Resistance Tracker
The Resistance Tracker collects documented moments when individuals declined to comply with coercion, distortion, or procedural pressure.
Each entry follows a consistent format so patterns stay visible: what crossed the line, what risks were made explicit, what action was taken, and what immediate consequences followed.
This tracker is designed to be calm, comparable, and durable—focused on mechanisms rather than motives.
Incident overview
A quick scan of recent resistance incidents, organized by date and role.
Tanya S. Chutkan
On 2026-01-10, Donald Trump publicly urged Judge Chutkan to recuse and to halt pretrial deadlines in his federal case, and his counsel filed a motion seeking the same relief.
Adam Kinzinger
After clinching the GOP nomination in spring 2024, Donald Trump and his campaign repeatedly pressed Republican officials to unify behind him and offer endorsements.
Larry Hogan
On 2024-05-30, shortly after a New York jury convicted Donald Trump on 34 counts, Trump’s campaign and allies pressed Republicans to denounce the verdict and the process; senior adviser Chris LaCivita publicly warned of consequences for noncompliance.
Michael Cohen
A subpoena to testify in People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump (Manhattan criminal hush-money case), amid ongoing public criticism by Trump of witnesses and public demands for loyalty that functioned as pressure against cooperation.
Geoff Duncan
On 2024-05-07, amid public and private pressure from Donald Trump and his allies for Republican officials to unify and issue endorsements for Trump’s 2024 bid, Geoff Duncan was asked to provide support and declined.
Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels)
A court subpoena requiring testimony in People v. Donald J. Trump about a 2016 nondisclosure and payment arrangement that sought to suppress publication of her account; concurrent public pressure around the trial, including Trump's statements about witnesses that led to a gag order, heightened the coercive context.
Juan M. Merchan
After Donald Trump and his counsel pressed to ease or lift restrictions on his public statements about trial participants, Trump repeatedly made posts targeting witnesses and others covered by the court’s gag order.
Alvin L. Bragg Jr.
Donald Trump publicly and legally pressed to delay or dismiss the New York criminal 'hush money' case; on 2024-04-15 the court convened to begin jury selection despite those demands.
Mike Johnson
Donald Trump publicly urged House Republicans on April 10 and April 12, 2024, to block reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Cynthia S. Kern
On 2024-04-08, Donald J. Trump sought an emergency appellate stay to delay his Manhattan criminal trial and to move it out of Manhattan, asserting prejudicial pretrial publicity and alleged bias.
Reggie B. Walton
Donald Trump’s repeated public attacks on judges and the justice system amid his criminal cases, which created pressure on the judiciary through intimidation and threats.
Letitia James
After a February 16, 2024 civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump, his lawyers asked the Appellate Division to halt enforcement and said a full bond was not feasible, while Trump publicly pressured officials to delay or abandon collection.
Jack Smith
Donald Trump asserted absolute presidential immunity and demanded that the federal election-interference prosecution be halted or dismissed during Supreme Court review.
Scott F. McAfee
Defendants including Donald Trump moved to disqualify District Attorney Fani T. Willis and dismiss the Georgia election-interference indictment, citing her prior relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
Michael Richard Pence
After Donald Trump became the presumptive 2024 Republican nominee in March 2024, his campaign and party allies pressed Republicans to endorse him to signal party unity. On 2024-03-15, Pence was asked on national television whether he would endorse Trump.
Charlie Spies
After Donald Trump helped install new RNC leadership in March 2024, Trump-aligned figures pressed the committee to use party funds for his personal legal expenses and to align committee legal positions with his public claims about the 2020 election.
Bill Palatucci
Public pressure in early March 2024, after Lara Trump suggested the RNC could use donor funds to pay Donald Trump’s personal legal bills, to align with a Trump-led reorientation of party spending.
Paul Davis Ryan Jr.
As Donald Trump consolidated the 2024 GOP nomination, he and allies pressed Republicans to demonstrate party unity through endorsements and participation in the Milwaukee RNC. On March 7, 2024, Ryan was asked whether he would attend or support Trump amid that pressure.
