By Michael S. Schmidt and Gleen Thrush
As Donald Trump makes his way back into power, the critics, prosecutors, and perceived adversaries who aimed to hold him liable and expel him from American political life are now confronting, with significant unease, a president who is reclaiming authority with a promise of vengeance.
Trump has vowed to scrutinize and penalize his opponents, particularly those linked to his four legal cases and the congressional inquiry regarding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Such threats, coupled with his expressed intention to extend clemency to some participants of the Jan. 6 riot, have left many in Washington and beyond unsettled, fearing not only governmental actions against them but also that his vocalizations of intent have fostered an atmosphere of erratic, uncontrolled retribution by his followers.
Michael Fanone, a former police officer who was among those assaulted by the pro-Trump mob on Jan. 6, has been a vocal adversary of Trump. He conveyed his worries that the violence and intimidation already directed at him and his family—including his mother—would escalate following Trump’s return to power.
“My primary concern is the likelihood of violence and aggressive acts that will not only be directed at me but also at my family members,” he stated. “I fear that individuals may believe that if they physically harm me or my family, Donald Trump would pardon their actions, and who is to say he wouldn’t.”
The New York Times reached out to over two dozen of Trump’s most vocal critics and perceived adversaries to gauge their level of apprehension. Despite having previously spoken out or participated in actions against him, almost all opted not to publicly address their fears, citing that doing so could render them even more noticeable targets.
However, speaking under the condition of anonymity, they expressed their concerns.
Some indicated they feared that the Justice Department or FBI might initiate internal or criminal investigations into their actions taken during their official duties, even if performed legally and in good faith. The publication of a comprehensive enemies list by Kash Patel, Trump’s selected FBI chief, has only heightened their worries.
Others expressed anxiety over potential job or client losses in the private sector. Moreover, individuals like Fanone mentioned the serious possibility that Trump supporters, responding to his calls for revenge, might threaten or assault them or their families. They also noted that Trump’s inclination to pardon certain Jan. 6 rioters could further undermine legal norms, exacerbating the situation.
Even though Trump has consistently invoked the risk of retaliation, some aides and advisors have suggested he shouldn’t always be interpreted as literal.
“I’m not seeking to revisit the past,” he remarked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last month, suggesting that he believed his attorney general and FBI director would independently choose to investigate opponents like the members of the House select committee on Jan. 6.
When asked if Trump intended to weaponize the government against his adversaries, a spokesperson for his transition team criticized President Joe Biden, asserting—without evidence—that Biden had weaponized the justice system against his political rivals.
During Trump’s previous term, numerous individuals who became targets of his frequent demands for investigations or other forms of retaliation found themselves under governmental scrutiny, which cost them in terms of time, finances, and reputation, while causing significant distress for them and their families.
In some instances, Trump does not need to take any direct action, as his allies are performing the tasks on his behalf. House Republicans released a report last month suggesting that Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming representative who was instrumental in leading the inquiry into the Jan. 6 riot and its origins, should be subjected to an FBI investigation based on her work with the panel. Additionally, Republicans in Congress have been considering whether to demand testimony from former special counsel Jack Smith, who handled the two federal criminal cases against Trump.
To a certain extent, some individuals noted that fear of retaliation was already suppressing public criticism of Trump at a moment when corporate executives and other influential figures who had previously distanced themselves or criticized him are now eager to demonstrate their support.
Among the few willing to speak out was Charles Kupperman, a former deputy national security adviser for Trump, who Patel identified as one of his enemies in a published book. Kupperman stated he was compelled to speak publicly to inform the public that Patel is unfit for the position of FBI director due to his temperament and lack of qualifications.
“What’s the worst that could happen?” he said. “I’m 74 years old, I’ve been married for 55 years, and I’m content knowing I’ve done everything I can to serve my country and create a better future for my family. Personally, I’m not worried. I still believe that if something happens, the rule of law will triumph.”
One of Trump’s critics, who played a key role in holding him accountable during his prior term, shared in an interview that he recently purchased a gun for the first time due to fears that Trump supporters, encouraged by a president willing to pardon them, might assault him and his family at their residence.
Among many Republicans listed as enemies by Patel, one expressed pride in his government service but was concerned that the public disclosure of his name could motivate an ardent Trump supporter to target his family.
A Democratic attorney who has publicly challenged Trump for years opted not to comment on the record for this article, fearing that his words could trigger retaliation against him and his clients. He advised others in similar situations to remain cautious until they could ascertain how far Trump is willing to go.
A departing White House official, present for many of the Biden administration’s significant decisions, joked about having a two-step plan for his immediate future.
Step One: Take an extended vacation to the opposite side of the planet.
Step Two: Return home and hire legal counsel.
Trump is poised to assume office with the Supreme Court having determined that there is no restriction on a president consulting with the attorney general regarding cases and that former presidents enjoy considerable immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office.
During her confirmation hearing this past week, Pam Bondi, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, sought to allay fears that she would initiate punitive investigations against individuals identified as adversaries by Patel or Trump.
However, she did not entirely dismiss the possibility of launching an investigation at Trump’s request, provided she arrived at that decision on her own, found it justified, and ensured it was conducted lawfully.
