wrongdoing one plans to commit.
As one legal scholar explains[13], it’s:
a rhetorical practice in which one falsely accuses one’s enemies of conducting, plotting, or desiring to commit precisely the same transgressions that one plans to commit against them.
Accusation in a mirror has been used in the past, including in the Rwandan genocide[14]. There, trusted voices claimed the Tutsi wanted to “exterminate” the Hutu. Tragically, it helped bring about the exact opposite circumstance.
Similarly, in February 2022 Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the Ukrainian government of committing genocide against Russian-speaking populations in the Donbas region. This baseless accusation[15] provided a justification for invading Ukraine, which mirrored Russia’s own indiscriminate shelling of Ukrainian civilians.
We suggest Trump has been using this technique since he was first criminally indicted, in early 2023, on 34 felony charges related to the falsification of business records. He and his supporters have insisted[16] the department, under President Joe Biden, was “weaponised” against him.
Trump repeatedly claimed those charges – and subsequent indictments[17] – were a politically motivated “witch hunt”[18]. He reiterated these claims[19] in his first speech to Congress.
Many elected Republicans have also supported and amplified that narrative[20].
These claims of victimhood have helped prime Trump’s base to appraise any subsequent legal scrutiny of him as purely partisan, and therefore invalid.
In reality, the facts were straightforward. Prosecutors were sure there was enough proof to proceed with the case, including evidence Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence[21], and obstructed attempts to retrieve them[22].
In a functioning legal system, nobody is “above the law”. This means even former presidents can be prosecuted[23] if there’s enough evidence.
Yet Trump’s accusations of a partisan DoJ completely reframed legitimate investigations into alleged political vendettas. In doing so, it effectively justified his subsequent decisions.
A self-fulfilling prophecy
The idea that “if they did it to me, I’m entitled to do it back” was made explicit by Trump in late 2023.
When asked if he would use the DoJ to go after his political rivals, Trump argued he would only be levelling the playing field, stating[24]:
they’ve already done it, but if they want to follow through on this, yeah, it could certainly happen in reverse.
In short, Trump’s false claim of being victimised by a politicised DoJ served as moral cover for his own politicisation of it.
This is a textbook example of how accusation in a mirror can help manufacture the reality it pretends to condemn.
Addressing the problem
This tactic has long been a play by totalitarian and authoritarian leaders.
Foundational propaganda scholars such as Hannah Arendt[25] and Jacques Ellul[26] highlighted how authoritarian rulers often repeat falsehoods – flipping the aggressor and victim – until the masses become desensitised, alienated and confused.
Once enough people believe the system is already corrupt and untrustworthy, they are less likely to be shocked by an actual purge (such as firing DoJ officials).
The implications of such tactics extend internationally, not just to the US.
History cries out to us about the risks of this sort of public discourse. It erodes trust in institutions and liberal democratic processes, paving the road for leaders to undermine them further, corrupting the system in the name of rooting out corruption.
Ultimately, one of the best antidotes is awareness. By exposing these tactics, we can better safeguard against disinformation, protect the rule of law and hold leaders accountable.
References
- ^ pro-Russia stance (apnews.com)
- ^ lot of attention (theconversation.com)
- ^ longstanding precedent (theconversation.com)
- ^ attempted to fire or sideline (www.nbcnews.com)
- ^ Jack Smith’s investigations (www.justice.gov)
- ^ have been fired (www.nbcnews.com)
- ^ drop corruption charges (www.bbc.com)
- ^ cutting a deal (www.bbc.com)
- ^ agrees to assist (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ joke about it on national television (www.axios.com)
- ^ opted to resign in protest (www.axios.com)
- ^ Saturday Night Massacre (en.wikipedia.org)
- ^ explains (lawecommons.luc.edu)
- ^ Rwandan genocide (www.hrw.org)
- ^ baseless accusation (theconversation.com)
- ^ have insisted (www.bbc.com)
- ^ subsequent indictments (en.wikipedia.org)
- ^ politically motivated “witch hunt” (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ reiterated these claims (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ supported and amplified that narrative (www.instagram.com)
- ^ illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ obstructed attempts to retrieve them (wapo.st)
- ^ even former presidents can be prosecuted (theconversation.com)
- ^ stating (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ Hannah Arendt (cheirif.wordpress.com)
- ^ Jacques Ellul (ratical.org)
Authors: Stephen Harrington, Associate Professor, School of Communication, Queensland University of Technology