Tracie R. Porter
After voter challenges invoked Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to bar Donald J. Trump from the Illinois 2024 Republican primary ballot, Trump’s campaign and the state election board urged the court to keep him on the ballot and to reject removal.
Arthur F. Engoron
Defense sought a discretionary stay to pause enforcement of the New York civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump while he appealed, and Trump publicly pressed for recusal and dismissal.
Fani Taifa Willis
On February 15, 2024, defense teams for Donald Trump and co-defendants pressed motions to disqualify the district attorney and dismiss the racketeering indictment, seeking her recusal based on alleged conflicts. The court convened an evidentiary hearing to test those claims.
Nikki Haley
Donald Trump publicly demanded that she exit the 2024 Republican primary and warned that donors who support her would be 'permanently barred' from his political orbit.
Mitch McConnell
Donald Trump publicly pressed Senate Republicans to oppose a national security supplemental that included Ukraine aid, signaling political consequences for members who advanced it.
James Lankford
Donald Trump publicly opposed a bipartisan Senate border and immigration agreement and pressed Republican lawmakers to block it.
Florence Y. Pan
Donald Trump sought to dismiss and halt his federal election-subversion prosecution by asserting categorical presidential immunity from criminal liability and requested an emergency stay.
J. Michelle Childs
Donald Trump asserted absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution in the federal election-interference case and pressed the D.C. Circuit to dismiss or halt the proceedings.
Karen LeCraft Henderson
Donald Trump sought to halt the federal 2020 election-interference prosecution by asserting absolute presidential immunity and pressing for delay through litigation and public statements.
Jon Burns
Donald Trump publicly urged Georgia lawmakers to defund or otherwise punish Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis during her prosecution of him.
Henry Barbour
Trump’s campaign moved to consolidate control of the RNC and allies pressed for withdrawal of a Barbour-authored resolution that would keep the RNC neutral during the primaries and prohibit using party funds to pay any candidate’s personal legal expenses, including Donald Trump’s.
Lewis A. Kaplan
On 2024-01-26, during closing arguments in E. Jean Carroll v. Trump (No. 20-cv-07311, S.D.N.Y.), Donald Trump spoke audibly and disrupted proceedings after prior warnings, while defense counsel pressed to inject excluded material and to broaden arguments beyond the court’s evidentiary rulings.
Brian Kemp
Donald Trump publicly urged Kemp to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis or otherwise intervene in the Georgia prosecution of Trump after allegations about Willis’s relationship with a special prosecutor surfaced.
Cassidy Hutchinson
After receiving a subpoena from the U.S. House Select Committee on January 6, a Trump-aligned attorney advised her to avoid full cooperation and use non-answers such as 'I don't recall,' creating pressure to withhold material facts.
Mike Pence
On January 6, 2021, pressure from President Donald Trump and allies to have him unilaterally reject or return certified Electoral College votes during the joint session of Congress.
Mike Pence
On 2021-01-06, as he prepared to preside over the joint session of Congress, the President and his allies pressed him to reject or return certified Electoral College votes, asserting unilateral authority the office does not hold.
Ruby Freeman
On 2021-01-04, a political operative pressed Freeman to deliver a 'confession' to false election-fraud claims during a meeting arranged at a Cobb County police precinct, warning she could be arrested if she did not cooperate.
Byung J. “BJay” Pak
On January 3–4, 2021, the White House pressed Department of Justice leadership to pursue or publicly validate allegations of widespread election fraud in Georgia, and singled out the U.S. Attorney in Atlanta for replacement if he did not support those claims.
Byung J. Pak
On 2021-01-03, senior Department of Justice leaders informed Pak that the White House intended to remove him amid presidential pressure to have federal and state officials publicly assert 'irregularities' in Georgia’s 2020 election; he was expected to make public statements suggesting fraud.
Pat A. Cipollone
On January 3, 2021, at a White House meeting, the President pressed to install Jeffrey Clark as Acting Attorney General so the Department of Justice would send letters to state officials urging them to overturn certified election results.
