Trump’s Revenge Tour Keeps Running Into The Courts—And The Courts Keep Saying No
Source: Silicon Bay Partners’ staff with assistance from ChatGPT
Photo:
How many of the Trump administration’s high-profile cases against perceived political enemies have actually survived? Fewer than the president might have hoped.
President Donald Trump has never been shy about naming the people he believes have wronged him. During his second term, that list has increasingly become a roadmap for the Justice Department.
Former FBI Director James Comey. New York Attorney General Letitia James. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka. California labor leader David Huerta. Flag-burning protester Jan “Jay” Carey.
The administration has investigated, arrested or prosecuted them. And in case after case, the legal system has responded with something Trump presumably hates almost as much as a bad poll: “No.”
A tracker maintained by Protect Democracy lists 36 federal actions against people or organizations it identifies as potential targets of retaliatory law enforcement as of July 31, 2026. The organization says most have failed through dismissals, dropped charges, grand-jury refusals or other judicial setbacks.
But there’s an important distinction: not every failed investigation was a “dismissed case,” and not every target was found innocent of anything. Some never reached an indictment, some were dropped by prosecutors, and others were thrown out by judges because of procedural or constitutional problems.
Still, the scoreboard isn’t exactly what you’d call a winning streak.
James Comey: Indicted, Dismissed—and Then Indicted Again
Comey may be the poster child for Trump’s long-running vendetta.
Trump fired Comey as FBI director in 2017 and has spent years attacking him over the Russia investigation. In 2025, Trump’s Justice Department opened an investigation into Comey and eventually indicted him on charges of making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding.
There was just one little problem.
The prosecutor who brought the case, Lindsey Halligan, had been installed as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia under circumstances a federal judge later ruled unlawful.
On November 24, 2025, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the indictment. The judge cited Halligan’s unlawful appointment and described a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps.”
The case also became particularly embarrassing when Halligan acknowledged that the final version of Comey’s indictment had not been presented to the entire grand jury.
You know a prosecution is having a rough day when the prosecutor can’t quite get the paperwork in front of the people who are supposed to approve it.
But Trump wasn’t finished.
In April 2026, the Justice Department obtained a second indictment against Comey, this time alleging that a social-media photograph featuring seashells arranged as “86 47” constituted threats against Trump.
Comey has moved to dismiss that case too.
So technically, one Comey prosecution has already been thrown out, while another remains alive as of August 9, 2026. The Comey revenge tour apparently comes with a frequent-flyer program.
Letitia James: Trump’s Legal Nemesis Gets the Same Treatment
New York Attorney General Letitia James was another obvious Trump target.
James successfully prosecuted Trump and his businesses in a major civil fraud case, resulting in a massive judgment against him. Trump responded by repeatedly attacking her and publicly urging the Justice Department to prosecute her.
The DOJ eventually charged her with bank fraud and making false statements involving a property transaction. Again, however, the prosecution hit a pothole.
Judge Currie dismissed the indictment on November 24, 2025, ruling that Halligan’s appointment was unlawful. The judge also cited what the tracker describes as a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps.” And then came another humiliation.
After the dismissal, federal grand juries in Virginia declined to indict James again. So, in James’ case, we have:
Indictment → dismissal → another attempt → grand jury says no.
That’s less a prosecution strategy than a subscription service that keeps getting canceled.
Jerome Powell: The Fed Chair Who Got a Criminal Investigation—Then Lost It
Then there is Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.
Trump has repeatedly attacked Powell for refusing to lower interest rates and has publicly questioned his competence and independence. The administration’s Justice Department eventually opened a criminal investigation involving Powell and the Federal Reserve’s renovation of its headquarters.
A federal judge, however, found the government’s subpoenas problematic.
In March 2026, Judge James Boasberg quashed subpoenas connected to the investigation, concluding there was evidence suggesting the investigation’s purpose was to pressure Powell. The Justice Department appealed.
Then, on April 24, 2026, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced that the Justice Department had dropped the criminal investigation after failing to find evidence of a crime.
Protect Democracy now lists the Powell investigation as “Failed.”
This wasn’t a courtroom dismissal like Comey’s case. It was a DOJ investigation that the department itself abandoned.
And that’s significant because Judge Boasberg had concluded there was “abundant evidence” that the subpoenas’ dominant—or possibly sole—purpose was to harass and pressure Powell into either yielding to Trump’s demands or resigning.
In other words, the Fed chair apparently survived the Justice Department’s version of:
Kilmar Abrego García: A Judge Calls It Vindictive
This case is particularly remarkable because it involves someone who had already been at the center of one of the administration’s biggest immigration controversies.
After Abrego García was mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite a court order protecting him from removal there, he successfully challenged the government’s actions.
The Justice Department subsequently brought human-smuggling charges against him based on a 2022 traffic stop.
But there was a problem: the investigation into that traffic stop had previously been closed.
A federal judge in Tennessee concluded that the government reopened the investigation only after Abrego García successfully challenged his deportation.
On May 22, 2026, Judge Waverly Crenshaw dismissed the criminal case, finding the prosecution was vindictive and amounted to an abuse of prosecutorial power.
That’s not merely a judge saying, “Oops, paperwork.”
That’s a judge essentially saying:
“You prosecuted this guy because he beat you in court.”
