Lawfare Failure – February 11, 2026

For the purposes of this conversation the goal is to explore two aspects of this recent phenomenon on “lawfare,” including some deconstruction right along political lines with their supporting media commentary.

One, define lawfare. Two, see the application of lawfare.

The definition is not all that complicated, “lawfare” being the politically strategic misuse of the legal system in an effort to achieve goals traditionally pursued through political means. Said another way, weaponize law by rejecting any sense of justice for the express purpose of political gain by harming opposition.

The application is where it gets more awkward, and going back over the past several Presidential Administrations the use of the term has skyrocketed.

Where did all this start? When?

In the modern context, because the term goes way back, we can point to one candidate and a FBI launched investigation into potential links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Arguably, all over The Steele Dossier, which contained salacious yet unverified allegations concerning Trump’s ties to various Russian interests.

Turns out the Steele dossier was authored by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, and was funded primarily by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 election cycle. Steele relied on various anonymous sources for the dossier, later identified as primarily involving Igor Danchenko, a DC-based think tank analyst, who provided hearsay and “word of mouth” information from conversations with others.

In the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, supposed “hush-money” payments were made to silence various people concerning stories about alleged Trump affairs. Through Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford,) through AMI (parent to National Inquirer) to Karen McDougal, there were others.

Prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office later characterized this as a “conspiracy to influence the 2016 election” through illegal expenditures of a campaign to avoid embarrassing stories coming out. Some happened anyway and between that and Russia Trump’s base viewed the whole thing as “lawfare” attacks.

With that, and we did skip a few chapters, Trump adopted “lawfare” and continues to rely on that message still today. 2016, 2020, 2024 all at some point included some combination of “lawfare” and “rigged” elections.

But ultimately a stage was set, and we are seemingly stuck with it.

What has happening lately?

Now that we are well into Trump’s second term, we may be seeing applied the idea of “lawfare” to cause harm to political opposition.

Key targets, those who took action against Trump in some regard over the years, but with questionable results in the pursuit of revenge.

There has been repeated attempts to go after Letitia James. At the time NY AG Letitia James was a central figure in several legal actions against Donald Trump and various Trump organizations, most notably leading a massive civil fraud case that challenged the core of his business empire. Tax fraud, falsifying business records, and ultimately taking down the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

Trump’s DOJ went after her. In December 2025, two separate grand juries (one in Norfolk and one in Alexandria, Virginia) reportedly declined to bring a new bank fraud indictment against James after a previous indictment was tossed by a judge. The original charges were dismissed in November 2025 because the judge ruled the prosecutor who presented them, Lindsey Halligan, had been unlawfully appointed.

James Comey also made the list. He was FBI director 2016 to 2017, the idea of using the Steele Dossier to secure warrants happened under his watch as did the fiasco of handling Hillary Clinton’s email issue. You remember, Comey decided there was “no criminal intent” by Hillary using private email to handle classified information. First deciding not to bring a case to the DOJ, then later flip-flopping to a maybe over new emails but ultimately did not turn a case over.

After appearing before Congress, not long after Trump was reelected, Trump’s DOJ decided to pursue charges of False Statements and Obstruction of a Congressional Proceeding. Same grounds as the James case, the indictment against Comey was also dismissed in late 2025 in that the acting US attorney who secured it was not legally appointed to the role. The DOJ appeal is pending.

And of course the DOJ tried to obtain indictments from a DC grand jury against six Democratic lawmakers: Sen. Mark Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Rep. Jason Crow, Rep. Maggie Goodlander, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, and Rep. Chris DeLuzio over the whole “do not follow illegal orders” video they produced. Just recently the grand jury refused to indict.

There have been others, Sidney Reid and Sean Dunn, where Trump’s DOJ failed to really get much traction with their round of “lawfare.” Speaking of, all Dunn did was throw a sandwich at a federal agent.

Before getting too far into the weeds with Republicans

The Biden FBI and DOJ did raid a former President’s home looking for sensitive information that Biden himself help similar records in a garage next to an old car. There was surveillance and information gathering of eight Republican senators and one Republican House member. Call logs, cell phone records, etc.

Most of that was about Jan 6th and Jack Smith’s actions. Agree or not with the outcome but these targets were not charged, some of the consequence is the latitude of an agency to obtain a warrant.

The concept of investigations in search of a crime is nothing new and not exclusive to the Republican Party.

On the argument of severity, even if we concede that Trump has upped the ante on how these functions can be weaponized does that really get anyone off the hook for pushing boundaries just because someone else pushed them further?

It is not an argument rooted in false equivalency, more a conversation addition on ability to target based on a ‘R or ‘D behind the name along side a subject. One where potential criminal liability blurs into political opportunism.

Lawfare vs. Political Weaponization of The Courts

They are very different. The idea of using the investigative capability of the FBI and/or the prosecutorial power of the DOJ is a different animal than putting on the bench various judges that pass political litmus tests suggesting likely future rulings. You could lump it all into government weaponization but solutioning for this, in part or by the whole, becomes a bit challenging.

Addressing lawfare means dealing with Congress, with all their political party prejudices and sense of protections, to consider legislative and regulatory countermeasures governing independence of criminal investigation and prosecution functions.

