Trump’s Quest For Political Retribution Is Impeding The Justice Department

Summary

The NPR Politics Podcast

Episode: Trump’s Quest For Political Retribution Is Impeding The Justice Department
Air Date: December 1, 2025
Hosts: Tamara Keith, Carrie Johnson, Mara Liasson

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores how President Trump’s focus on political retribution is reshaping the U.S. Justice Department, leading to the appointment of political loyalists over career professionals. The hosts detail the ramifications of these actions—from legal uncertainty and dismissed cases, to erosion of the rule of law and the shifting landscape of voting rights and redistricting. The core discussion centers on high-profile, controversial Justice Department appointments, the consequences of partisan justice, and the ripple effects on American democracy.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Controversial Appointments and Legal Challenges

• Alina Haba Ruling
  • The federal appeals court ruled that U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Alina Haba—a Trump associate—was illegally appointed.
    • Carrie Johnson (02:14): “She actually served as one of his personal lawyers in the past, and he very much wanted to install her as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey... she was unlawfully placed in that job.”
  • This creates confusion and instability for ongoing cases and the New Jersey legal system.
• Pattern of Unlawful Appointments
  • Recent blockings include Lindsey Halligan, also a Trump ally and former personal lawyer, whose prosecution of ex-FBI Director Jim Comey and NY AG Tish James was voided due to her unlawful installation.
  • Similar legal challenges exist in other states (Nevada, Southern California, Northern New York), causing nationwide disruptions in the Justice Department.
  • Carrie Johnson (04:10): “Judges noted... it leads to a lot of uncertainty and instability, both for the legal systems in those places as well as the civil servants who are working under the U.S. attorney.”

2. Targeting Trump’s Political ‘Enemies’

• Dismissals of prosecutions against prominent Trump foes stemmed from the administration’s desire for political payback.
• Carrie Johnson (05:26): “Trump desperately wanted to see them face the other end of justice. And he basically forced out a career prosecutor in Virginia who thought there wasn’t enough evidence…”
• Statute of limitations and procedural dismissals may complicate any attempts to revisit these cases, but accusations of selective prosecution may resurface if they are retried.

3. Erosion of DOJ Norms and ‘Presumption of Regularity’

• A “brain drain” at the DOJ as seasoned attorneys resign or are removed for not aligning with administration desires, especially around cases like January 6.
• This loss of expertise has led to documented mistakes and declining trust from federal judges.
  • Carrie Johnson (11:38): “DOJ lawyers had something of a superpower when they went into court... called the presumption of regularity... Some of that has been basically blown up this year... judges... feel that they can’t trust this Justice Department.”
• Judges no longer defer automatically to DOJ attorneys, scrutinizing their work far more closely.

4. DOJ’s Role in Redistricting and Voting Rights Battles

• Texas Redistricting Case:
  • DOJ’s Civil Rights Division sent error-ridden guidance to Texas, impacting legal proceedings and drawing bipartisan criticism—even from officials aligned with Trump.
  • Carrie Johnson (12:46): “A judge... said it’s challenging to unpack that DOJ letter because it contains so many factual, legal and typographical errors.”
  • The DOJ’s approach invoked race in a way that heightened judicial scrutiny on partisan gerrymandering.
• Political Context and Supreme Court’s Role:
  • Trump’s explicit push for favorable redistricting draws judicial and public attention.
  • Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, is poised to rule on whether new maps and attacks on the Voting Rights Act will be upheld, potentially giving Republicans a significant electoral advantage.
  • Mara Liasson (16:51): “If the remainder of the Voting Rights act is overturned, that will potentially allow Republicans to draw new maps, not having to worry about racial gerrymanders anymore. That could get them over a dozen more seats.”