The Justice Department has vowed to appeal.
Jan “Jay” Carey: The Flag-Burning Case That Went Up in Smoke
Carey was arrested after burning an American flag following Trump’s executive order directing the Justice Department to prioritize prosecutions involving flag burning.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that flag burning is constitutionally protected expression.
Carey’s attorneys argued that the prosecution was vindictive. Judge Boasberg allowed that argument to proceed, saying Carey had shown enough evidence of actual vindictiveness to warrant further inquiry.
Then came the interesting part.
The government moved to dismiss the case the day before it was required to produce discovery concerning its motives.
On March 13, 2026, prosecutors dismissed the case with prejudice—meaning it could not simply be brought again. The flag burned. The prosecution burned. And eventually, the case went up in smoke.
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka: Arrest First, Questions Later
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested outside an ICE detention facility in May 2025 while conducting an oversight visit with members of Congress.
He was charged with trespassing. Ten days later, federal prosecutors dropped the case. The judge wasn’t impressed.
Magistrate Judge André Espinosa called the government’s handling of the case an “embarrassing” retraction and said the rush to arrest Baraka suggested a “worrying misstep.” He reminded prosecutors that an arrest should not be used as a preliminary investigative tool or to satisfy political agendas.
The charge was dismissed with prejudice, meaning prosecutors cannot simply bring the same charge again.
Baraka later sued Trump administration officials, alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution.
That’s one way to turn a political prosecution into a potential legal headache for the prosecutors themselves.
David Huerta: The Labor Leader’s Case Gets Dropped
California labor leader David Huerta was arrested while protesting federal immigration raids and initially faced a felony charge. The charge was eventually reduced to a misdemeanor.
Then, on July 27, 2026, prosecutors dismissed the remaining charge as part of a diversion agreement.
Huerta called the prosecution baseless and said it was intended to intimidate people who challenge the administration.
Technically, this isn’t the same kind of clean judicial rejection as the Abrego García case or the Baraka dismissal. But the criminal charge is gone.
Another one for the “Where Did That Case Go?” file.
So, What’s the Score?
If we’re talking specifically about major federal cases or investigations against Trump opponents that have been dismissed, dropped or abandoned, I count at least seven prominent examples. But there’s an important caveat: there is no official DOJ statistic called “Trump revenge cases.” That’s a political characterization, not a Justice Department category.
The Protect Democracy tracker, which explicitly evaluates cases for evidence of political interference and retaliation, currently lists 36 actions and says most have failed in some fashion.
And several other Trump targets have encountered major roadblocks without technically having a dismissed prosecution.
Adam Schiff
The DOJ opened a mortgage-fraud investigation into Schiff after Trump publicly called for him to be investigated and prosecuted. Prosecutors reportedly concluded that the investigation had not produced enough evidence to bring charges.
No indictment. No trial. No conviction. Just another investigation sitting in the political junkyard.
The “Seditious Six”
Trump publicly called for Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a video telling military personnel they need not obey illegal orders.
A federal grand jury refused to indict them, and prosecutors subsequently dropped the investigation.
That’s an especially notable failure because grand juries overwhelmingly approve indictments when prosecutors bring cases to them.
John Brennan
The former CIA director remains under investigation over matters connected to the Russia investigation. As of the latest tracker update, that one isn’t dismissed.
Lisa Cook
The Federal Reserve governor also remains under criminal investigation, despite Trump’s unsuccessful attempt to remove her from the Fed. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Trump could not fire her.
John Bolton
Bolton was indicted and, as of the latest information, remains in an ongoing case after reportedly reaching a plea agreement. So, he doesn’t belong in the “dismissed” column either.
The Bigger Problem Isn’t the Scorecard
The most troubling part isn’t simply how many cases have collapsed. It’s how they got started.
Trump has repeatedly publicly identified people he believes deserve prosecution. In several instances, the targets were people who had investigated him, sued him, criticized him, challenged his policies or stood in the way of something he wanted.
Then came the Justice Department.
Protect Democracy’s methodology specifically looks for things such as presidential threats, White House involvement, removal or overruling of career prosecutors and unusual departures from ordinary prosecutorial procedures.
That doesn’t mean every investigation was necessarily illegitimate.
Some of the targets may have committed crimes. Some allegations could theoretically have merit. And a dismissal based on an unlawful appointment does not mean a defendant was judicially declared innocent.
But when prosecutors repeatedly pursue the president’s enemies—and judges repeatedly question the methods used to pursue them—the public has a legitimate reason to ask whether the Justice Department is enforcing the law or taking political orders.
And that brings us to the most delicious irony of all.
Trump and his allies have spent years complaining about the “weaponization” of government.
Yet Trump’s own Justice Department has now accumulated a rather impressive collection of cases that ended with:
Dismissed.
Dropped.
No indictment.
Grand jury says no.
Try again.
And, in the case of Jerome Powell: Investigation closed.
Perhaps the administration needs a new slogan for its Justice Department:
“Making America Great Again—One Dismissed Prosecution at a Time.”
Or, for something a little sharper:
Trump’s Revenge Tour Hits Another Roadblock: 7 Cases Down, Plenty More to Go
The president may have a very long enemies list. The courts, prosecutors and grand juries just don’t seem to be reading from it.