Can a President Use the Justice Department Against Rivals?

May 6, 2026

The Department of Justice occupies a unique place in our constitutional system. It sits within the executive branch, and the President ultimately oversees it. But that structural reality has never meant that the machinery of criminal law is meant to serve a President’s personal or political interests.

The design is more careful than that.

The President has authority to set general enforcement priorities—what kinds of crimes to emphasize, where resources should be directed, and what policies should guide federal prosecutors. That is part of the President’s responsibility to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

But there is a meaningful distinction between setting priorities and targeting people.

When the focus shifts from enforcing the law to identifying particular individuals—especially political rivals—as objects of investigation or prosecution, the character of the system changes. At that point, the question is no longer about law enforcement policy. It becomes a question about whether the criminal justice system is being used as an instrument of power.

That is precisely the concern the rule of law is meant to guard against.

Over time, norms developed to create distance between the White House and day-to-day prosecutorial decisions. These practices are not written directly into the Constitution, but they reflect an understanding of how constitutional principles are best preserved. The goal is not to eliminate presidential authority, but to ensure that the exercise of that authority remains anchored in law rather than in personal or political objectives.

The stakes are not abstract. A system in which prosecutions are driven by evidence and legal standards operates very differently from one in which they are influenced by political calculations. The former reinforces public confidence and institutional legitimacy. The latter risks eroding both.

In the end, the question is not whether the President has influence over the Department of Justice. The question is how that influence is exercised—and whether the line between public authority and personal power is maintained.