5. Why This Matters: Impact on Rule of Law and Public Trust

• The perception—and in some cases, the reality—of partisan justice shakes public trust in democratic institutions.
• While many Americans may not follow DOJ news closely, majorities in polls agree that Trump is “rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies.”
  • Mara Liasson (08:02): “He has made it really clear that he wants the Justice Department to be his kind of retribution machine.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “As a result, some veterans of DOJ suggest that this Justice Department is both kind of thinly staffed and also less careful than it used to be.”
  — Carrie Johnson (10:44)

• “Judges... feel that they can’t trust this Justice Department in some cases to be a neutral arbiter, especially in cases involving immigration and other major priorities of this White House.”
  — Carrie Johnson (11:38)

• “Donald Trump asked Texas to find five extra seats that Republicans could win because he doesn’t want to lose the House and other red states have followed suit.”
  — Mara Liasson (14:52)

• “If the Voting Rights act goes away, they could get even more. So I would say that political effect is that Donald Trump’s wish to get more seats drawn in a mid cycle redistricting... will give Republicans a pretty big advantage.”
  — Mara Liasson (16:51)

---

Important Timestamps

• 01:44 – Host Introductions
• 02:14 – Alina Haba Appointment Ruled Illegal
• 04:10 – National Pattern of Unlawful DOJ Appointments
• 05:26 – Dismissal of Prosecutions Against Trump’s Critics
• 07:05 – Pattern of Favoritism in DOJ
• 10:44 – Brain Drain at DOJ and Declining Quality
• 11:38 – Loss of ‘Presumption of Regularity’ for DOJ Lawyers
• 12:29 – DOJ Errors in Texas Redistricting Case
• 14:52 – Political Context and Trump’s Redistricting Push
• 16:51 – Supreme Court and Voting Rights Act Implications

---

Summary & Takeaway

The episode outlines a significant erosion of norms and institutions at the Department of Justice under President Trump, where the pursuit of personal political vendettas is undermining the integrity and function of American law enforcement. With partisanship upending established procedures—through unlawful appointments, the targeting of rivals, and disregard for professional expertise—the once neutral institution faces instability, mistrust, and far-reaching consequences for democracy, particularly in the realm of voting rights and national elections. The situation sets up pivotal upcoming moments in the courts and threatens to further entrench political divides across the nation.

Transcript

[NPR Promo Announcer]

Public radio is as American as apple pie. This Giving Tuesday is our first without federal funding. We need you to keep this American tradition alive. Give [e-mail].

[Tamara Keith]

Hey, it's Tam. It can feel impossible to find your next favorite podcast. And hey, we are so glad you're here listening to us at the NPR Politics Podcast. But when you want to switch it up, check out NPR's Pod Club newsletter. Sign up and you'll get fresh podcast recommendations, recommendations every week handpicked by the people that live for this stuff. You can subscribe for free using the link in today's show notes [e-mail] podclub.

[Mari]

Hi, I'm Mari, a Puerto Rican Australian.

[Tamara Keith]

And I'm Esty, a Canadian Australian.

[Mari]

We're also best mates and mums. And for the last seven days, we've been chasing our youth as we slowly make our way up Mount Kilimanjaro. Currently the time is 1:39pm on Monday.

[Tamara Keith]

December 1st, Carrie Johnson's birthday.

[Mara Liasson]

Happy birthday, Carrie.

[Carrie Johnson]

Thank you.

[Mari]

Things may have changed by the time you hear this, but hopefully we will be one step closer to reaching the roof of Africa before joining our husbands and spending a few relaxing days by the beach doing nothing. Enjoy the show.

[Tamara Keith]

Does this mean the husbands are already relaxing at the beach?

[Mara Liasson]

Does this mean the kids are climbing Kilimanjar?

[Tamara Keith]

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I can tell you the three of us are not.

[Carrie Johnson]

Climbing Kilimanjaro right now.

[Mara Liasson]

No. And we're not on the beach either.

[Tamara Keith]

Hey there. It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

[Carrie Johnson]

I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Justice Department.

[Mara Liasson]

And I'm Mara Liasson, senior national political correspondent.

[Tamara Keith]

And today on the show, President Trump's quest for retribution has brought major changes to the Justice Department. Kerry, you have been following this closely and from the very beginning. But before we get to those bigger themes, I want to start with the latest news, which is that a federal appeals court has ruled that U.S. attorney in New Jersey, Alina Haba, was not legally appointed to her position. So what does that mean?

