When political power is on the line, history shows that the military often becomes the make-or-break institution. Authoritarian leaders—from Hitler to Erdogan—have long understood that a professional military answers to the state, not to any one person. That independence can be inconvenient for leaders who want fewer limits to their power. So, the classic move is simple: replace seasoned, independent officers with people whose primary loyalty is personal rather than constitutional.
This isn’t speculation; it’s a familiar historical pattern.
How Authoritarians Reshape Militaries
Professional militaries promote based on experience, training, and merit. They’re built to resist illegal orders and to stay out of domestic politics. For an authoritarian-leaning leader, military professionalism is a potential obstacle. Purges serve a purpose: clear out officers who take institutional norms seriously, and elevate those who won’t push back.
Two cases illustrate how this works.
Hitler and the German Army
After consolidating political power, Hitler moved aggressively to dominate the military. In 1934, the army was pressured to swear a personal oath of loyalty to him—not to the state or constitution.
By 1938 he removed two top commanders, Werner von Blomberg and Werner von Fritsch, through trumped-up scandals after they questioned his rush toward war. Dozens of senior generals were pushed out soon after.
The goal was not efficiency—it was control.
Turkey After the 2016 Coup Attempt
Following the failed coup, President Erdogan launched the largest purge in modern Turkish history. Tens of thousands across the military, police, and judiciary were arrested or fired, including nearly half of Turkey’s generals.
Later reporting showed that many dismissed officers had no link to the coup at all; they were targeted for being politically unreliable or pro-Western.
These cases differ in scale and context, but the pattern is strikingly similar: the professional military is reshaped to serve the leader.
What Healthy Civil–Military Relations Look Like
In stable democracies, civilian leaders set policy, but the military retains professional autonomy. Officers swear loyalty to the constitution. Promotions are merit-based. And there’s a bright line between national service and political allegiance.
One important safeguard: every member of the U.S. military is obligated to refuse unlawful orders and swears an oath to do so. It’s not optional—it’s core to American military ethics.
Research consistently shows that professional, apolitical militaries strengthen democracies, while politically entangled militaries make coups and repression more likely.
The Current U.S. Debate
Since early 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s removal or sidelining of more than two dozen generals and admirals has raised alarms within the military and among lawmakers. It includes the unprecedented firing of a sitting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and significant cuts to senior officer billets.
Hegseth has framed these moves as reforms—streamlining, eliminating “woke politicization,” and aligning leadership with the administration’s national-security priorities.
Many inside the services describe the environment as unpredictable and politically charged. Officers report confusion about why certain leaders are removed and others promoted, and some say the secretary’s rhetoric has alienated the very institution he’s trying to lead. Public reporting describes an “atmosphere of uncertainty and fear” inside the officer corps.
Similarities and Differences to Classic Purges
Where patterns overlap
- Large-scale personnel changes in a short time
- Emphasis on loyalty to a person rather than institutional norms
- Limited transparency in the selection and removal process
- Signals that dissent or disagreement are disqualifying
Where the U.S. still differs
- Congress can investigate and slow actions
- Courts remain independent (for now)
- Officers swear loyalty to the Constitution, not the president
- No arrests, detentions, or manufactured scandals
- The press is free to report and criticize
Why This Matters
Institutional Readiness
Purges can weaken the military by removing seasoned leaders and creating gaps in institutional memory.
Professionalism
If officers think advancement depends on political alignment instead of performance, the talent pipeline changes. Some of the best people simply leave.
Civil–Military Trust
The relationship between elected leaders and the military rests on mutual respect. Reports of intimidation or political litmus tests damage that trust.
Democratic Stability
Democracies depend on militaries that stay out of politics. History shows that once political loyalty becomes the main metric for advancement, the slope toward politicization—and eventually erosion of democratic norms—gets much steeper.
The Real Question
It’s not whether current events equal Turkey in 2016 or Germany in 1938. They don’t.
The real question is much simpler:
Will we maintain a military that is professional, apolitical, and loyal to the Constitution—or move toward a military where career survival depends on political loyalty?
That direction matters far more than any single personnel decision.
Bottom Line
History shows that authoritarianism doesn’t arrive all at once; it arrives incrementally. One of the clearest patterns is reshaping the military to reward personal loyalty over constitutional loyalty.
The United States still has strong guardrails: congressional oversight, rule of law, open media, and a military culture steeped in constitutional commitment. But those guardrails only work if they’re maintained—by political leaders, by officers, and by citizens paying attention. Many are concerned that the deployment of military forces in American cities and their use to destroy purported drug traffickers is a way to acclimate senior officers to following questionable orders.
