Trump’s Political Retributions: Legally Sound?
During the 2024 Presidential election, President Donald Trump promised to seek retribution against his political enemies. His targets include former President Joe Biden, U.S. Justice Department employees involved in his criminal investigation, and Democratic states in which Trump lost the popular vote. Throughout his campaign, President Trump labeled these entities as “enemies within” the United States, claiming they fraudulently defeated him in the 2020 election and unjustly prosecuted him afterward.[1] According to Trump, he has “been wronged and betrayed,” thereby declaring to his voters that “I am your retribution.” [2] Trump put these grievances immediately into action on January 20, 2025. Within days of his inauguration, he stripped the security clearances of many former national security officials, fired agency leaders, and disproportionately punished Blue states. Each of these actions stands against the Equal Protection Clause. Nonetheless, as he is already facing legal resistance for his recent dismissals and spending cuts, despite Trump’s aggressive stance, his plans will most likely turn out to be unconstitutional. By analyzing past Supreme Court rulings South Dakota v. Dole (1987), Clinton v. Jones (1997), Trump v. U.S (2024), and US. v. Nixon (1974), this article will evaluate the feasibility of each plan.
Retribution within Constitutional Bounds
The three retributions proposed by President Trump vary in constitutionality. Among these options, Joe Biden’s investigation is the weakest. Since his family engaged in suspicious business activities with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) before his presidency, executive immunity will not protect him. Yet, there is no conclusive evidence linking the transactions to Joe Biden himself.[3] The second option, which involves spending cuts for Democrat states, is slightly more feasible due to the disparate impact clause. Nevertheless, these ongoing funding cuts violate the spending statutes established in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), so they would likely be reversed by states. Thirdly, dismissing Department of Justice (DOJ) officials stands as the most tangible retribution pursued by Trump, because it is completely within his executive power to make these role changes. While dozens of officials across different departments were punished for investigating or opposing Trump, it is unlikely that Trump will continue his mass layoffs of federal employees of this caliber. If he does so, it will trigger obstruction of justice accusations from the US. v. Nixon (1974). All three scenarios will face immense constitutional challenges. Even if Trump gains partial retribution, it will come across as a false scare to his adversaries, who are legally well-guarded. Without compelling evidence of injury, politicians seeking personal retribution in the federal courts can be hard to justify.
Scenario #1: Investigating Former President Joe Biden
Recent investigations by House Republican James Comer revealed suspicions that Biden might have been involved in political cover dealings that put national security at risk. On August 8, 2017, a CCP-sponsored energy company, CEFC, sent $5 million to Hunter Biden. Shortly after, on August 14, 2017, Hunter Biden cut a check of $150,000 to Joe Biden’s brother James and sister-in-law Sara Biden. [4] The final link was on September 3, 2017, when Sara Biden wired $40,000 to Joe Biden for a “loan repayment.” [5] Comer claims the Biden Administration helped his relatives amass more wealth from Chinese state-owned businesses. [6] Indeed, Joe Biden’s role on the receiving end of Sara Biden’s transfers raises concerns, especially on the brink of the U.S.-China trade war in 2018.
If Trump were to sue Biden, it would be on the grounds of Biden’s financial misconduct prior to his presidency. Clinton v. Jones (1997) states that “we [the Supreme Court] have never suggested that the President, or any other official, has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity.”[7] Former President Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment charges were unrelated to his official duties and occurred in 1991, prior to his term as Governor of Arkansas. Biden served as the vice president of Barack Obama from 2009-2017, a similarly top-level political position. Accordingly, while vice presidents enjoy executive immunity, Clinton v. Jones indicates that only the “President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.”[8]. Hence, Biden’s actions as vice president will not grant absolute immunity. Nevertheless, Trump will need more proof that Biden abused his political capital for his family’s financial interests in China.
Based on current evidence, Trump's accusations hold little merit. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) prohibit U.S politicians from receiving money from foreign entities, especially malign ones like the CCP. Due to the series of transfers in the summer of 2017, Sara Biden’s “loan repayment” to Joe Biden might resemble money laundering. Joe Biden would need to justify why the transactions happened in such a short window of time. To Biden’s advantage, there lacks convincing proof that the “loan repayment” was more than a personal matter because Sarah Biden's debt to Joe Biden was outside of the CCP transaction. [9] Moreover, Trump seems to have backed off from his campaign threats to sue Biden, having not taken any action since his time in office, de-escalating Biden’s concerns.
Scenario #2: Punishing Democratic States
In addition to suing Biden, given significant constitutional obstacles, Trump’s proposition of taking retribution against Blue states should not cause alarm. Firstly, while Ex-Parte Young (1908) allows state actors to be sued as individuals, Democrat individuals are not committing a crime by simply belonging to the opposite party. Such limitations explain why Trump chose to cut spending rather than sue state governors, which has also led to daunting consequences. His funding freeze on California has tremendously undermined the ongoing wildfire reconstruction initiatives. Trump withdrew billions of dollars of funding from California, saying, “I’d rather see the states take care of their own problems.”[10]Federal funds constitute one-third of the state budget ($168 billion), sustaining nearly 15 million low-income.[11] Fortunately, these funding cuts have been quickly struck down in federal court.[12]
A coalition of twenty-two blue states has successfully litigated against Trump’s spending freeze. Last month in the U.S. District Court, a multi-state lawsuit composed of 125 declarations claimed injury over the freeze, 16 of which came from California.[13] As a result, “U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration's attempt to halt federal grants and loans, citing constitutional concerns over executive overreach.”[14] Conditions for cutting spending must be related to a federal goal, as established by South Dakota v. Dole (1987). In this precedent, the federal government forced South Dakota to raise its legal drinking age to 21 by cutting 5% of its highway spending.[15] SCOTUS eventually ruled against South Dakota because they believed that uniformizing the national drinking age is a compelling federal goal.[16] On the other hand, Trump’s personal vendetta against Blue states doesn’t constitute a federal goal. Neither is stripping funding that disproportionately harms Blue states constitutionally justifiable.[17] In the Supreme Court, Trump’s policies will violate the Equal Protection Clause for populations that desperately need relief from natural disasters.[18] Therefore, these punitive measures will end up futile.