Jeffrey A. Rosen
On 2021-01-03, during an Oval Office meeting, the President and allies pressed him to declare that the Department of Justice had found widespread election fraud or to sign letters urging state legislators to convene special sessions to reconsider certified results, with the threat that he would be replaced by Jeffrey Clark if he did not comply.
Richard Donoghue
On 2021-01-03, during an Oval Office meeting, the President pressed DOJ leadership to send draft letters prepared by Jeffrey Clark urging state legislatures to convene special sessions to revisit certified 2020 results and considered installing Clark as Acting Attorney General.
Steven A. Engel
The President and an acting division head pressed DOJ leaders to endorse a draft letter to Georgia and other states asserting the Department had significant election concerns and urging state legislatures to convene special sessions to consider alternate electors, coupled with a threat to replace DOJ leadership if they declined.
Brad Raffensperger
On 2021-01-02, a recorded call from President Donald J. Trump pressed Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes,” to “recalculate,” and to announce a revised total that would overturn Georgia’s certified 2020 presidential results.
Richard P. Donoghue
On December 27, 2020, during a conversation with the U.S. President, he was directed to have the Department of Justice 'just say the election was corrupt' and to pursue actions that could overturn certified state results.
Frances Watson
A December 23, 2020 phone call from President Donald Trump urging her to 'find the fraud' and indicating she would be praised if the audit outcome changed.
Brian P. Kemp
On 2020-12-05, the U.S. President called and urged Kemp to convene a special legislative session to overturn Georgia’s 2020 presidential results and to order a statewide signature audit—actions outside the governor’s authority under Georgia law.
William P. Barr
Pressure from the President and political allies to publicly assert widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election and to direct DOJ resources toward measures such as seizing voting machines or appointing a special counsel.
Doug Ducey
Pressure from President Donald Trump and allies to delay or overturn Arizona’s 2020 presidential election certification, culminating in an incoming White House call during the statewide canvass on 2020-11-30.
Aaron Van Langevelde
On 2020-11-23, party leaders and campaign allies urged the state canvassing board to delay or refuse certification of Michigan’s 2020 presidential election results pending an audit.
Russell 'Rusty' Bowers
On November 22, 2020, President Donald J. Trump and Rudy Giuliani called Bowers and urged him to convene a special legislative session to replace Arizona’s certified presidential electors with an alternate slate for Trump.
Christopher C. Krebs
Following a November 12, 2020 joint statement from election security councils affirming the integrity of the 2020 U.S. election, senior political officials pressed Krebs to retract or dilute the assessment and align with claims of widespread fraud.
Christopher Krebs
After CISA issued a Nov. 12, 2020 joint statement affirming the security of the 2020 election, political leadership signaled he should stop contradicting claims of widespread fraud and align agency communications accordingly.
Al Schmidt
Public and direct pressure during the 2020 general election canvass—including the U.S. President’s statements on 2020-11-11—urging him to halt ballot counting or to 'find' fraud in Philadelphia.
Richard Pilger
On 2020-11-09, the Attorney General issued a department-wide memo authorizing federal prosecutors to pursue 'substantial allegations' of voting irregularities before state certification, a departure from longstanding DOJ policy.
Nora R. Dannehy
On 2020-09-10, senior political leaders pressed the Durham team to prepare an interim report or take investigative steps on a pre‑election timetable during the Justice Department’s review of the Russia investigation.
Michael D. Cohen
On July 9, 2020, federal probation officials presented a home-confinement agreement that barred him from publishing a book or speaking with the media as a condition of continued release.
Brian Murphy
On 2020-07-08, DHS leadership directed him to cease disseminating intelligence on Russian disinformation and to adjust assessments of domestic extremism to match administration messaging.
Geoffrey S. Berman
On 2020-06-19, the Attorney General announced Berman was 'stepping down' and pressed for his resignation to clear the way for a replacement.
Mark T. Esper
Pressure from the White House to consider invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty military for domestic law enforcement during nationwide demonstrations.
