Democrats Meltdown Over DOJ: Tables Turn in Corruption Showdown

Paul Riverbank, 2/1/2026As partisan roles reverse, Democrats now cast doubt on a Justice Department led by Trump loyalists, citing threats to press freedom and transparency. The escalating distrust reflects deeper questions about the DOJ’s impartiality—and the broader erosion of faith in American institutions.

Inside the halls of Congress, frustration is tangible. “We can’t trust anything the DOJ does. The DOJ is corrupt. They’re corrupt on every major issue in front of this country,” said Representative Robert Garcia, winding his way out of a committee room earlier this week. Garcia’s words were not so much shouted as muttered through gritted teeth, the product of a growing sense that a new era of the Justice Department has arrived—with the old guard out and new loyalties in control.

Standing before an insistent press corps, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries dialed up the rhetoric further still. “We cannot trust the Department of Justice. They are an illegitimate organization right now under the leadership of Pam Bondi and the direction of Donald Trump,” Jeffries declared, his cadence pausing—it seemed—for effect on the word “illegitimate”.

The temperature in Washington has spiked, in large part thanks to recent headlines splashed with developments hard to ignore. In Georgia, federal agents executed a search at the well-known election headquarters in Fulton County—a symbolic ground zero for unsubstantiated fraud theories that Donald Trump and allies had trumpeted for years. Elsewhere, a protest inside a Minneapolis church took a dramatic turn as it ended with federal agents leading away Don Lemon—a former CNN anchor—and several other journalists in handcuffs. The alleged infraction, according to the Justice Department: violations against the rights of churchgoers, not acts of journalism.

That string of arrests infuriated civil liberties groups. Senator Adam Schiff did not mince words in response, calling Lemon’s arrest “a grave attack on the First Amendment and freedom of the press.” Schiff’s sense of alarm was echoed, almost verbatim, by colleagues up and down the Democratic ranks.

On the other side, Republicans and White House representatives bristled at what they described as sudden concern from their political opponents. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, accused Democrats of hypocrisy. In her view, those expressing outrage had “cheered on Joe Biden’s weaponization of the Department of Justice against his political enemies—including President Trump,” a claim she made in a brief, pointed statement. As for today’s Justice Department, Kelly insisted it has “quickly Made America Safe Again by taking violent criminals off the streets, cracking down on fraud, holding bad actors accountable, and more.”

Events unfolding in Minneapolis have only stoked doubts. Two shootings by federal agents, initially left unexplored by the department, sparked demands for answers. When a probe was finally announced—for just one of the incidents—critics pounced. Garcia, looking more weary than defiant, called for an external review. “They should bring in either a special counsel [or] some type of special master to oversee an independent investigation,” he suggested, labeling the shootings, in a moment of frustration, as “murder by our own government.”

But that wasn’t the end of the week’s flurry. The Justice Department, now under Bondi’s stewardship, made moves to put more records from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation into public view. Critics balked at the scope of the release, noting that approximately half of the files—by some estimates—remain withheld. For Garcia and others, this only reinforced their suspicion: “Donald Trump and the Department of Justice just made it clear right now that they intend to withhold approximately 50% or half of the Epstein files while claiming to have fully complied with the law,” he said, calling the act “outrageous and incredibly concerning.”

President Trump, meanwhile, weighed in from afar, posting on social media following a burst of violence at a federal building in Eugene, Oregon. “We will, however, guard, and very powerfully so, any and all Federal Buildings that are being attacked by these highly paid Lunatics, Agitators, and Insurrectionists,” he wrote, drawing a line in the sand.

Away from the spectacle and soundbites, academics like UC San Diego’s Thad Kousser are raising bigger questions, watching all of this unfold with a wary eye. Kousser points to the risks—less to individual politicians, more to public trust writ large. “What we may be risking as a country is losing the trust in the building itself, if people think that the might of the federal government is being used to pursue a narrow agenda of one party or one leader.”

There is, of course, a sense of déjà vu to all this. The talking points now issuing from Democrats—denouncing abuses at the Justice Department and warning of its weaponization—sound awfully similar to those once voiced by Republicans not many months ago. The pattern is almost dizzying: whoever is out of power raises alarms, while those in office offer assurances or dismiss concerns outright.

Balancing these crosscurrents, the average American is again left to ask whether the Justice Department—an institution meant to stand above partisanship—can weather another storm of distrust. For many, the question is no longer just about which party is right, but whether any of their institutions remain worthy of the public’s faith.

