Trump Administration Faces Scrutiny Over Investigations Into Political Adversaries

Key Points

• Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted for a second time, with federal prosecutors alleging that a 2025 Instagram post containing the numbers “86 47” constituted a threat against President Donald Trump.
• ABC News reporters Peter Charalambous, Benjamin Siegel, Alexander Mallin, Katherine Faulders and Elizabeth Schulze reported that the Comey prosecution forms part of a broader series of investigations and administrative actions involving people regarded by Trump and his administration as political or institutional adversaries.
• Former national security adviser John Bolton pleaded guilty in June 2026 to illegally retaining national security information and agreed to pay a $2.25 million fine; ABC News noted that his investigation began before Trump returned to office.
• New York Attorney General Letitia James had charges against her dismissed after a federal judge ruled that the prosecutor who obtained the indictment had been unlawfully appointed.
• Prosecutors also sought indictments against six Democratic members of Congress — Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin, Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan — but a grand jury declined to indict them.
• Federal investigations or inquiries have also involved Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, Senator Adam Schiff, former special counsel Jack Smith, California Governor Gavin Newsom and others.
• ABC News reported that Trump revoked security clearances from numerous former officials and ended Secret Service protection or security details for several individuals after taking office.
• Administration officials have said the actions are based on law enforcement considerations rather than politics, while several people investigated or affected have disputed the allegations or described the actions as politically motivated.

Monaco Weekly News (MWN) October 2, 2026 – The Trump administration has faced continuing scrutiny over criminal investigations, proposed prosecutions, administrative measures and security decisions involving a range of former officials, Democratic politicians, federal officials, donors and other individuals who have previously criticised President Donald Trump or been involved in investigations concerning him. The cases vary substantially in their legal circumstances: some resulted in indictments or convictions, others were dismissed or rejected, while several remain investigations or administrative disputes. ABC News journalists Peter Charalambous, Benjamin Siegel, Alexander Mallin, Katherine Faulders and Elizabeth Schulze reported in July that the cases had become a central focus of debate over the administration’s approach to perceived political adversaries. The administration has maintained that its actions are based on law enforcement and accountability rather than political retaliation.

What happened to James Comey after his first federal prosecution was dismissed?

The most prominent recent case concerns former FBI Director James Comey, who was indicted in North Carolina on April 28, 2026, over a social media post published in 2025. According to the US Department of Justice, a federal grand jury returned two charges alleging that Comey threatened to harm President Trump and transmitted a threat in interstate commerce. The indictment centres on an Instagram photograph showing seashells arranged to form “86 47”. Prosecutors argued that the image could reasonably be interpreted as a serious expression of an intention to harm the president.

ABC News reporters Katherine Faulders, Peter Charalambous and Alexander Mallin reported that the post had originally been accompanied by the caption, “Cool shell formation on my beach walk”. The photograph was later deleted. Comey’s legal team has disputed the government’s interpretation of the image.

The April indictment represented a second federal prosecution of Comey during Trump’s second presidency. His earlier case involved allegations that he had made a false statement and obstructed a congressional investigation concerning testimony he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020. The Justice Department had announced that indictment in September 2025.

That earlier case was later dismissed after US District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor who obtained the indictment, had been unlawfully appointed. ABC News reported that Halligan had previously served as a White House aide and as Trump’s former defence lawyer. Career prosecutors in her office had reportedly concluded that they could not establish probable cause for charges against Comey, according to sources cited by ABC News.

Comey’s lawyers had also argued that the prosecution was vindictive and selective. Judge Currie did not need to resolve those arguments before dismissing the case on the separate issue concerning Halligan’s appointment.

What is the current position in the second Comey case?

The second case has proceeded separately in North Carolina. Comey’s lawyers have sought dismissal of the indictment on constitutional grounds.

ABC News reported in July that his lawyers argued the indictment targeted constitutionally protected speech. The defence said the “86 47” image represented a political slogan expressing opposition to Trump rather than a threat against him.

The case was initially scheduled for trial in July but was later postponed. ABC News reported on May 26 that US District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan moved the trial to October 21, with an arraignment scheduled for September 30.

