Staff Reports
In recent political discourse, one theme consistently emerges: the politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ). President Trump is making a bold declaration—either he believes it or not, he’s making sure everyone knows that he’s not afraid to wield the DOJ like a political sword. Whether one agrees with Trump or not, he is certainly not playing it cool, opting instead to shout his intentions from the rooftops. While many on the left may oppose this stance, it raises an intriguing question: is it worse to quietly manipulate institutions for political gain, or to openly declare one’s intentions?
Let’s acknowledge the not-so-small elephant in the room: the DOJ has been gradually losing credibility for years. Public trust in this institution registered at a mere 39% as of August 2025. The decline began to gain traction around the year 2020, a period marked by political strife and what many perceived as a blatant parallel of the previously endorsed “Spygate” narrative. Ironically, while some critics argue that Trump is the one responsible for this decline, it can be traced back to earlier administrations—namely Obama and Biden. Trump may be the loudest voice now, but the groundwork for mistrust was set long before he took office.
In a hypothetical world where all political players engage honorably, the rule of law would be respected and upheld without interference. But we are far from that ideal. Politicians like James Comey seem to pop up in headlines more frequently than a bad magician performing the same tired tricks. Calling for Trump to be imprisoned before all the facts can be evaluated is the kind of political theatrics that creates cynicism about justice in America. It’s easier to be a critic than to actually put forth a case based on facts—after all, screaming loudly is often mistaken for having a valid argument.
Perhaps Trump is merely waving the flag that everyone is too afraid to unfurl. If both sides are now using the DOJ as a tool for political gain—whether overtly as Trump is doing or covertly as seen in previous administrations—where does that leave the American people? It seems there is no perfect solution, but continually mishandling institutions meant to uphold justice will likely lead to worsening distrust. Political tit-for-tat may seem like an effective strategy today, but it only deepens divisions and erodes faith in a system that’s supposed to serve everyone—Republicans and Democrats alike.
Moving forward, it’s essential to consider the long-term implications of these actions. If both sides continue to weaponize the DOJ, they may find themselves with fractured and ineffective institutions on their hands, incapable of delivering fair and balanced judgments. This cycle of misuse creates fertile ground for public skepticism, making it increasingly difficult to restore the trust that is crucial for a functioning democracy. After all, no one wants to live in a country where justice is just a game and everyone’s playing to win at all costs.
In conclusion, while Trump’s candor might make for engaging theatre, it serves as a sobering reminder of a deeper issue at play—political survival seems to take precedence over impartial justice. As the political landscape continues to evolve, Americans must engage seriously with the implications of such actions and consider what future they want for our institutions. Do they wish to keep playing this dangerous game, where the DOJ is nothing more than a pawn in a political chess match? Or will they demand a return to a system where principles trump partisan politics?
