Why Trump’s retribution campaign could lock America into a cycle of political revenge

US President Donald Trump

The indictment of James Comey, the former FBI director, marks more than a personal clash between him and President Trump. It signals a broader shift in American politics, where prosecutions and government crackdowns are being openly directed against perceived enemies. While Trump argues this is justified payback after years of investigations into him, critics warn it risks normalising a cycle where every administration uses state power to punish its rivals. Such tit-for-tat politics is more often associated with authoritarian regimes than advanced democracies, the New York Times reported.

Unease among conservatives

The reaction has not been limited to Democrats. Some conservatives and even former Trump allies worry that the strategy is short-sighted. Sarah Matthews, a former White House spokesperson, called it “dangerous,” warning that if Democrats return to power, they will feel entitled to use the same methods against Republicans. Senator Ted Cruz voiced concern that pressures on broadcasters critical of Trump resemble mafia tactics and could one day be turned against conservative media outlets like Fox News. Even Trump-friendly voices such as Tucker Carlson have warned that attempts to police “hate speech” risk curbing free speech for everyone.

Expanding presidential power

Analysts point out that Trump’s aggressive use of executive authority will not vanish when he leaves office. History shows that once a president expands powers, successors rarely give them back. This includes overriding Congress on budget decisions, firing independent agency heads, and directly intervening in prosecutions. Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth scholar who studies democratic erosion, cautioned that Republicans may not like the consequences if a future Democratic president uses the same powers against them, noting that limits ignored today rarely constrain leaders tomorrow.

How Biden and Trump differ

Trump and his allies defend their actions by pointing to the prosecutions he faced after leaving office in 2021. They argue Democrats “weaponised” government first. But legal experts stress an important distinction. President Biden largely kept his distance from the Justice Department, even as allies pressured him to act faster on Trump-related cases. Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, appointed a special counsel specifically to avoid political interference. By contrast, Trump has openly demanded indictments, purged FBI officials who investigated him, and stripped security clearances from critics — actions that critics say turn state institutions into personal instruments of power.

Impact on free speech and media

Trump’s efforts have gone beyond the legal system. His administration has leaned on media companies, with officials at the Federal Communications Commission threatening broadcasters over criticism of Trump and his allies. While supporters frame this as tackling “hate speech,” critics warn it crosses into direct censorship. Conservative commentators

themselves argue that using government pressure to silence opponents today could legitimise future Democratic crackdowns on right-leaning networks.

Why this matters globally

The struggle over precedent in Washington carries global implications. For decades, the US presented itself as a model of democratic restraint and the rule of law. If American politics descends into open cycles of revenge, it risks undermining that credibility abroad. Autocratic leaders could seize on the shift to argue that Washington has no moral authority to lecture others on democratic norms. For US allies and rivals alike, the spectacle of a powerful democracy turning inward against itself creates uncertainty about its stability.

What comes next

Whether Trump’s retribution campaign becomes a lasting feature of US politics depends on how much of it survives beyond his presidency. A future leader could try to restore old norms of restraint, but the temptation to use powers Trump has asserted may prove irresistible. For students of democracy, the American case now raises a sobering question: once political revenge becomes routine, can the cycle ever be broken?