[Carrie Johnson]

Well, remember, Alina Haba is a very close associate of President Trump. She actually served as one of his personal lawyers in the past, and he very much wanted to install her as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey, the top federal prosecutor in the state. But today, a three judge panel of the U.S. court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that she was unlawfully placed in that judge. And as a result, she is not able to supervise cases there. Now, this is a pretty big deal because US Attorneys have huge responsibilities. They decide what to prosecute and what not to prosecute and what kinds of charges to bring. And they supervise all kinds of important civil rights and criminal and national security cases. In the short term, it's not clear what is going to happen to Alina Haba. She may want to stay in the U.S. attorney's office in some capacity and the White House may want to keep her there. No word yet on changes to her status.

[Mara Liasson]

Well, Carrie, in order to be legally appointed, what does that mean? The Senate has to confirm you or a bunch of judges have to confirm you? What does she need that she didn't have?

[Carrie Johnson]

The president has a lot of power to pick who sits in these jobs. In the normal practice, a president would nominate a person like this and the Senate would review the person's background and then vote to confirm a U.S. attorney. That hasn't happened in this case. And in the absence of a Senate confirmation vote, the president also has some other strategies. The White House can put somebody in that job for up to 120 days to kind of serve as an acting or an interim person. But the way Alina Haba was installed in particular, this appeals court panel said went against all existing authority the president has, and as a result, it disqualified her.

[Tamara Keith]

Not legally appointed to her position is a phrase we have heard before recently. Carrie, can you talk about how this fits into a pattern for the Trump administration?

[Carrie Johnson]

Absolutely. Last week, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Lindsey Halligan, another person with no prior prosecutorial experience, but who had worked as a personal lawyer to President Trump, that she was unlawfully appointed to her job. And because Lindsey Halligan was the only person apparently in the grand jury and the only person apparently to sign indictments of prominent Trump critics like the former FBI Director Jim Comey and New York's Attorney General Tish James, that those two processes, executions, had to be dismissed, at least for now. And that is a huge consequence moving forward. Tam, there are also legal challenges to U.S. attorneys appointed by Trump in places like Nevada, Southern California and Northern New York. So this is a big problem across the country. And as the judges noted today in the Alina Haba decision, it leads to a lot of uncertainty and instability, both for the legal systems in those places as well as the civil servants who are working under the U.S. attorney in the Justice Department.

[Tamara Keith]

Kerry, Comey and James were certainly on President Trump's enemies list, if there, if there is one. Where do these cases Go from here.

[Carrie Johnson]

Well, remember, in part, they were disfavored by the president because they had investigated Donald Trump. Trump still blames Jim Comey for the whole Russia investigation that started during Trump's first term in the White House. And Tish James actually brought a civil fraud action against Donald Trump and his company over real estate valuations. James won that case in, although the financial penalty has been thrown out. And as a result, Trump desperately wanted to see them face the other end of justice. And he basically forced out a career prosecutor in Virginia who thought there wasn't enough evidence to go that far and bring these indictments against Comey and James. We haven't heard yet from the Justice Department about the next steps. The Attorney General, Pam Bondi, has said they do want to appeal, but we haven't seen a notice of appeal yet. It's also possible that they could try to get a new prosecutor to try to bring these indictments. But there's a catch here, which is that the statute of limitations on Jim Comey's testimony to Congress basically expired. And so it's an open question as to whether prosecutors can take a second bite of that apple. Moreover, because these cases were dismissed on the basis of Halligan's disqualification, judges never actually heard significant arguments that these defendants made that they were targeted as vindictive or selective prosecution, targeted because Donald Trump wanted people to go after them. Those could be live issues that would return again if new indictments are brought against these defendants.

[Tamara Keith]

Essentially, a theme seems to be developing in this Trump administration and this version of the Justice Department, which is that the president's enemies are being punished and his friends and allies are getting preferential treatment.