The prosecution has maintained that the social media post amounted to a threat. The Justice Department’s April indictment stated that Comey knowingly and deliberately made a threat against the president. The department also emphasised that an indictment is an allegation and that the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

The prosecution itself has also undergone changes. ABC News reported on May 29 that lead prosecutor Matthew Petracca withdrew from the case and was replaced by another assistant US attorney, without the Justice Department providing an explanation for the change.

What happened in the case involving Letitia James?

New York Attorney General Letitia James was another prominent Trump critic to face federal criminal charges.

According to ABC News, James was indicted in October 2025 on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. Prosecutors alleged that she had misrepresented the status of a property she purchased in Norfolk, Virginia, in connection with a mortgage application. James pleaded not guilty.

James had previously brought a $454 million civil fraud case against Trump in 2022. Trump subsequently criticised her publicly and called for her prosecution, while the allegations against her became the subject of a federal investigation.

ABC News reported that sources said the previous US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, had expressed doubts about bringing criminal cases against James and Comey. Trump removed Siebert, after which Halligan was installed as the district’s US attorney.

The criminal case against James was later dismissed by Judge Currie because Halligan’s appointment was ruled invalid. A separate set of subpoenas issued to James concerning her civil fraud case against Trump and a case involving the National Rifle Association was also rejected by a federal judge in New York, who disqualified the US attorney involved after finding that the prosecutor had been unlawfully appointed.

Why did six Democratic members of Congress face an attempted prosecution?

A separate episode involved six Democratic members of Congress with military or intelligence backgrounds: Senator Mark Kelly, Senator Elissa Slotkin and Representatives Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan.

ABC News reported that the six lawmakers released a video telling US service members that they could refuse to carry out unlawful orders. Their comments came amid disputes over military operations and the deployment of National Guard troops.

Trump accused the lawmakers of “seditious behavior” and said they should be arrested and prosecuted. Prosecutors under US Attorney Jeanine Pirro subsequently sought indictments against the six lawmakers.

The grand jury did not return the requested indictments. ABC News described such a refusal as exceedingly rare after prosecutors have presented their case to a grand jury.

The episode also affected Kelly, a retired US Navy captain. The Department of Defense launched a review of his conduct, and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth later censured him. A federal judge subsequently blocked the attempt to reduce Kelly’s rank and retirement pay, concluding that the disciplinary action violated his freedom of speech, according to ABC News.

What happened to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell?

The investigations extended beyond politicians and former law enforcement officials.

ABC News reported that federal prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell in January concerning his congressional testimony about renovation work at Federal Reserve buildings.

Powell said the investigation raised questions about the independence of the central bank and argued that the issue concerned whether monetary policy could continue to be determined by economic conditions rather than political pressure.

Trump denied involvement in the investigation. The president told NBC News that he did not know anything about it while criticising Powell’s performance at the Federal Reserve and in relation to the building project.

The investigation subsequently faced judicial scrutiny. US District Judge James Boasberg rejected subpoenas directed at the Federal Reserve Board, finding that the government had produced essentially no evidence supporting the criminal investigation. ABC News reported that the Justice Department later ended the criminal investigation in April and that the matter would instead be referred to the Federal Reserve’s internal watchdog.

Why did Lisa Cook’s position at the Federal Reserve become a legal dispute?

Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook also became involved in a dispute with the administration.

Trump sought to remove Cook following allegations from Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte that she had improperly designated homes in Georgia and Michigan as primary residences for mortgage purposes. Cook denied wrongdoing and had not been charged with a crime.

Cook challenged the attempt to remove her. A federal judge blocked the move, and the Supreme Court later upheld that decision in a 5-4 ruling, according to ABC News. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that statutory limits on presidential removal authority provided protection for the Federal Reserve’s institutional independence.

The dispute has remained separate from the criminal prosecutions against Comey and James, but it has contributed to broader questions about the administration’s relationship with independent federal institutions.

Which other former officials and political figures have been investigated?

ABC News identified a much wider group of people affected by investigations, reviews or administrative action.

Senator Adam Schiff, who was the lead House manager during Trump’s first impeachment trial, was investigated by the Justice Department over alleged insurance fraud involving a Maryland property, according to sources cited by ABC News. Trump’s administration has repeatedly called for Schiff’s prosecution. Schiff’s lawyer described the allegations as false, stale and previously debunked.