Watching these trends isn’t alarmist. It’s simply responsible. It’s our duty as citizens
The President’s Private Prosecutor
By John Turley
On June 10, 2026
In Commentary, Politics
How Trump Turned the Department of Justice into a Tool of Personal Revenge
There is an old maxim in law: fiat justitia ruat caelum — let justice be done though the heavens fall. It reflects the principle that the law belongs to everyone equally and is not meant to serve personal grudges. Critics argue that Donald Trump’s second administration has embraced a very different view: that the Department of Justice can be used to pursue those who have challenged, investigated, or defeated him.
This is not simply a partisan accusation. It is based on a pattern in which Trump publicly identifies enemies and calls for action against them, followed by Justice Department investigations or prosecutions. The targets have included former administration officials, prosecutors, election experts, and individuals who prevailed against Trump in court.
The Guardrails Come Off
Trump’s first term provided occasional glimpses of this tendency, but institutional resistance often limited its reach. His second term began with far fewer constraints.
The selection of Pam Bondi as attorney general was widely viewed as a signal that loyalty would take precedence over the traditional independence of the Justice Department. During her confirmation hearing, Bondi declined to assure senators that the White House would remain separate from prosecutorial decision-making. That exchange foreshadowed what followed.
Within months, Trump directed investigations into former administration officials Miles Taylor and Christopher Krebs. Taylor had authored the anonymous 2018 op-ed describing internal resistance within the administration. Krebs, Trump’s former cybersecurity chief, had publicly stated that the 2020 election was secure. Trump accused Taylor of “treason” while signing an executive memorandum ordering an investigation.
Whether or not either man had committed any wrongdoing, the sequence was striking: public presidential condemnation followed by federal scrutiny.
More consequential were the cases involving figures directly connected to Trump’s legal battles.
The Letitia James Case
Perhaps no public official has drawn Trump’s anger more consistently than Letitia James, the New York attorney general whose civil fraud case resulted in a massive judgment against Trump and his business organization.
In October 2025, James was indicted on bank fraud charges shortly after Trump publicly urged Bondi to move against his political opponents. The circumstances surrounding the case raised immediate questions.
According to reports, the original prosecutor assigned to the matter concluded that evidence was insufficient to support criminal charges and declined to proceed. He was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a former member of Trump’s personal legal team who had no prosecutorial experience. Within weeks, Halligan secured an indictment.
The legal process that followed was unusual. The indictment was later dismissed. Subsequent efforts to obtain new indictments reportedly failed before grand juries, an outcome that is relatively rare given the traditionally high success rate prosecutors enjoy in grand jury proceedings.
Yet the investigation continued.
Critics saw the episode as evidence that prosecutorial decisions were being driven not by evidence but by determination to target a political adversary. Supporters countered that investigations should continue if legitimate questions remained unresolved.
Regardless of one’s interpretation, the case illustrates a recurring theme: Trump publicly demands action against an opponent, and federal law enforcement soon responds.
The Comey Prosecution
James Comey has been a target of Trump’s anger since his dismissal as FBI director in 2017. That conflict entered a new phase in September 2025 when Comey was indicted on charges of making false statements and obstruction.
The indictment arrived only days after Trump publicly called for prosecution on social media. Trump later suggested that he hoped there would be “others.”
Comey pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss the case, arguing that he was the victim of selective and vindictive prosecution. Civil liberties advocates condemned the prosecution as an abuse of presidential power.
Whether the charges ultimately survive judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. But the timing reinforced the perception that DOJ actions increasingly followed Trump’s personal grievances. The ongoing “86 47” prosecution further emphasizes the appearance of political vengeance.
E. Jean Carroll: From Plaintiff to Target
No case better illustrates the concerns surrounding Trump’s Justice Department than that of E. Jean Carroll.
Carroll sued Trump for defamation after he denied her allegations that he sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store decades earlier. Two juries ruled in her favor, awarding her a combined $88.3 million in damages.
In May 2026, the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into Carroll herself.
The investigation centers on statements Carroll made during civil litigation regarding funding for her legal expenses. Prosecutors are examining whether financial assistance connected to a nonprofit associated with LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman was disclosed accurately and whether any false statements were made under oath.
Carroll is now 82 years old. She successfully sued Trump and won two jury verdicts. The federal government headed by the man she defeated in court is investigating whether to charge her with federal crimes.
The optics are difficult to ignore.
Carroll’s attorneys argue that the investigation lacks substantive merit and represents retaliation against a successful plaintiff. Legal observers note that if charges are eventually filed, Carroll would likely argue that the case constitutes vindictive prosecution — the use of prosecutorial power to punish someone for exercising a legal right.
Whatever the ultimate outcome, the sequence is extraordinary: a citizen sues a powerful public figure, wins twice before juries, and then becomes the subject of a federal criminal investigation under that same figure’s administration.
A Larger Pattern
Individually, each case can be debated on its merits. Together, they form a pattern that has become increasingly difficult for critics to dismiss as coincidence.