Could anyone have predicted that in just a few years, the tables would turn so sharply? Not long ago, it was Republican lawmakers crowding microphones after hearings, raising their voices about the politicization of the Justice Department under a Democratic president. Today, a different set of voices—many with familiar surnames and faces—are leveling strikingly similar accusations, but with the parties reversed.Inside the halls of Congress, frustration is tangible. “We can’t trust anything the DOJ does. The DOJ is corrupt. They’re corrupt on every major issue in front of this country,” said Representative Robert Garcia, winding his way out of a committee room earlier this week. Garcia’s words were not so much shouted as muttered through gritted teeth, the product of a growing sense that a new era of the Justice Department has arrived—with the old guard out and new loyalties in control.Standing before an insistent press corps, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries dialed up the rhetoric further still. “We cannot trust the Department of Justice. They are an illegitimate organization right now under the leadership of Pam Bondi and the direction of Donald Trump,” Jeffries declared, his cadence pausing—it seemed—for effect on the word “illegitimate”.The temperature in Washington has spiked, in large part thanks to recent headlines splashed with developments hard to ignore. In Georgia, federal agents executed a search at the well-known election headquarters in Fulton County—a symbolic ground zero for unsubstantiated fraud theories that Donald Trump and allies had trumpeted for years. Elsewhere, a protest inside a Minneapolis church took a dramatic turn as it ended with federal agents leading away Don Lemon—a former CNN anchor—and several other journalists in handcuffs. The alleged infraction, according to the Justice Department: violations against the rights of churchgoers, not acts of journalism.That string of arrests infuriated civil liberties groups. Senator Adam Schiff did not mince words in response, calling Lemon’s arrest “a grave attack on the First Amendment and freedom of the press.” Schiff’s sense of alarm was echoed, almost verbatim, by colleagues up and down the Democratic ranks.On the other side, Republicans and White House representatives bristled at what they described as sudden concern from their political opponents. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, accused Democrats of hypocrisy. In her view, those expressing outrage had “cheered on Joe Biden’s weaponization of the Department of Justice against his political enemies—including President Trump,” a claim she made in a brief, pointed statement. As for today’s Justice Department, Kelly insisted it has “quickly Made America Safe Again by taking violent criminals off the streets, cracking down on fraud, holding bad actors accountable, and more.”Events unfolding in Minneapolis have only stoked doubts. Two shootings by federal agents, initially left unexplored by the department, sparked demands for answers. When a probe was finally announced—for just one of the incidents—critics pounced. Garcia, looking more weary than defiant, called for an external review. “They should bring in either a special counsel [or] some type of special master to oversee an independent investigation,” he suggested, labeling the shootings, in a moment of frustration, as “murder by our own government.”But that wasn’t the end of the week’s flurry. The Justice Department, now under Bondi’s stewardship, made moves to put more records from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation into public view. Critics balked at the scope of the release, noting that approximately half of the files—by some estimates—remain withheld. For Garcia and others, this only reinforced their suspicion: “Donald Trump and the Department of Justice just made it clear right now that they intend to withhold approximately 50% or half of the Epstein files while claiming to have fully complied with the law,” he said, calling the act “outrageous and incredibly concerning.”President Trump, meanwhile, weighed in from afar, posting on social media following a burst of violence at a federal building in Eugene, Oregon. “We will, however, guard, and very powerfully so, any and all Federal Buildings that are being attacked by these highly paid Lunatics, Agitators, and Insurrectionists,” he wrote, drawing a line in the sand.Away from the spectacle and soundbites, academics like UC San Diego’s Thad Kousser are raising bigger questions, watching all of this unfold with a wary eye. Kousser points to the risks—less to individual politicians, more to public trust writ large. “What we may be risking as a country is losing the trust in the building itself, if people think that the might of the federal government is being used to pursue a narrow agenda of one party or one leader.”There is, of course, a sense of déjà vu to all this. The talking points now issuing from Democrats—denouncing abuses at the Justice Department and warning of its weaponization—sound awfully similar to those once voiced by Republicans not many months ago. The pattern is almost dizzying: whoever is out of power raises alarms, while those in office offer assurances or dismiss concerns outright.Balancing these crosscurrents, the average American is again left to ask whether the Justice Department—an institution meant to stand above partisanship—can weather another storm of distrust. For many, the question is no longer just about which party is right, but whether any of their institutions remain worthy of the public’s faith.