Former special counsel Jack Smith, who led federal investigations into Trump concerning classified documents and the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, was investigated by the US Office of Special Counsel over whether his work violated the Hatch Act. The inquiry followed a referral from Republican Senator Tom Cotton. Smith’s lawyers rejected the allegations.

California Governor Gavin Newsom and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, were also reported by ABC News to be subjects of a federal investigation. Newsom said he believed the investigation was politically motivated, while sources told ABC News that investigators had begun examining his wife’s taxes in 2025. The investigation did not itself establish wrongdoing by Newsom or his wife.

Former CIA Director John Brennan was investigated over whether he had given false testimony to Congress concerning the 2017 intelligence assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Brennan denied wrongdoing and continued to defend the intelligence community’s assessment. ABC News also reported that a separate bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation had largely supported the findings of the 2017 assessment.

The Department of Justice also opened a criminal investigation into writer E. Jean Carroll, according to sources cited by ABC News. The inquiry reportedly concerned whether Carroll committed perjury during civil litigation involving Trump. Trump had been found liable in two civil cases brought by Carroll, with combined judgments approaching $90 million.

What investigations involved Democratic donors and organisations?

The Trump administration also directed attention towards prominent Democratic donors.

ABC News reported that federal prosecutors received instructions to prepare investigations involving the Open Society Foundations, an organisation funded by billionaire George Soros. The move followed Trump’s public call for George Soros and his son Alex Soros to face racketeering charges.

The potential investigations reportedly covered several possible offences, including material support for terrorism, wire fraud and racketeering. The Open Society Foundations rejected the allegations and said its activities were peaceful and lawful.

LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman was another figure named in an administration-ordered investigation into prominent Democrats associated with Jeffrey Epstein. Trump publicly called for Hoffman to be investigated. ABC News noted that Hoffman had acknowledged his past association with Epstein but that none of Epstein’s victims had publicly accused Hoffman of wrongdoing.

What happened to Tim Walz and Jacob Frey?

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey became subjects of a federal investigation into cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

ABC News reported that a federal judge in Minnesota dismissed multiple Justice Department subpoenas linked to the investigation. Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz said the subpoenas formed part of a broader effort to pressure state and local officials to assist with federal immigration operations.

The investigation sought information from Walz, Frey and other Minnesota officials. Trump had previously criticised Frey after the mayor said Minneapolis would not enforce federal immigration laws.

Frey told ABC News that the city had done nothing wrong and would comply with the investigation, while describing the inquiry as concerning.

What happened to Joe Biden and former Trump administration officials?

Former President Joe Biden was also included in the administration’s investigations.

Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate whether members of Biden’s administration had concealed information about Biden’s mental state and whether executive actions taken during Biden’s final years in office had been properly authorised. Biden rejected the allegations and said he personally made the decisions concerning executive orders, pardons and other presidential actions.

Former Trump administration officials Miles Taylor and Christopher Krebs were subjected to an executive order directing investigations into their conduct during Trump’s first administration.

Taylor had anonymously written a 2019 New York Times opinion article criticising aspects of Trump’s presidency. Krebs, who led the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, was fired by Trump after contradicting Trump’s claims about election fraud following the 2020 election.

Which people lost security clearances or protective details?

The administration’s actions have not been limited to criminal investigations.

ABC News reported that Trump revoked Secret Service protection or security details for former Vice President Kamala Harris, Hunter Biden, Ashley Biden, former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Iran special representative Brian Hook, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley, John Bolton and Dr Anthony Fauci.

The administration also revoked security clearances for a large group of former officials and attorneys.

The list included former President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, former national security adviser Jacob Sullivan, former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Vice President Kamala Harris and former FBI officials and intelligence leaders.

The list also included former CIA directors and senior intelligence officials such as John Brennan, Michael Hayden and Leon Panetta, as well as former national security and intelligence officials including James Clapper Jr, Nicholas Rasmussen and Russell Travers. ABC News also reported that attorneys at several major law firms had their security clearances revoked.

How has the administration defended these actions?

The Trump administration has rejected the suggestion that the investigations are simply political retaliation.