Emmet G. Sullivan
After Michael T. Flynn twice pleaded guilty, the Department of Justice moved on 2020-05-07 to dismiss the case and public figures pressed for immediate dismissal without further judicial review.
David C. Williams
During spring 2020 financing talks, Treasury and White House officials linked access to an emergency USPS loan to conditions that would grant unusual executive-branch influence over pricing, operations, and sensitive internal data.
Rick A. Bright
Sustained pressure from senior HHS leadership in March–April 2020 to promote and enable broad distribution of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for COVID-19 and to steer funding/procurements outside standard scientific review processes.
Rick A. Bright
Directives from HHS political leadership in March–April 2020 to authorize and promote widespread use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 and to expedite or steer certain procurements outside BARDA’s standard scientific and contracting review.
Brett E. Crozier
An escalating COVID-19 outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt near Guam, combined with directives to maintain operational posture with most sailors embarked.
Jonathan Kravis
On February 11, 2020, Justice Department leadership overruled the trial team’s guidelines-range sentencing recommendation in United States v. Roger J. Stone Jr. and directed the filing of a revised memorandum seeking a lighter sentence.
Aaron S.J. Zelinsky
Senior Department of Justice officials directed the Roger Stone trial team to replace its original sentencing memorandum with a substantially reduced recommendation.
Richard V. Spencer
A presidential directive to halt a Navy Trident Review Board for Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher and to ensure he retained his SEAL status following court-martial proceedings.
Gordon Sondland
On October 8, 2019, the White House directed executive branch agencies and officials not to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry; the State Department instructed Sondland not to appear for a scheduled deposition that day.
Alexander S. Vindman
On 2019-10-08, the White House directed executive branch officials not to cooperate with House impeachment proceedings related to the July 25, 2019 Ukraine call; Vindman was subsequently called to appear before the House Intelligence Committee.
William B. Taylor Jr.
Senior U.S. officials and envoys linked a White House meeting and the release of congressionally appropriated security assistance to Ukraine to public announcements of specific investigations, and he was pressed to align with or transmit that condition.
Gordon D. Sondland
On October 8, 2019, the White House counsel issued a letter stating the administration would not cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry; the State Department then directed Sondland not to appear for his scheduled deposition that day.
Fiona Hill
On 2019-10-08, the White House counsel issued a directive instructing executive branch officials not to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry.
Marie L. Yovanovitch
House impeachment investigators subpoenaed her to appear on 2019-10-11 after the State Department directed her not to testify to Congress.
Michael K. Atkinson
The Acting Director of National Intelligence, relying on a Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion, blocked transmittal of an 'urgent concern' whistleblower complaint to Congress and maintained it should not be shared with the intelligence committees.
Detailed examples
Each entry documents the trigger, assessed risks, and immediate consequences so patterns stay visible over time.
Tanya S. Chutkan
- Trigger event
- On 2026-01-10, Donald Trump publicly urged Judge Chutkan to recuse and to halt pretrial deadlines in his federal case, and his counsel filed a motion seeking the same relief.
- Risk assessment
- Refusing the demand carried personal safety concerns due to heightened public attention, reputational risk from sustained criticism, and professional risk including intensified appellate challenges.
- Action taken
- She denied the recusal and delay request, kept the existing schedule in place, and directed counsel to proceed under the current order.
- Immediate consequences
- Trump issued renewed public criticisms; defense signaled potential appellate action; the court maintained heightened security posture and continued case management under the set timeline.
- Stated rationale
- In her order, she stated that the court’s scheduling and recusal decisions would be based on the law and the record, not on extrajudicial commentary or public pressure.
On January 10, 2026, after Donald Trump publicly called for her recusal and a halt to pretrial deadlines—and his attorneys filed a motion seeking the same relief—Judge Tanya S. Chutkan denied the request. She reaffirmed the existing schedule and instructed counsel to continue preparations under the current order. The decision declined both public and formal pressure to alter proceedings outside standard legal channels. Immediate effects included renewed public criticism from Trump, potential appellate steps by the defense, and continued security measures for court personnel.
