The Week Ahead September 21, 2025

Joyce Vance - Sep 22

It’s hard to predict the week ahead when the President of the United States lets loose with a social media tirade on a Saturday night that you could be forgiven for mistaking as a text message, intended for his attorney general. I was poised to send you my column Saturday night when Trump posted. I sat back down, once I read it, to address his words, because they were truly jaw-dropping. Even in an era where everything is jaw-dropping.

Who addresses a social media post to a single person by name? Especially when they’re the President of the United States and they have all kind of secure comms at their disposal? But there it is. “Dear Pam.”

Trump complains about the U.S. Attorney who was his pick for the District of Columbia, calling him a RINO. After directing Bondi to put one of Trump’s former criminal defense lawyers in place—a woman who has no experience as a prosecutor and virtually no experience in federal court—Trump then issues the key demand, the demand that, if Bondi delivers on it, will mean we have truly crossed over into territory Richard Nixon could have only dreamed of, a place where the Justice Department willingly does the political bidding of the White House, even when it’s contrary to our laws.

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice and indicted me (5 times!),” the petulant child who is president wrote, “OVER NOTHING.” He follows up on references to former FBI Director Jim Comey, New York AG Letitia James, and California Senator Adam Schiff, ordering Bondi, “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” The message is clear. He wants her to indict his political enemies, even if there is no evidence that they have committed crimes.

Trump used to tell people to just open an investigation and he’d take it from there. That was his pitch to Ukraine’s president in the phone call that led to Trump’s first impeachment—just say you’ve opened an investigation into Joe Biden. It was what he asked of DOJ following his loss in 2020—just say you’ve opened an investigation into voter fraud. But now, Trump has the means to both open the investigation and indict his targets at hand. It’s the ultimate in abuse of power by a president.

When you read Trump’s post, it has the appearance of a text gone astray: the president, ordering the attorney general to indict his political enemies as payback for his own impeachment and indictment. It reads like an order to ignore the oath they both took to uphold the Constitution and deprive good people, who Trump happens to have decided are his enemies, of their constitutional rights. If the Supreme Court believed presidents could commit crimes, it might be tantamount to a confession to one. That may no longer be an option, compliments of the Roberts Court, but it certainly looks like the kind of malfeasance that would have subjected any other president, even Trump as 45, to impeachment. So, where’s the outcry on Capitol Hill?

This is not a garden-variety crisis. Make sure your elected officials in Washington understand that you understand that. This is the moment to bombard them with demands for accountability. Let them hear our voices. Presidents don’t get to demand that Americans who haven’t committed crimes be investigated and prosecuted. In the District of Columbia, a prosecutor did the right thing. It’s odd that we have to celebrate it, because it’s what we’re entitled to do. The now-former interim U.S. Attorney, Erik Siebert, declined to indict a case that wasn’t there. That’s what Donald Trump is upset about. He wanted the indictment, and damn the need for evidence or even the commission of a crime. As I wrote to you last night, we are in Stalinist territory: “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

As if that’s not enough, there is also a developing situation with Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan. Before Trump’s inauguration, in September 2024, the FBI recorded Tom Homan accepting a $50,000 cash bribe from undercover agents posing as business executives. Homan was a private citizen, but he indicated he could help the undercovers obtain government contracts once he was in place in the new administration. It’s a classic “pay to play” scheme, where someone in government takes payment in exchange for desired government action, like giving out lucrative contracts.

That’s an important case in the making. Homan is on tape taking the money. At a minimum, it merits investigation. But the case was closed by the Justice Department in 2025 after Donald Trump took office. We don’t know what, if any, role the White House—the same people who are demanding the prosecution of folks who haven’t committed a crime—played in shutting down the Homan investigation.

Moving to the civil side of the legal system, this week we’ll be looking for a new filing from the president in his $15 billion defamation case against The New York Times and some of its reporters. A federal Judge dismissed the case on Friday, but gave Trump 28 days to file an amended complaint.

Judge Steven Merryday, a federal judge in Florida, didn’t mince words. He called the 85-page lawsuit overly long and full of “tedious and burdensome” language that was irrelevant to the kind of claims Trump was trying to raise. “A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally,” Merryday wrote.

He directed Trump’s lawyers that if they wanted to proceed, “This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner.” That unusual statement was necessary because, as the Judge pointed out, it was not until page 80 of 85 that Trump’s lawsuit got around to mentioning the first of Trump’s defamation counts.

So what did he consume those first 80 pages with? “As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” Merryday wrote. “Although lawyers receive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client, the complaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.” He told Trump that his amended complaint could not exceed 40 pages. As soon as we have the new complaint, we will assess Trump’s response to the Judge. Will there be a side helping of temper tantrum from a president who is fast on the attack when judges rule against him?

Trump’s prior lawsuits against ABC News and CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” were both settled out of court on terms that were highly favorable, ridiculously so, to Trump. There have been concerns that the free press will not hold against him. But more recently, The Wall Street Journal has pushed back against a lawsuit over Jeffrey Epstein, and now, the Times is doing so too. But there are still concerns over the weaponization of the FCC to revoke licenses of TV broadcasters who give Trump what he calls “bad publicity.”

The president claimed that 97% of some network coverage was negative toward him. “They give me only bad publicity or press,” Trump said. “They’re getting a license, I think maybe their license should be taken away. It’s up to (Federal Communications Commission head) Brendan Carr.”

The idea that Trump views the news, factual reporting by the press, as “bad publicity” pretty much says it all. It captures so much of what is wrong. This isn’t 1984, and Trump is not Big Brother, entitled to acclaim from all. If you don’t want bad press, don’t do bad things.

But what about the Epstein Files? I haven’t forgotten. Although it sure looks like Trump wants us to.

We’re in this together,

Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse isn’t just about following the news—it’s about understanding it. Each week, I bring the perspective of a former prosecutor and longtime DOJ insider to explain what’s happening in our courts and in our politics, and why it matters. If you value analysis that goes deeper than the headlines, subscribing is the way to make sure you never miss it.