The Attorney General Is Not the President’s Fixer

By Paul McNulty & John G. Malcolm

Monday, May 04, 2026

 

After starting his career as a federal prosecutor and serving as chief counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy, Roy Cohn practiced law in New York, developing a reputation as the quintessential fixer. One of the people Cohn represented and mentored was a young real estate developer named Donald Trump. In The Art of the Deal, Trump wrote that while hundreds of individuals who boasted of their uncompromising integrity had “absolutely no loyalty,” Cohn was “just the opposite.” He would later state that Cohn had “been vicious to others in his protection of me.”

 

In 2017, at the outset of the Russian collusion investigation, after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, President Trump lamented, “Where is my Roy Cohn?”

 

The claims by Trump and many of his supporters that he was the victim of lawfare at the hands of Democratic administrations have merit. After leaving office in 2021, Trump was indicted four times — twice by Special Counsel Jack Smith, by Fulton County, Ga., District Attorney Fani Willis, and by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. With unlimited resources at his disposal, Smith amassed a gigantic team of investigators and prosecutors dedicated to bringing the former president before the bar of justice. The FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago came to symbolize the special prosecutor’s blind zeal. The New York prosecution resulted in Trump being convicted, although one of us has previously written that his conviction should be overturned on appeal. Criminal charges were also filed (some still pending) against individuals who assisted Trump with his legal challenges to the 2020 election. Trump was also subject to a highly questionable civil fraud suit by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

 

The Biden Justice Department, meanwhile, also made liberal use of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act to prosecute pro-life individuals peacefully protesting outside of abortion clinics, but failed to indict violent individuals who firebombed or otherwise damaged dozens of churches, pro-life organizations, and pregnancy resource centers providing financial and other assistance to underprivileged women desiring to keep their unborn children. In 2023, an internal FBI memo labeled “Radical-Traditionalist Catholics” who held conservative views as potential domestic terrorists. And during the Obama administration, several individuals connected to the Trump campaign were investigated and subsequently prosecuted under questionable circumstances, including through abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This culminated in the spurious Russian collusion investigation that dogged Trump for much of his first term.

 

President Trump was right to call out these abuses, but instead of calling for an end to lawfare and ensuring that the Justice Department honors the rule of law and dispenses justice in an even-handed, non-political manner during his second term, Trump has demanded that the Justice Department punish his political opponents. And he seems to think his attorney general should play the role of fixer.

 

In September 2025, Trump sent a message directly to Attorney General Pam Bondi via a Truth Social post (which he deleted shortly after it was posted, apparently believing he was sending her a private message), saying that he had reviewed dozens of her statements and posts and that she was “all talk, no action.” He continued: “Nothing is being done. What about [former FBI Director Jim] Comey, [U.S. Senator] Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, [N.Y. Attorney General] Leticia [sic] [James]??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.” Shortly thereafter, Comey and James were, in fact, indicted, although both indictments were dismissed. Trump took to Truth Social to call former Special Counsel Jack Smith “deranged” and a “thug” who “should be brought to justice, NOW!!!” He has accused former FBI Directors Comey and Chris Wray, as well as former CIA Director John Brennan, of having committed perjury and claimed to have “irrefutable proof” that Obama, Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Brennan committed treason, which is punishable by death. The Justice Department is now investigating Cassidy Hutchison, a former White House aide who testified before the one-sided J6 Committee, and the president has called on the Justice Department to investigate CNN for running a story that said Iran claimed victory when the two-week cease-fire was announced. Recently, the president fired Bondi, ostensibly for failing to respond quickly enough to his demands by seeking additional charges against individuals the president has pilloried online. And unsurprisingly, Comey has now been indicted again — this time, under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche — over an allegedly threatening photo he posted of seashells displaying “86 47” on Instagram last May.

 

The point is not whether these individuals or CNN actually committed a crime, although we are skeptical about some of these cases (despite harboring little doubt about their anti-Trump motives). The point is that the president should not be directing the Justice Department to initiate investigations and then threatening to fire (or actually firing) prosecutors who fail to seek indictments in those cases.

 

In the aftermath of President Richard Nixon’s use of the Justice Department as a political weapon against people on his “enemies list,” Attorney General Griffin Bell established protocols to protect federal prosecutors from political interference from the White House. They begin: “The success of the Department of Justice depends upon the trust of the American people. That trust must be earned every day. And we can do so only through our adherence to the longstanding Departmental norms of independence from inappropriate influences, the principled exercise of discretion, and the treatment of like cases alike.”

 

These prudential protocols exist to engender public trust in the rule of law and protect the integrity of federal investigations and prosecutions. If a president has the ability to direct or interfere in criminal investigations, then the system will become rife with abuse, enabling the president to protect his political allies and punish his enemies by the threat or, in some cases, the reality of subjecting them to a costly investigation that can ruin them financially and reputationally or which can result in a conviction that may deprive them of their liberty. Presidential interference with investigations can also lead to credible allegations — as President Trump well knows from his own experience — that the charges were politically motivated, which can result in cases being dismissed or convictions overturned. The mere appearance of a politically motivated investigation or prosecution can erode the public’s trust in law enforcement, the rule of law, and the government more broadly. Once lost, that trust will be difficult to regain.

 

In 1940, Attorney General (later, Supreme Court Justice) Robert Jackson delivered a speech that is known to every federal prosecutor, in which he noted that “[t]he prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.” He continued: “While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.” It is certainly Donald Trump’s prerogative to hire a legal pit bull as his personal attorney. But this preference should not apply to the attorney general, whose client is the American people. The attorney general’s service as the government’s chief law enforcement officer should be distinguished by an even-handed representation of the United States in court. While the president is right to expect that the attorney general will implement his law enforcement priorities by putting more resources into, say, attacking violent crime, illegal immigration, and Medicare fraud, these expectations should not extend to the president’s political enemies. At the same time, being a political opponent does not put bad actors above the law. Accountability anchored strictly in the law and the facts is the department’s mission and the reason why “Lady Justice” wears a blindfold.

 

Finally, the president’s expectations seemingly ignore some basic realities that are beyond the control of even the most aggressive attorney general. First, DOJ regulations prohibit prosecutors from bringing charges “that he/she cannot reasonably expect to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient and admissible evidence at trial.” Career prosecutors are trained not to seek indictments from grand juries in weak cases. Second, an army of experienced defense lawyers are ready to exploit every weakness in a case. This certainly worked in the president’s favor when his lawyers successfully attacked the appointment of Jack Smith as the special prosecutor. And third, as we have repeatedly seen over the past year, federal judges are fully prepared to dismiss charges for a host of reasons. Simply put, the next attorney general should think twice before promising to deliver on the president’s demands.

 

In an oft-repeated statement from R v. Sussex Justices (1924), Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart wrote, “It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. . . . Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.” These are wise words that have guided generations of federal and state prosecutors.

 

If the president truly wants to end weaponization at the Justice Department, he should stop egging on federal prosecutors to indict his enemies. And he should insist that criminal investigations and prosecutions be governed by the facts and the law — and should never be about politics.

 

President Trump has the opportunity for a major reset by ending the cycle of weaponization, which threatens to escalate the next time a Democrat is in the White House. If he takes advantage of that opportunity, the future for the rule of law and his legacy will look brighter, and the public will thank him for it.