Trump Orders DOJ via Truth Social to Investigate Political Opponents Over Epstein Ties

On Friday, November 14, 2025, President Donald Trump used Truth Social to publicly order Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice to investigate his political opponents in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, marking a brazen erosion of DOJ independence and raising profound constitutional concerns about weaponizing federal law enforcement for partisan political purposes. Trump’s directive came just two days after the House Oversight Committee released emails showing Epstein wrote in 2019 that “of course Trump knew about the girls, as he asked Ghislaine to stop,” prompting Trump to deflect attention by characterizing the matter as “the Epstein Hoax, involving Democrats, not Republicans” and “another Russia, Russia, Russia Scam, with all arrows pointing to the Democrats.”

In his Truth Social post, Trump wrote: “I will be asking A.G. Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at the FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him.” Trump did not specify any crimes he wanted investigated, nor did he provide any evidence of wrongdoing by the individuals named. Notably, none of the men Trump named—former President Bill Clinton, economist Larry Summers, or tech investor Reid Hoffman—have been accused of sexual misconduct by any of Epstein’s victims, despite extensive victim testimony in multiple legal proceedings. Trump’s directive exclusively targeted Democrats and Democratic donors while conspicuously omitting Republicans mentioned in the same Epstein document release, including Steve Bannon, Tom Barrack, and Peter Thiel.

Attorney General Pam Bondi swiftly complied with Trump’s public demand, announcing within hours on November 14 that she had assigned Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton to lead the investigation. Bondi described Clayton as “one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country” despite the fact that Clayton had never served as a prosecutor before Trump appointed him to lead the Southern District of New York in August 2025. Clayton previously served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump’s first term, bringing securities regulatory experience but no prosecutorial background to what is traditionally considered one of the nation’s most important and independent U.S. Attorney positions. The Southern District of New York was the same office that prosecuted Epstein’s 2019 sex trafficking case and secured the conviction of Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell in 2021.

Trump’s directive and Bondi’s immediate acquiescence represented what NPR described as “the latest example of the erosion of the Justice Department’s traditional independence from the White House” since Trump took office for his second term. When questioned about the propriety of publicly directing criminal investigations for political purposes, Trump defended his authority, stating: “I’m the chief law enforcement officer of the country. I’m allowed to do it.” Constitutional scholars and former Justice Department officials have long maintained that while the president has constitutional authority over the executive branch, longstanding norms and policies establish the DOJ’s investigative and prosecutorial independence to prevent the type of political weaponization Trump’s directive exemplified.

The timing and partisan selectivity of Trump’s investigation order exposed its fundamentally political nature. The directive came immediately after Democrats on the House Oversight Committee highlighted three email threads from Epstein’s estate that referred to Trump, including the 2019 email stating Trump “knew about the girls.” Rather than address these revelations about his own conduct, Trump sought to redirect public attention by ordering investigations exclusively of Democrats. Trump had been friends with Epstein for years, with Trump telling New York Magazine in a 2002 interview: “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” The newly released Epstein emails contradicted Trump’s longstanding claim that he expelled Epstein from Mar-a-Lago over misconduct; Epstein wrote that Trump “never” asked him to resign and that Trump “came to my house many times” while aware of Epstein’s involvement with club employees.

The investigation announcement created a chilling precedent for presidential abuse of prosecutorial power. By publicly ordering the DOJ to investigate political opponents without specifying crimes, providing evidence, or following normal investigative procedures, Trump demonstrated how law enforcement authority could be wielded as a political weapon to harass, intimidate, and persecute individuals based on their political affiliations rather than probable cause of criminal conduct. The fact that Bondi immediately complied with Trump’s public demand—rather than maintaining DOJ independence by evaluating whether evidence warranted investigation—further degraded institutional norms designed to prevent politicized prosecutions. Legal experts noted that Trump’s directive bore disturbing similarities to authoritarian regimes where law enforcement serves the political interests of leadership rather than the rule of law.

The episode underscored broader concerns about Trump’s pattern of attempting to use federal law enforcement to target political adversaries while shielding himself and his allies from scrutiny. Throughout his second term, Trump had repeatedly characterized legitimate investigations into his own conduct as “hoaxes” and “witch hunts” while simultaneously demanding investigations of opponents. The Epstein investigation directive followed this established pattern: deflect from damaging revelations about Trump’s own conduct by ordering investigations of political enemies, regardless of evidence or constitutional constraints on the politicization of prosecutorial power.