[Carrie Johnson]

You know, that's a point that's been made by a number of former Justice Department officials from Republican and Democratic administrations, from retired judges at the federal and state level. They have a lot of concern about the rule of law and the weakening of the rule of law this year. And fundamental to that whole idea is the idea that no matter who you are, that you get the same treatment. And there's a lot of concern that in the Trump Justice Department and then in the Trump White House, some people are getting better treatment than others if they're a favorite of the president himself.

[Tamara Keith]

Mara, why should someone sitting at home care about this?

[Mara Liasson]

Well, there are many people sitting at home who don't care about this. They're not paying attention. The ins and outs of how the justice system works is not something that most people think about. They're thinking about the price of groceries. However, to the extent that we have polling on this, majorities of Americans do say that President Trump is rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. He has made it really clear that he wants the Justice Department to be his kind of retribution machine. While I don't think that it's top of mind for voters in the midterms, the economy will be the number one issue, I do think it feeds into the argument that Democrats are trying to make, which is that Donald Trump is not for you. He doesn't want to help you. He just wants to hurt his enemies and help his friends. All right.

[Tamara Keith]

We're going to take a quick break and we will have more on that in a moment.

[CookUnity Advertiser]

This message comes from cookunity. The holidays are here, which means it's time for comfort, joy and really good food. Enjoy culinary masterpieces for way less than restaurants takeout or the grocery store. Menus are updated weekly so meals are never boring or repetitive. Taste, comfort and craftsmanship in every bite. From the award winning chefs behind CookUnity, go to cookunity.com politics or enter code politics before checkout to get 50% off your first order on the next through line from npr, the mother of Thanksgiving.

[Carrie Johnson]

If every state should join in Union Thanksgiving on the 24th of this month, would it not be a renewed pledge of love and loyalty to the Constitution of the United States?

[CookUnity Advertiser]

Listen to throughline in the NPR app app or wherever you get your podcasts.

[It's Been a Minute Podcast Host]

So I just want to check in really quick. Are you okay or are you suffering from sleep deprivation, a stack of bills, or political propaganda? If so, you may be stuck in the parent trap. On the It's Been a Minute podcast, we're diving headfirst into the anxieties of modern parenting and how that trickles out to all of us. Even if you don't have children. Come find some relief. Listen to the It's Been a Minute podcast on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Tamara Keith]

And we're back. And we've been talking about a partisan shift at the Justice Department and how it's impeded the agency's ability to function. And Carrie, I want to get back to what we were talking about in the first half of the pod, which is sort of the idea that but putting loyalists in place instead of professionals may have consequences.

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah, there's been a real brain drain at the doj. Thousands of people have left either because they didn't want to be around anymore and follow marching orders from the attorney general and the president or because they were forced out or fired because they had worked on cases or matters the president didn't like, like the January 6 Capitol riot cases, for instance. And as a result, some veterans of DOJ suggest that this Justice Department is both kind of thinly staffed and also less careful than it used to be. They've been pointing out mistakes and typos and important filings and letters. And judges have noticed, too, judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents.

[Mara Liasson]

And Carrie, explain what the Justice Department lawyers used to have as a kind of automatic privilege that a lot of judges are saying they're no longer going to give them.

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah, you know, DOJ lawyers had something of a superpower when they went into court. And that thing was called the presumption of regularity. It meant that judges basically gave DOJ attorneys the benefit of the doubt. They respected DOJ attorneys and their recitation of the facts, and they thought they would make solid arguments. And as a result, judges were somewhat deferential to the positions DOJ took. And, you know, their description of events and some of that has been basically blown up this year in just a matter of 10 or 11 months. We've heard from judges in D.C. and all over the country that they feel that they can't trust this Justice Department in some cases to be in neutral arbiter, especially in cases involving immigration and other major priorities of this White House.

[Tamara Keith]

Carrie, another area where we have seen partisan political players at the Justice Department create challenges for the president's agenda relates to Texas and that state's redistricting effort. Can you explain what happened there?

