Trump administration is losing credibility before judges and grand juries – former federal judge explains why this is ‘remarkable and unprecedented’

The word “unprecedented” means getting a workout after a The grand jury in Washington on February 10, 2026, dismissed the case An attempt by federal prosecutors to obtain an indictment against enemies of President Donald Trump.

I started with Unprecedented video in November 2025 Featuring six Democratic lawmakers who alert members of the military and intelligence community that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. This angered Trump, who said in an unprecedented move that lawmakers were as well Guilty of the crime of sedition, punishable by death. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, made an unprecedented attempt to indict lawmakers. The final element in this drama—the federal grand jury’s denial of Pirro’s request—was not itself unprecedented. That’s just because The latest in a series of unprecedented losses Trump administration before grand juries.

Dickinson College President John E. Jones IIIA former federal judge spoke with Politics Conversation editor Naomi Shalit about the role of the grand jury, why a grand jury doesn’t indict someone — and how all of this is a reflection of the administration’s perceived loss of credibility with the judges and citizens who make up the grand juries.

How does the grand jury process work?

The history of the grand jury dates back to before the Bill of Rights, but for our purposes It is memorialized in the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. It is supposed to be a mechanism for examining cases brought by public prosecutors.

Ordinary citizens, at least 16 years old and no more than 23 years oldthe facts shall be presented to them by the United States Attorney or the Assistant United States Attorney. They must decide on that Whether or not there is probable cause To believe that a crime has been committed. It is not the job of the grand jury to determine guilt or innocence, but only to determine whether there is sufficient probable cause to indict.

This means that the prosecutor will come to the grand jury and present them with the facts they chose to present to them. There’s no defense at that point, and then the grand jury, relatively routinely, says, well, “Indict this person” or “Indict these people”?

This is correct. It is a very one-sided process. There are no defense lawyers present. There is the court reporter, the grand jury, the United States attorney, and the witnesses that the United States attorney decides to call. While the target of a grand jury can seek to produce witnesses, including themselves, this almost never happens because of the risk of self-incrimination. The grand jury can ask questions to witnesses, but the United States attorney can choose what evidence he wants to present to the grand jury, and they usually present only the evidence necessary to determine probable cause that a crime was committed.

Does the public know what the prosecutor presents in the grand jury room?

the Grand jury proceedings are strictly confidential And they stay that way Unless a federal judge authorizes its disclosure. So, in the case involving the six legislators, we don’t know what the prosecutor presented to the grand jury. We only know that the grand jury refused to return the indictment. To my knowledge, we don’t even know what crimes were brought before the grand jury, let alone what testimony was offered. What we do know is that in all six cases, the grand jury refused to vote in favor of the indictment requested by the United States Attorney.

Why does the grand jury refuse to give the prosecutor what he wants?

It’s unprecedented, though, as we’re now seeing a wave of grand juries opposing the government. I do not recall a single instance, in my nearly 20 years of service as a U.S. District Judge, when a grand jury refused to return A real bill, an indictment. It’s just a complete aberration. The grand jury will have to completely reject the hypothesis of the case that the United States attorney presents to them because, remember, there are usually no witnesses who appear before the grand jury to challenge the facts. The grand jury clearly states: “Even accepting as true the facts you place before us, we do not believe that this case merits a federal indictment under the circumstances.”

Can the prosecutor try again?

They can go back to the well, so to speak, and they did in Virginia In the case of Letitia James. But that’s risky because, frankly, it’s a way for a prosecutor to get his head handed to them twice.

Originally, as shown in Fifth Amendment to the Constitutionthe grand jury was supposed to be a strong and powerful check against prosecutors who accused people of crimes. But over time, it became much less so. There is the famous quote from Judge Sol Wachler in New York A grand jury could be impaneled to “sent upon a ham sandwich.”“.

So to see the grand jury fail to return the real bills multiple times over the past two months is remarkable and unprecedented. It occurs to me that what’s going on here is kind of similar to what’s going on with the administration and the federal judges. I believe that we have now entered a world in which the Ministry of Justice has lost its credibility with the judiciary.

We see it over and over again in court appearances where The judges simply do not believe what American lawyers tell thembased on previous provable lies stated in open court. And now we’re seeing grand juries also question the credibility of federal prosecutors. These grand jurors are not oblivious to what is happening in the world around them.

I think this is further tainted by the fact that the President of the United States, for example, is in a state Six defendants from Congress and the SenateThey said they committed seditious acts, which is punishable by death.

This clearly tips the scales and is fundamentally unfair because it destroys the concept of due process. People notice what the president says, and I’m glad to see that the average citizen serving on a grand jury has retained what I believe is a basic sense of justice, even in the face of a large group of people.

What does it mean if you have a judicial system, judges, and grand juries that distrust the administration and its legal claims?

It is a complete obstruction to our justice system. The entire time I sat on the federal bench, I had the utmost respect for the Department of Justice, and the Department had tremendous credibility. They were straight shooters. The plaintiffs who appeared before me were professionals. I didn’t always agree with their arguments, of course, and I didn’t agree with a few of their charging decisions, but I can tell you that I’ve never once seen before me a federal trial that I felt so strongly that it should not be brought at the outset.

But we now have a system where, because of the whims of the president, The Department of Justice has become completely militarized Against his perceived enemies, this is a gross abuse of our judicial authority at the federal level.

And also, for example, if these members of Congress were indicted, they would have to hire lawyers, they would have to fight their way out. This will take a lot of resources.

So, yes, the judiciary can be a bulwark against reckless prosecutions. But this comes at the expense of the defendant, and it is said that the process itself is the punishment. I think this is what the president wants. It’s the trauma you put someone through that can be just as bad as a conviction. Of course, there is also the damage to reputation.