Adam Kinzinger
- Trigger event
- After clinching the GOP nomination in spring 2024, Donald Trump and his campaign repeatedly pressed Republican officials to unify behind him and offer endorsements.
- Risk assessment
- Defiance of the party-line endorsement carried foreseeable professional and reputational costs within Republican politics, coordinated public attacks from Trump allies, donor backlash, and renewed security concerns given his prior experience with threats following Jan. 6-related actions.
- Action taken
- On 2024-06-05, he publicly declined to endorse Donald Trump and instead endorsed President Joe Biden in a campaign video and coordinated announcement.
- Immediate consequences
- Rapid public denunciations from Trump-aligned commentators and operatives, intensified online criticism, and continued exclusion from GOP leadership circles.
- Stated rationale
- He stated he is a conservative but would not support Trump, emphasizing constitutional governance; in his endorsement he said, “I’m a proud conservative… but I can’t support Donald Trump,” and framed his choice as safeguarding democratic norms.
On 2024-06-05, Adam Kinzinger took a public, on-the-record step that ran counter to Donald Trump’s ongoing demand for unified Republican endorsements: he refused to endorse Trump and instead endorsed President Joe Biden via a campaign video and coordinated statements. The coercive pressure at issue was the Trump campaign’s post–primary push for party officials to line up behind the nominee. Kinzinger accepted predictable party and reputational risks, including amplified attacks from Trump-aligned figures and loss of future roles in GOP infrastructure. Immediate effects included swift public criticism by pro-Trump surrogates and media, and formal confirmation that he remained outside Republican leadership channels. The action is discrete, date-stamped, and verifiable through the campaign release and contemporaneous coverage.
Sources
Larry Hogan
- Trigger event
- On 2024-05-30, shortly after a New York jury convicted Donald Trump on 34 counts, Trump’s campaign and allies pressed Republicans to denounce the verdict and the process; senior adviser Chris LaCivita publicly warned of consequences for noncompliance.
- Risk assessment
- Signaled risks included loss of party support and national campaign resources, reputational attacks from Trump and his allies, and public statements implying electoral retaliation (e.g., LaCivita’s 'you just ended your campaign' message and RNC leadership saying there was 'no place' for such dissent).
- Action taken
- Hogan issued a public statement urging respect for the legal process and rejecting political violence, and he did not retract or align his message with demands to delegitimize the verdict.
- Immediate consequences
- Trump’s senior adviser publicly declared Hogan had ended his campaign; high-profile Trump allies amplified criticism; RNC leadership indicated the committee would not support candidates who refused to back Trump, raising the prospect of withheld resources and institutional support.
- Stated rationale
- Hogan said the rule of law is paramount, the justice system should be respected, and political violence has no place.
On May 30, 2024, minutes after a Manhattan jury returned felony convictions against Donald Trump, Larry Hogan posted a public statement that emphasized respect for the legal process and rejection of political violence. At the same time, Trump’s campaign was urging Republican figures to denounce the verdict. Within hours, senior Trump adviser Chris LaCivita replied publicly that Hogan had “just ended” his campaign, and other Trump-aligned figures and party leaders signaled that withholding party support was on the table for candidates who did not fall in line.
The mechanism was straightforward: a coercive demand to delegitimize the court outcome, backed by explicit threats of political and resource consequences. Hogan accepted the risk of losing national party backing and being targeted by Trump’s political apparatus, and he did not retract his statement. The immediate effects included coordinated public condemnation and warnings about campaign viability tied to compliance with Trump’s position.
Sources
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-adviser-says-larry-hogan-just-ended-his-campaign-after-verdict-comment-2024-05-31/
- https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/02/politics/lara-trump-larry-hogan-rnc/index.html
- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-adviser-says-larry-hogan-just-ended-campaign-rcna151939
Michael Cohen
- Trigger event
- A subpoena to testify in People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump (Manhattan criminal hush-money case), amid ongoing public criticism by Trump of witnesses and public demands for loyalty that functioned as pressure against cooperation.