Many of the administration’s highest-profile investigations involve people who share one characteristic: they challenged Trump politically, legally, or personally. Former election officials. Former administration insiders. Prosecutors. Investigators. Civil plaintiffs.
The pattern is often the same. Trump publicly attacks an individual. He demands action. An investigation follows. Organizations tracking retaliatory government actions have documented numerous examples of this sequence. Legal scholars frequently identify such timing as one of the warning signs associated with selective prosecution.
The concern is not merely whether individual targets are guilty or innocent. The larger issue is whether prosecutorial decisions are being made independently or whether they are increasingly shaped by presidential preferences.
That distinction matters because the Department of Justice possesses powers unlike those of any other federal agency. It can investigate, indict, and imprison citizens. Its legitimacy depends heavily on public confidence that those powers are exercised fairly and consistently.
The Cost of the Process
Defenders of the administration argue that investigations should not be immune from scrutiny simply because targets claim political persecution. That is true. Public officials, former officials, and private citizens alike should be subject to the law.
But critics respond that the problem is not accountability. It is selectivity.
Even unsuccessful investigations impose significant costs. Legal defense can consume hundreds of thousands of dollars. Grand jury investigations create stress, uncertainty, and reputational damage. Years of litigation can disrupt careers and lives regardless of whether convictions are ultimately obtained.
The process itself becomes a punishment.
Courts and grand juries have occasionally pushed back. Several high-profile cases have encountered significant legal obstacles. But judicial intervention often occurs only after substantial personal and financial costs have already been imposed.
The Weaponization Paradox
Perhaps the greatest irony is that Trump’s political rise was fueled in part by his claim that the justice system had been weaponized against him.
For years, he argued that prosecutors, investigators, and political opponents used government institutions to pursue personal or partisan objectives. That argument resonated with many Americans because the principle involved is important. The justice system should not be used as a political weapon.
The challenge for Trump’s administration is that the same characteristics he identified as evidence of weaponization now appear in cases initiated by his own Justice Department.
He argued that prosecutors were motivated by personal animus rather than evidence. Critics now make the same allegation about prosecutions involving Letitia James, James Comey, and E. Jean Carroll.
He argued that the process itself was punishment. His opponents now make the same claim.
He argued that political pressure shaped prosecutorial decisions. Critics point to repeated examples in which Trump’s public demands appear to precede DOJ action.
Whether one accepts those comparisons or rejects them, the contradiction is difficult to ignore.
A Democracy’s Stress Test
The Justice Department was designed to serve the public interest rather than the interests of any single president. That principle became especially important after Watergate, when both parties embraced reforms intended to insulate law enforcement from political interference.
The durability of those norms is now being tested.
The central question is not whether every investigation discussed here will ultimately succeed or fail. Courts will decide that. The more important question is whether Americans will continue to believe that justice is being administered independently.
If citizens come to believe that criminal investigations are triggered by personal loyalty or presidential anger, confidence in the rule of law inevitably suffers.
The power to prosecute is among the most formidable powers government possesses. In a constitutional democracy, that power must belong to institutions, not individuals.
Whether that principle remains intact may prove to be one of the defining questions of Trump’s second term.
Image generated by author using ChatGPT
Sources
• Just Security — Chronology of Trump/DOJ Targeting (Oct. 2024)
• PBS NewsHour — Comey Indictment & Trump Vows More Prosecutions (Sept. 2025)
• Slate — Trump’s Vengeance Tour (May 2026)
• Time — Trump Vows to Prosecute Political Enemies (March 2026)
• Protect Democracy — Retaliatory Action Tracker (ongoing)
• Yahoo/AP — Trump Directs DOJ to Investigate Taylor & Krebs (2025)
• Time — DOJ Launches Criminal Investigation into E. Jean Carroll (May 28, 2026)
• Axios — DOJ Probes Reid Hoffman Nonprofit Over Carroll Funds (May 28, 2026)
• CNN — Carroll and the Pattern of Trump Retribution (May 28, 2026)
• MS NOW — Vindictive Prosecution Analysis (May 28, 2026)
• Newsweek — Timeline of Carroll’s Legal Battles with Trump
• CNBC — Trump DOJ Intervenes in Carroll Case (Oct. 2020)
• CNBC — DOJ Fails Second Time to Indict Letitia James (Dec. 2025)
• ABC News — Letitia James Indicted (Oct. 2025)
• PBS — Full Indictment of Letitia James
• House Judiciary Democrats — Investigation into DOJ Retaliation Against Letitia James (March 2026)
• 19th News — From Letitia James to Comey, Trump’s DOJ as Instrument of Revenge
• Sen. Whitehouse Letter to Barr re Carroll (Sept. 2020)