Has the DOJ Been Weaponized?

October 14th, 2025
Arnav Goyal

Over this past month, a series of high-profile charges has taken the DOJ by storm. The first indictment was against former FBI Director James Comey, then New York Attorney General Letitia James and now rumors of an imminent indictment of former National Security Advisor John Bolton have intensified fears that the DOJ is being weaponized for political ends. This may well signal a major shift in DOJ policy, one that could usher in a new age of weaponization.

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted on September 25 in Virginia on two counts, both relating to his 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, those being: making false statements to Congress (perjury) and the obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

Comey entered a not guilty plea earlier this month, and a trial date is set for January 5. The supposed false statement refers to the aforementioned testimony, where he denied authorizing anonymous leaks to the press. One additional count was proposed, but the grand jury declined to indict on it.

What makes the Comey case especially baffling is its origin. President Trump pressured then-US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, to resign. Once he did, he installed Lindsey Halligan, a loyalist with no prior prosecutorial experience, to indict Comey and also James, and the case was pushed to a grand jury. The indictment occurred despite the earlier recommendation against prosecution by many in the DOJ. Many within the DOJ see this as a breaking point for internal norms.

Just days after Comey’s indictment, the DOJ indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on October 9 on two felony counts: bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

The charges revolve around her 2020 purchase of a property in Norfolk, Virginia, which prosecutors claim she misrepresented as her primary residence through handing over her power of attorney to her niece, though it was used more like an investment property. James has denied wrongdoing, calling the case politically motivated. The former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, had reportedly drafted a declination memo. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against James, but Siebert resigned, and Halligan replaced him, meaning she is handling both cases, leading her to find supposed evidence to charge James. Her arraignment date is later in October.

Meanwhile, the possibility of charging former NSA John Bolton looms. In August, the FBI raided Bolton’s home and his Washington office under warrants tied to classified documents and national security materials. Agents seized his phones, computers, and files. Outlets are now reporting that federal prosecutors are preparing an indictment, and that a formal charging decision is essentially imminent.

These 3 cases may serve as a warning to other officials in the DOJ, suggesting that no one is beyond scrutiny if they cross the current administration.

Comey’s defense is already putting up major challenges. They are likely to argue selective prosecution and question whether Halligan’s appointment was lawful. Because the indictment does not detail the exact leaks or statements at issue, there is room for motions to dismiss on grounds of vagueness or overreach, along with the aforementioned case with Halligan.

Letitia James’s case faces its own challenges. Her defense will likely dig deeply into mortgage loan forms, definitions of “residence” vs. “investment,” and how documents were presented. The fact that many internal DOJ prosecutors initially refused to bring charges against her will also play into claims of selective targeting.

As for Bolton, a successful indictment would extend the pattern into national security territory, making it not just about political feuds but about control over sensitive information.

Overall, these 3 cases sum up a new Department of Justice that makes it seem as if it is almost weaponized. Vague indictments and handpicked prosecutors could very well signify it. However, the future of the DOJ is still uncertain, as we could see many more of these indictments happening among those opposed to Trump, similar to how James and Comey were indicted.