Weaponized agencies? The top cases on each side

Have federal agencies been turned against political opponents, and if so, by whom?

Laid out the BothSides way: each side in its own best words, then the facts. First drafted by Claude, an AI model. Edited and reviewed by Leonard Dalenberg.

Side A

Yes: against conservatives.

Those on this side say that under recent Democratic administrations, the tax, law-enforcement and intelligence agencies singled out conservatives and Donald Trump. Their five leading examples:

IRS scrutiny of Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt status, 2010–2013. Outcome: the IRS admitted using “inappropriate criteria,” settled with more than 400 groups and apologized in 2017–2018.¹
The FBI's Russia investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign, including flawed surveillance requests on adviser Carter Page. Outcome: the inspector general found 17 serious errors but no evidence of bias in opening it; Durham concluded it should never have been opened.²
The federal prosecutions of Trump over classified documents and the 2020 election, 2023–2024. Outcome: the documents case was dismissed over the special counsel's appointment, and the election case was dropped after Trump won in 2024.³
The FBI Richmond memo linking “radical-traditionalist Catholics” to violent extremism, 2023. Outcome: the inspector general found no wrongdoing or hostility toward religion.⁴
“Arctic Frost”: the FBI obtaining phone records of eight Republican senators, 2023. Outcome: disclosed in October 2025; the attorney general is investigating, and no charges have been reported.⁵

On this view these were not isolated mistakes but a pattern, and the agencies involved owe the public a reckoning.

Side B

Yes: against the president's critics, now.

Those on this side say the current administration is using the Justice Department and other agencies to punish people the president regards as enemies. Their five leading examples:

The indictment of James Comey, the former FBI director the president fired, 2025. Outcome: dismissed in November 2025 because the prosecutor had no lawful authority.⁶
The indictment of Letitia James, the New York attorney general who sued the president's business, 2025. Outcome: dismissed for the same reason; two grand juries then declined to indict her again.^6,7
Executive orders against four law firms that had represented the president's opponents, 2025. Outcome: all four firms won in the trial courts; the appeal was argued in May 2026 and is undecided.⁸
The indictment of John Bolton, the former national security adviser turned critic, 2025. Outcome: he pleaded guilty in June 2026 to one of the 18 counts.⁹
The attempt to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board over mortgage allegations, 2025. Outcome: the Supreme Court let her stay in office, 5–4, in June 2026; a White House hearing is set for November 5.¹⁰

On this view the pattern is plain, and courts and grand juries have repeatedly pushed back.

Other views

Both are right. Some say each side has real examples, and that every administration is tempted to use its powers against opponents, which is why the safeguards matter more than the party in charge.
Mostly ordinary law enforcement. Others say most of these were lawful investigations of real questions, and that “weaponization” has become a label for any case against one's own side.
Judge by outcomes. Some argue the fair test is what courts, grand juries and inspectors general found, not what politicians claimed.
Fix the structure. Others want stronger independence for prosecutors and inspectors general, whoever holds the White House.

