A Justice System Built to Find the Truth Would Be Harder to Weaponize
The Department of Justice (DOJ)’s new Anti-Weaponization Fund is a telling sign of where the country is. Part of a settlement connected to President Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the disclosure of his tax returns, the fund will receive $1.776 billion from the federal Judgment Fund. Five members appointed by the attorney general will administer the fund, and claims will be processed through December 2028.
Meant to compensate people harmed by alleged political “weaponization” of government power, the fund has drawn concern from both sides of the aisle. Some Senate Republicans have questioned whether it can be “fenced-in appropriately,” while others have called it “utterly stupid, [and] morally wrong.” Democrats have attacked it as a “slush fund” for Trump administration friends and allies.
However, bipartisan unease about an anti-weaponization fund should not be construed as a dismissal of the issue writ large. In fact, 82 percent of likely U.S. voters consider government weaponization a serious threat to our nation. This exposes an increasing—and very real—fear that criminal law can be turned against political opponents.
Claims that government has been weaponized frequently arise in the context of criminal prosecutions. Sometimes those fears are exaggerated, while other concerns deserve more attention. Either way, public confidence suffers when prosecutions are viewed less as searches for truth than as efforts to get the bad guy, punish an enemy, or win a public fight.
Part of the problem may be structural. The United States uses an adversarial system for prosecutions, in which prosecutors and defense lawyers fight from opposing corners while judges referee. This model has strengths, as it protects the accused from unchecked state power and gives the defense equal opportunity at trial. But in its most extreme form, hyper-adversalism can devolve into lawfare.
The system’s integrity is slowly compromised as a result, and public trust in it fades.
Recent events highlight how prominent prosecutions can lead the public to believe that prosecutions are being shaped by politics rather than evidence. In Illinois, federal charges against several activists were dropped after a judge raised serious concerns about grand jury irregularities, including allegations that a prosecutor improperly vouched for evidence and removed dissenting jurors prior to deliberation. A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. refused to indict Sean Dunn, the former DOJ employee accused of felony assault for throwing a sandwich at a federal officer. And grand juries, which almost never reject indictments, have done so repeatedly in politically charged federal cases over the past year.
While these episodes occurred under the current administration, the concern is not partisan.
The term “weaponization” entered political discourse around 2013-2014, tied initially to concerns about the IRS targeting conservative groups during the Obama administration. It spiked significantly in 2019 around the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and became ubiquitous after 2022. A select House subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government formed in 2023 and released a final report in December 2024, which contained several accusations of the Biden administration’s misuse of federal power. And last year, the DOJ established a Weaponization Working Group to review alleged politicized prosecutions and other abuses. Organizations across the ideological spectrum—from the America First Policy Institute on the right to the Brennan Center for Justice on the left—have offered strategies for reform, each reflecting different concerns about who holds power and who is targeted by it. A system that depends on public legitimacy cannot thrive when each side believes the other is misusing it.
But the American adversarial system is not the only model. Many democracies use an inquisitorial system, which operates on an “official inquiry to ascertain the truth” rather than a fight between two opposing parties. It has its drawbacks, too—for example, the judge holds an immense amount of power and inherently trusts in those who investigated the crime—but our polarized nation may have much to learn from this system.
Our jury tradition, confrontation rights, presumption of innocence, and strong defense role are worth defending. Still, there is insight worth borrowing: Criminal justice should be built around finding out what happened, not simply defeating the opponent.
Many American prosecutors already understand that duty. When I was a prosecutor, my mentors always told me my charge was “truth-seeking,” not winning. That principle is consistent with the American Bar Association’s prosecution standards, which state that the prosecutor’s primary duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict. But the culture has not always kept pace with the principle. Police, prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, and lawmakers all have a role in rebuilding a system where accuracy and “veritas” truly come first. Procedural changes can help at both federal and state levels.
One potential reform would be to insulate active investigations and prosecutions from political influence. A 2024 national survey found that nearly two-thirds of Americans reject the idea that a president should be able to direct the DOJ to prosecute political opponents. That principle should extend beyond formal orders. Traditionally, presidents and senior political officials were expected not only to avoid directing prosecutorial decisions but also to refrain from public comments that could pressure prosecutors, signal desired outcomes, or cast active cases as partisan wins. That restraint should apply regardless of party or political position. In criminal matters, silence protects defendants, victims, and the legitimacy of the result.
Another important change could be requiring exculpatory evidence at grand juries. The grand jury was meant to stand between the government and the accused; however, because the prosecutor controls what jurors see, it often functions as a rubber stamp. While the Supreme Court’s Brady doctrine requires prosecutors to disclose material exculpatory and impeachment evidence (and the DOJ’s own Justice Manual recognizes that prosecutors should err on the side of disclosure), it is a back-end safeguard required closer to trial. Requiring exculpatory evidence at grand jury hearings would help prevent people from being pulled through the criminal justice system when the evidence does not support prosecution.
It would also help to adopt open-file discovery, which would allow the defense to receive early and continuing access to all evidence in the case including police reports, witness statements and contact information, forensic results, digital evidence, expert notes, impeachment information, and evidence favorable to the accused. When the government can withhold key evidence until late in the process, weak or politically charged cases can survive longer than they should, burdening the accused whether or not the case has merit. Open discovery makes that harder and protects strong prosecutions by exposing problems before they become dismissals or reversals. Protective orders can and should be used when there are legitimate concerns about witness safety, privacy, or ongoing investigations.
It is also important to reduce federal overcharging. Lawmakers should narrow criminal statutes and reduce duplicative charging options both within and between levels of government that hold prosecuting power. Weaponization becomes easier when prosecutors have sprawling codes, overlapping offenses, and broad discretion to threaten severe penalties. Limited government requires clear laws rather than endless charging leverage. The more crimes Congress creates, the more power it gives prosecutors to select targets first and charges second.
None of this requires abandoning the adversarial system; instead, it encourages refinement to better serve truth and restraint. The government must still bear the burden, defense must still test the case, and courts must still protect constitutional rights. But the process should make it harder for anyone in either party to use criminal law as a political tool.
A justice system built around truth will not eliminate bad faith, but it can reduce opportunities for its abuse. It can also expose weak cases earlier and protect the legitimacy of strong ones. It is important for us to focus right now on a system that is more accurate, more transparent, and less tempting to misuse.