What that ultimately means is dealing with establishment Republicans and Democrats all to happy to see lawfare continue, collides directly with the idea of seeing practical representation address a clear issue. Much like Congress ever voting for their own restrictions, voting against modern party shenanigans and weaponization of government function is a tall order.

The only thing separating the realized impact of revenge via departmental function, so called “judge-shopping” (the practice of going to a court with arguably political alignment to an administration,) or nominating and confirming judges with likely predetermined ruling is severity of impact to all of us, under the Rule of Law, with a government no longer confined by the Constitution.

The rejection of our new norms

What this may boil down to, something to consider, is being at a point of rejecting party establishment. The nationalization of issues and the alignment of members of Congress to act in the interest of their party going, after the minority party, or anyone that may have politically wronged them in some way.

Recent polls are all over the place with this. A Harvard-Harris poll from late January 2026 recorded a 32% approval of Congress, Fox News polling around the same time put the number at 28%, and an Economist/YouGov poll put this at 17%. Numbers no where each other but the disapproval rate among them all tells us that the majority of Americans has had enough of Congress.

Again, with the midterms right around the corner.

In several prior conversations we have approached the likely outcome of the midterms and likely resulting impeachment (perhaps plural, as in going after others in the Administration.) Another chapter in the tit-for-tat mentality from our duopolistic system of political power suggests no one it taking their foot of the gas this Congress into the next Congress. One assumption, of many, is a flipped Congress may spend the next two years putting various pressures on several members of the Trump Administration but at that time no longer protected by majority House and Senate in Republican hands. That alters things, even testifying at some oversite hearing about whatever.

Regardless, a potential consideration is grassroots efforts to alter how party politics has shaped the recent last 3-4 Administrations. The obvious challenge being what good has come to you, your community up to state, from all this back and forth between ole ‘R and ‘D?

The fail part may have multiple levels of meaning

More than just the Trump DOJ being inept and failing left and right at their task of going after political opponents, one could argue that Trump himself has been mostly successful at sidestepping the legal and civil landmines.

Look at the balance sheet.

On paper and by the estimates, Trump’s net worth has increased some $2 billion to as much as $3 billion from 2016 to current. Given the wake of business failures, various bankruptcies, civil and criminal suits, some judgments and settlements, damn near ran out of New York somehow Trump still gained wealth.

In terms of raw power, Trump ran for President three times only losing once and across the lot of that time he has radically reshaped Republican politics taking the baton from the prior class and implementing his own establishment. One could say designed to be legacy over the party long after this second term.

Okay, look at the broader picture.

Going from this current 119th Congress back to the 109th Congress, it is now rare to see Republicans or Democrats hold both chambers for very long. Political power tends to go back and forth. The last President to serve 2 consecutive terms was President Obama, and since we have seen Trump to Biden back to Trump.

We’ve had several conversations on the violent political pendulum handing power back and forth Executive Branch to Legislative Branch, more recently that swing seems to be going back and forth faster.

Most seats in the Senate up for election this midterm are arguably in middle and southeastern US states. The House is more likely to see a flip, taking the razor thin majority Republicans have currently and putting it to real test.

Potential conclusion, the next Congress is split. Just as the 118th was split, 116th, 114th, 113th, 112th, 110th, seeing a trend yet? Current economic, social, even political conditions notwithstanding what cannot be discounted is how well crafted the system is favoring politicians picking their voters. Unwise to rule out another split Congress as result from the midterms.

Perhaps breaking the cycle means breaking the fuel that motivates it. Some parting questions…

Wouldn’t it be nice to see candidates for Congress rise and fall based on what they suggest and how they voted prior? Something that adds pressure for more seats, House and Senate, to be competitive.

Shouldn’t a sitting President be more concerned with executive function over placating political divisions? That is a passive way of holding members of Congress accountable for going along with a President or simply opposing because of that next round of revenge politics.

What would the political landscape be like if more people rejected lawfare and weaponization of government? Meaning, other than holding people accountable the bigger picture is ending the upsetting idea of a government out to get anyone deemed in the opposition category. Not just people in the news but even voters, people like us, lest we forget states trying to protect voter rolls and Georgia records literally seized by Trump’s vengeful DOJ and FBI.

That is not going after someone like James Comey or Letitia James for the umpteenth time, trying to harm them financially with court costs and/or reputationally from all the coverage of the whole thing.

It is going after all of us. How we voted, was it legitimate, party affiliations and did we break rank, and with plenty of personal identifiable information about us. All in Trump’s hands (and those who may help him, with his “problems.”)

Ponder all this when listening to politicians, right and left, rush to a waiting mic talking about what they think people want. Perhaps better said, what they are trying to tell people what they want. While mainstream media eats this up, possibly use the evaluation standard of looking over how Congressional hearings and speeches on the floor play out. Further evaluate end games for such wide net investigations designed to intimidate and suppress.

Does any of it seem like it is about the issues this nation faces, or more the next opportunity in the never ending game of tit-for-tat. Investigations in search of crimes, Congressional hearings of repeated party designed rhetoric, and a President that wants to know everything he can about anyone who opposes him.

Consider that Trump’s lawfare failure from his DOJ is just the result of the bigger failure, that is lawfare and government weaponization across the board.

Who won?

The game seems to be winning, not any of us. The game of swipe, counter swipe, repeat… no different than kids on a playground.

But with unchecked power.