Factual review

What happened in the ten cases

IRS and Tea Party groups. The IRS admitted in 2013 that it applied extra scrutiny, using “inappropriate criteria,” to conservative groups seeking nonprofit status. In 2017 and 2018 the Justice Department settled with more than 400 groups, and the IRS expressed its “sincere apology.”¹
The Russia investigation. The Justice Department's inspector general found in 2019 no evidence that political bias motivated opening the investigation, but found 17 “basic and fundamental” errors and omissions in the surveillance applications. Special counsel John Durham concluded in 2023 that the FBI should never have opened the full investigation; his final report brought no new charges.²
The Trump prosecutions. A federal judge dismissed the classified-documents case in 2024, finding the special counsel had been unconstitutionally appointed. After Trump won the 2024 election, the special counsel moved to drop both federal cases, citing the temporary immunity of a sitting president, and the election case was dismissed on November 25, 2024.³
The Richmond memo. In 2024 the inspector general found the FBI did not commit wrongdoing or show hostility toward religion in circulating the memo, which grew out of an investigation of one defendant.⁴
Arctic Frost. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley disclosed in October 2025 that the FBI had obtained call records, showing time, duration and general location but not content, for eight Republican senators and one House member for January 4–7, 2021, as part of the investigation behind the 2020 election case. The attorney general said she was investigating; no charges have been reported.⁵
Comey and James. Comey was indicted in 2025 on charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstruction, and James on bank fraud and false-statement charges. Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, presented and signed both indictments alone as interim U.S. attorney. On November 24, 2025, a federal judge dismissed both indictments, finding Halligan had no lawful authority. Two grand juries then declined to indict James again.^6,7
The law firms. The orders suspended the firms' security clearances and restricted access to government buildings. Trial judges sided with all four firms. A federal appeals court heard argument on May 14, 2026, and appeared skeptical of the orders.⁸
Bolton. Indicted on 18 counts of retaining and transmitting national defense information, Bolton pleaded guilty on June 26, 2026, to one count of retaining it, saying “I am sorry for it.”⁹
Cook. On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that Cook can stay in office while she challenges her firing. In October the White House formed a committee of its appointees to hold a hearing on the allegations on November 5.¹⁰

What is disputed

Does a dismissal prove targeting? Several cases ended on procedure, such as how a prosecutor was appointed or a president's immunity, not on whether the accused did what was charged. Each side reads its opponents' procedural wins as technicalities and its own as vindication.^3,6
Mistakes or motive? In the Russia investigation, the inspector general found serious errors but no evidence of political bias in opening it; Durham found it should never have been opened. The two reports are still cited by opposite sides.²
Can a case be both? Bolton's guilty plea shows the charge against him had substance, yet critics say the decision to pursue him was still driven by politics. The same argument is made about the Trump prosecutions from the other direction.^3,9
Were the phone records lawful? Republicans call the collection of senators' records an unconstitutional breach. The records were gathered in the criminal investigation that became the special counsel's 2020 election case, and whether the requests were proper remains under review.⁵

Where it comes down to values

Independence or accountability. Should prosecutors be shielded from the president, or answer to an elected leader?
Who may be investigated. When does investigating a politician become targeting one, and does holding office or running for it raise or lower the bar?
One standard. Would you accept the same action if the other party took it against your side?
Trust in referees. Whose judgment should settle these disputes: courts, grand juries, inspectors general, or voters?

Sources

Fox News, “Trump DOJ enters into final settlement in IRS targeting scandal,” Feb. 1, 2018. foxnews.com
The National Desk, “Special counsel concludes FBI mishandled Trump-Russia investigation but brings no charges,” May 15, 2023. katv.com
NPR via Connecticut Public, “Judge grants dismissal of Jan. 6 case against Trump,” Nov. 25, 2024. ctpublic.org
Christian Post, “DOJ clears FBI of targeting ‘radical-traditionalist Catholics’ in controversial memo,” April 23, 2024. christianpost.com
Senate Judiciary Committee, “Biden FBI Spied on Eight Republican Senators as Part of Arctic Frost Investigation, Grassley Oversight Reveals,” Oct. 2025. judiciary.senate.gov Deseret News, Oct. 7, 2025. deseret.com
NBC News, “Judge dismisses cases against James Comey and Letitia James after finding prosecutor was unlawfully appointed,” Nov. 24, 2025. nbcnews.com
FOX 5 New York, “Grand jury refuses to re-indict NY AG Letitia James: AP source,” Dec. 11, 2025. fox5ny.com
Roll Call, “Appeals court questions Trump executive orders targeting law firms,” May 14, 2026. rollcall.com
NPR, “John Bolton, former Trump national security adviser, pleads guilty in classified documents case,” June 26, 2026. npr.org
SCOTUSblog, “Court prevents Trump from firing Fed governor,” June 29, 2026. scotusblog.com CNN, “Trump launches new effort to oust Fed Governor Lisa Cook,” Oct. 9, 2026. cnn.com