ABC News reported that administration officials have repeatedly maintained that enforcement actions are “driven by law and not by politics”. Vice President JD Vance has used that formulation when defending the administration’s approach.

Trump, meanwhile, has framed his second-term law enforcement agenda around accountability for what he describes as government wrongdoing.

In a March 2025 speech at the Justice Department, Trump described himself as the country’s “chief law enforcement officer” and called for accountability for alleged abuses and misconduct within government.

The administration has therefore presented the investigations as part of a broader effort to investigate alleged wrongdoing and restore accountability.

Those affected have offered different interpretations. Several have denied wrongdoing, while lawyers and representatives for others have challenged the factual or legal basis of investigations. Courts have also intervened in several cases, particularly where questions have arisen about prosecutorial appointments, subpoenas, constitutional rights and the independence of federal institutions.

What does the wider pattern of cases show?

The cases differ significantly in their legal status and underlying allegations, meaning they cannot be treated as one uniform category.

Bolton, for example, pleaded guilty to illegal retention of national security information after an investigation that ABC News noted began before Trump returned to office. Comey’s current case remains an unresolved criminal proceeding in which he is presumed innocent. The charges against James were dismissed over the validity of the prosecutor’s appointment. The six lawmakers were not indicted after prosecutors presented their case to a grand jury. Powell’s criminal investigation was discontinued. Cook successfully challenged her removal from the Federal Reserve.

Other matters remain investigations or administrative disputes rather than completed criminal cases.

The legal outcomes have consequently varied from a guilty plea and financial penalty to dismissed indictments, rejected indictments, judicial injunctions and continuing investigations.

This distinction is important when assessing the overall development because an investigation, indictment or administrative action does not establish criminal guilt.

The Justice Department itself stated in its Comey indictment that an indictment is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

What is the background to the Trump administration’s approach to perceived adversaries?

The disputes developed in the context of Trump’s longstanding criticism of people he believes contributed to investigations or legal proceedings against him.

During his first presidency, Trump repeatedly criticised officials involved in the Russia investigation, the first impeachment proceedings and other investigations. His return to office in January 2025 was followed by a series of executive and administrative actions involving former officials, prosecutors, intelligence personnel and political opponents.

ABC News reported that Trump had campaigned on promises of retribution against political opponents if he returned to the presidency. After taking office, his administration pursued investigations and reviews involving several people associated with his previous investigations or political disputes.

At the same time, not every case identified by ABC News originated after Trump’s return to office. The Bolton investigation, for example, began before the new administration took office. The distinction between cases initiated earlier and those launched after January 2025 is therefore relevant when examining the chronology of events.

The courts have also played an important role in determining whether particular government actions can proceed. Decisions involving Halligan’s appointment, subpoenas directed at federal institutions, disciplinary action against Kelly and efforts to remove Cook have all demonstrated that executive actions remain subject to judicial review.

What could these developments mean for the US political and legal environment?

The immediate implications concern several institutions at once, including the Justice Department, federal courts, Congress, the Federal Reserve, state governments and the intelligence community.

For people following US politics and public administration, the cases provide a continuing test of the boundaries between presidential authority, prosecutorial independence, constitutional rights and the oversight powers of the courts and Congress.

The outcome of the Comey prosecution, for example, will depend on the court proceedings rather than on the political arguments surrounding the case. Similarly, the legal status of other investigations will depend on evidence, prosecutorial decisions and judicial rulings.

The cases involving Powell and Cook have particular institutional significance because they concern the Federal Reserve and the question of how far presidential authority extends over an independent central bank. The cases involving the six lawmakers raise questions about congressional speech and military personnel’s obligations concerning unlawful orders. The investigations involving state and local officials raise separate questions about federalism and cooperation between federal and state authorities.

For the US public, the practical significance is therefore likely to be determined by individual legal outcomes and institutional rulings rather than by the political characterisation of the cases.

At present, the documented record contains a mixture of convictions, guilty pleas, dismissed prosecutions, rejected indictments, continuing investigations and unresolved legal disputes. Any assessment of the broader consequences will need to distinguish between those categories and account for the different evidence and legal questions involved.

For audiences monitoring US politics, federal law enforcement and institutional independence, the continuing court decisions and final dispositions of these cases will provide the clearest basis for assessing how the administration’s approach develops.