The Need to Break the Cycle of Retribution
Escalating political retaliation is weakening institutions and deepening national division — a cycle that must be stopped before it becomes permanent.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump promised his followers he would be their retribution for the injustices they believed they had suffered under the Biden administration and prior presidencies. And he hasn’t disappointed.
Since returning to the White House, he has pardoned more than 1,500 people convicted of crimes related to the January 6 Capitol riot, calling them “hostages” of a corrupt system. He has also pardoned dozens of others convicted or accused of serious offenses, all under the banner of fairness. At the same time, he has openly pressured the Justice Department to curtail investigations into individuals aligned with his agenda while aggressively pursuing political opponents, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Career prosecutors, FBI agents, and other government lawyers have lost their jobs for refusing to endorse actions that violated the law and compromised their professional integrity. They were punished for placing the Constitution above what is increasingly an authoritarian presidency.
The deeper danger is the erosion of institutional independence. Agencies designed to operate above political pressure — the Justice Department, the intelligence community, the courts, and the civil service — cannot function when loyalty is measured by obedience rather than competence. Once these institutions are compromised, restoring their neutrality becomes exponentially more difficult, and the consequences extend far beyond Washington. Ordinary Americans rely on these systems for equal treatment under the law, impartial justice, and basic governmental stability. When those foundations crack, the effects ripple directly into daily life.
On a recent episode of Vox’s Today Explained, the conversation turned to what comes next. Trump may have initiated the current wave of retribution, but the concern is that it will not end with him. Many of the career officials who were pushed out are keeping tabs on those who, in their view, abandoned long-held standards and contributed to their ouster. When a Democrat eventually returns to the White House, they expect similar demands for payback. The cycle is already forming.
To understand how we reached this point, it’s necessary to revisit the origins. Trump refused to accept the results of the 2020 election, fueling the Capitol riots. He eventually left office but took boxes of classified documents to Florida and repeatedly resisted efforts to retrieve them. He paid off a porn star, falsifying business records and violating campaign finance regulations. He inflated the value of his properties to secure favorable loan terms. And he urged Georgia officials to “find” enough votes to flip the state.
In normal times, these actions would have triggered criminal investigations — and they did. Special prosecutor Jack Welsh examined Trump’s role in the January 6 riots and his handling of classified documents. New York prosecuted the case involving inflated property values. Georgia pursued election interference charges. Trump’s supporters were similarly investigated and prosecuted for disrupting the 2020 election certification, storming the Capitol, assaulting police, and terrorizing lawmakers and staff. Many went to jail; others faced lasting consequences.
All of this fuels Trump’s grievance — and the denialism of his supporters and enablers. They view these events not as legitimate accountability but as political retribution for what they believe were justified actions. In their narrative, they are the victims of persecution because they stood by Trump.
This mindset now shapes government operations. When a Department of Justice lawyer refused to sign off on a pardon for actor Mel Gibson so he could regain the right to possess firearms, she was immediately fired. Officials and attorneys who follow the law over presidential directive are removed. Those who protest political interference lose their jobs as well. And if they fear that they will face retribution when Trump leaves office, they should.
But none of this is inevitable. The American government and judicial system depend on a shared agreement to respect the law as written. Interpretation may vary, and enforcement may differ, but bending rules within limits is part of democratic practice. Ignoring the law and punishing those who uphold it is not.
The country is now suffering from deep political polarization and rising extremism. Rather than following the Constitution, legal norms, and long-standing democratic traditions, many on both sides have embraced derisive language, chosen expediency over principle, and pursued short-term victories at the expense of the national future.
Reconciliation is essential, but it will not come without real accountability for the harm inflicted on our institutions and civic life. The damage now underway will take years, if not decades, to repair. Restoring a healthy equilibrium will require both sides to reestablish shared standards and build toward a more stable future.
Democracy survives not because leaders can exercise power, but because they choose not to use it vindictively. When informal guardrails fail, laws alone cannot prevent abuse. The fate of the nation ultimately depends on whether leaders and citizens decide that constitutional norms matter more than political victory. If that principle collapses, the system that relies on it collapses as well.
If that does not happen, the United States will remain trapped in a cycle of retribution, counter-retribution, and perpetual grievance.