Scenario #3: Dismissing Department of Justice officials
At a glance, Trump’s spree of revenge towards political opposition appears to be a genuine threat to our democracy. Trump aims to seek retribution from government officials who have criminally investigated him, namely special counsel Jack Smith. In 2022, Smith filed criminal charges against Trump for the events of January 6th, which developed into Trump v. U.S (2024). In retaliation, Trump recently terminated over a dozen DOJ officials who were part of Smith’s investigation team. Anticipating his own dismissal, Smith resigned before Trump’s inauguration. According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President can order the Attorney General to remove anyone in the DOJ. Former intelligence officials John Bolton, James Clapper, John Brennan, and Leon Panetta had their security clearances revoked because they once criticized Trump. [19]. However, if Trump continues to purge his political opponents, he runs the risk of replicating President Richard Nixon’s downfall in the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Due to the Watergate scandal, Nixon tried to cover up his illegal activities by firing DOJ Attorneys who knew the truth.[20] As a result, Nixon was put in impeachment proceedings, culminating in the case U.S v. Nixon (1974). Given the aforementioned costs, Trump will avoid such a circumstance and eventually halt his dismissals.
Rethinking Trump’s Danger
Despite its unlikelihood, we should anticipate the slight chance that Trump’s retribution would be realized, especially for the last two scenarios. Joe Biden’s case remains stagnant until new evidence has been revealed. For spending cuts, disparate impact alone is insufficient to prove discriminatory practices. Trump curtailed funding for every state, but it is somehow the Blue states that feel the hardest damage.[21] Fortunately, if Blue states brought their grievances to the Supreme Court, South Dakota v. Dole (1987) would still be the guiding case law because it directly mentions spending rather than race, overriding disparate impact. For Scenario #3, the Supreme Court may consider Trump’s dismissals a political question and refuse to intervene. However, it is much more likely that SCOTUS will find Trump guilty of abusing his executive power for political motives. Given such a possibility, Trump corrected his opinion on NBC last month, saying, “I’m not looking to go back into the past, I’m looking to make our country successful. Retribution will be through success.” [22]With assurance, the ongoing retributions are just a temporary political showcase, not an imminent threat to the legal integrity of the United States.
Bibliography
[1] NPR. "Trump Election 2024: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Cheney, and the Threat to Civil Liberties." NPR, October 21, 2024. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-5134924/trump-election-2024-kamala-harris-elizabeth-cheney-threat-civil-liberties.
[2] Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), March 2023.
[3] McCarthy, Michael, and Zachary Cohen. "House GOP Memo Alleges Biden Family Members Received Money from Hunter’s Business Associate." CNN, 16 Mar. 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/16/politics/house-gop-memo-biden-family/index.html.
[4] U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. "Comer Reveals How Joe Biden Received Laundered China Money." Oversight.House.gov. Accessed 2024. https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-reveals-how-joe-biden-received-laundered-china-money/.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997).
[8] Ibid.
[9] [4] U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. "Comer Reveals How Joe Biden Received Laundered China Money." Oversight.House.gov. Accessed 2024. https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-reveals-how-joe-biden-received-laundered-china-money/.
[10] Associated Press. "Donald Trump and Republicans Clash Over Tax Policies." AP News. Accessed 2024. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-republicans-taxes-eea4754a0f580d451aa0588f0639d52c.
[11] Becker, Sophia. "California Officials Detail Trump Funding Freeze Chaos, Warn Another Could Cripple the State." Los Angeles Times, February 16, 2025. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-02-16/california-officials-detail-trump-funding-freeze-chaos-warn-another-could-cripple-state.
[12] Reuters. "Trump Administration Ordered to Fully Comply with Order Lifting Funding Freeze." Reuters, February 10, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-ordered-fully-comply-with-order-lifting-funding-freeze-2025-02-10/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
[13] Becker, Sophia. "California Officials Detail Trump Funding Freeze Chaos, Warn Another Could Cripple the State." Los Angeles Times, February 16, 2025. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-02-16/california-officials-detail-trump-funding-freeze-chaos-warn-another-could-cripple-state.
[14] Reuters. "Trump Administration Ordered to Fully Comply with Order Lifting Funding Freeze." Reuters, February 10, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-ordered-fully-comply-with-order-lifting-funding-freeze-2025-02-10/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
[15] South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
[16] Ibid.
[17] Tucker, Eric, and Alanna Durkin Richer. "Release of Jack Smith's Report on Trump's Election Case Cleared." AP News, 13 Jan. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-special-counsel-aileen-cannon-d7be86dad89227f12a6f5aac3433b202.
[18] Ibid.
[19] The Guardian. "Trump Fires Mark Milley and José Andrés." The Guardian, January 21, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/21/trump-fires-mark-milley-jose-andres?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
[20] United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
[21] Reuters. "Trump Administration Ordered to Fully Comply with Order Lifting Funding Freeze." Reuters, February 10, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-ordered-fully-comply-with-order-lifting-funding-freeze-2025-02-10/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
[22] Smith, Jonathan. "Trump Administration Swiftly Enacts Retribution Against Political Enemies." NBC News, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-swiftly-enacts-retribution-political-enemies-rcna188763.