[Carrie Johnson]

Yes. Texas was trying to do new maps to potentially give Republicans in that state as many as five additional seats. And plaintiffs challenged those maps. And the Justice Department Civil Rights Division had sent a letter basically advising or offering some guidance to state lawmakers in Texas. And that DOJ letter became a major part of of the legal proceedings in that case. It was really remarkable because a judge appointed by the Trump administration said it's challenging to unpack that DOJ letter because it contains so many factual, legal and typographical errors. The judge went on to say that even lawyers employed by the attorney General in the state of Texas, who are basically allies of the Trump administration, that they had criticized the DOJ letter are as legally unsound, baseless, erroneous, ham fisted and a mess. And even worse, because this letter talked about racial matters having to do with the way some black and Latino voters were packed into certain districts that that actually created more legal problems for these maps and Republicans in Texas, basically, the judges who were hearing this case gave it, you know, a more eagle eye because of the invocation of race by the Justice Department, these judges said, and their opinion that if DOJ had simply said, listen, we want to help out Republicans in this state, that they wouldn't have dug even deeper because, you know, politics and partisanship are considered kind of part of the analysis now. And the Supreme Court has ruled that you can't really challenge partisan gerrymanders in the same way anymore.

[Tamara Keith]

I mean, that's remarkable because that letter was sort of the pretext for the state legislature to redraw the maps. Mara, give us the political context here.

[Mara Liasson]

Well, the political context is that Donald Trump asked Texas to find five extra seats that Republicans could win because he doesn't want to lose. The House and other red states have followed suit. And then they've been taken to court. And the next step is the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on this. And I guess my question for Kerry is, even though Donald Trump seems to be losing a lot in lower courts and in appeals courts, are we just waiting for the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, 6, 3, 3 of the conservatives were appointed by Trump, are we just waiting for them to sanction this and say that Donald Trump can, as he says, he can do whatever he wants?

[Carrie Johnson]

Well, what's happened right now is that Justice Sam Alito has hit pause on that lower court ruling while Supreme Court considers what to do and reads briefs from both sides in this case. This Supreme Court has been very skeptical of the Voting Rights act, to say the least, and has been really fairly hands off when it comes to efforts to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act. And so it's not clear to me what these justices are going to do in the short term. It is true that this Supreme Court has not always sided with the Trump administration this year. I'm thinking in particular of their directive that the administration had to find some way to facilitate to get the migrant Kilmer, Abrego Garcia back to the US out of that Sikhot prison. But in large part, the Supreme Court so far has sided with the Trump administration on a temporary basis on major things, things like firing federal workers, wholesale dismantling entit federal agencies. And it's an open question, of course, not only how they're going to handle this Texas manner, but also maybe even bigger challenges to executive power, like that tariff argument we talked about not too long ago.

[Mara Liasson]

And when you just mentioned the Voting Rights act, let's just remind people if the remainder of the Voting Rights act is overturned, that will potentially allow Republicans to draw new maps, not having to worry about racial gerrymanders anymore. That could get them over a dozen more seats. So in terms of the redistricting battle, Republicans have an advantage. They've got more seats now in Texas if that map is eventually approved by the highest court. And if the Voting Rights act goes away, they could get even more. So I would say that political effect is that Donald Trump's wish to get more seats drawn in a mid cycle redistricting, which is very unusual, it's another norm that he's believed that will give Republicans a pretty big advantage in the.

[Tamara Keith]

Midterms, or it could not. All right. We're going to have to leave it there for today. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

[Carrie Johnson]

I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Justice Department.

[Mara Liasson]

And I'm Mara Liasson, senior national political correspondent.

[Tamara Keith]

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast.

[NPR Promo Announcer]

On Wait, Wait. Don't tell me famous actors remember their days of obscurity, like when Pedro Pascal remembered the stress of being a waiter, the logistical labor of meeting everyone's needs in the right manner. You know, act one, the water, act two, the drink. Listen to Wait Wait in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcast.

[Tamara Keith]

I'm Rachel Martin. Apple Podcasts named my conversation with author Jason Reynolds on Wildcard, one of the top 10 podcast episodes of 2025.

[Carrie Johnson]

I am a crybaby of all crybabies. It is my favorite thing about myself.

[Tamara Keith]

You can watch or listen to that Wildcard conversation now on the NPR app or on YouTube @NPRwildc.