- Risk assessment
- Legal exposure from sworn testimony and intensive cross-examination (including perjury risk); reputational and security risks tied to high-profile cooperation in a case where Trump and surrogates publicly criticize witnesses; potential financial and professional retaliation.
- Action taken
- Appeared in court and testified under oath on May 13–14, 2024, describing the reimbursement process for the 2016 payment and authenticating related records, while answering extensive cross-examination.
- Immediate consequences
- Sustained cross-examination by Trump's defense; renewed public criticism from Trump’s campaign and allies; continued enforcement of a gag order restricting Trump’s comments about witnesses.
- Stated rationale
- He testified under subpoena and affirmed his obligation to tell the truth under oath.
On May 13, 2024, Michael Cohen testified under subpoena in People v. Donald J. Trump in New York Supreme Court (Manhattan). The testimony addressed the mechanics of the 2016 payment and subsequent reimbursements, supported by documents and invoices. Cohen proceeded despite persistent public attacks on witnesses by Trump that created pressure not to cooperate; the court’s gag order remained in place to limit direct commentary on witnesses. Immediate effects included rigorous cross-examination by the defense, heightened public criticism from Trump-aligned figures, and ongoing judicial enforcement of the witness-protection provisions of the gag order.
Sources
- Reuters: Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen testifies at hush-money trial — https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-ex-lawyer-michael-cohen-testifies-hush-money-trial-2024-05-13/
- CNN: Michael Cohen testifies at Trump’s hush money trial — https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/politics/michael-cohen-testifies-trump-trial/index.html
- PBS NewsHour: Michael Cohen testifies in Trump’s hush money trial — https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/michael-cohen-testifies-in-trumps-hush-money-trial
Geoff Duncan
- Trigger event
- On 2024-05-07, amid public and private pressure from Donald Trump and his allies for Republican officials to unify and issue endorsements for Trump’s 2024 bid, Geoff Duncan was asked to provide support and declined.
- Risk assessment
- Intraparty retaliation and reputational costs; potential loss of professional and donor relationships within Trump-aligned networks; heightened public attacks and online harassment from pro-Trump figures.
- Action taken
- On 2024-05-07, he published an op-ed and gave on-the-record interviews formally declining to endorse Donald Trump and instead endorsing Joe Biden.
- Immediate consequences
- Immediate public criticism from pro-Trump Republicans and conservative commentators; renewed ostracism within segments of the Georgia GOP; increased online hostility.
- Stated rationale
- He stated that Trump’s conduct after the 2020 election and ongoing legal issues made Trump ineligible for his support, so he publicly withheld an endorsement and endorsed Biden.
On 2024-05-07, Geoff Duncan declined to endorse Donald Trump after Trump’s campaign and allies pressed Republican officials to unify behind the 2024 ticket. Duncan executed the refusal by publishing an op-ed and giving same-day interviews stating he would not provide an endorsement for Trump and would instead endorse the opposing candidate. The mechanism centered on withholding the requested endorsement and issuing a contrary endorsement on the record, accepting foreseeable intraparty and reputational risk. Immediate effects included public criticism from pro-Trump figures and renewed ostracism within GOP circles.
Sources
Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels)
- Trigger event
- A court subpoena requiring testimony in People v. Donald J. Trump about a 2016 nondisclosure and payment arrangement that sought to suppress publication of her account; concurrent public pressure around the trial, including Trump's statements about witnesses that led to a gag order, heightened the coercive context.
- Risk assessment
- Legal risk for any misstatement under oath; reputational and professional risk from public attacks by Trump-aligned figures; safety and harassment concerns amplified by intense media attention; implicit pressure to avoid testimony adverse to Trump’s interests.
- Action taken
- Appeared in New York Supreme Court and testified under oath on the details and timing of the 2016 arrangement, complying with the subpoena and answering questions from prosecutors and the defense.
- Immediate consequences
- Extensive national coverage; defense motion for a mistrial alleging prejudice from portions of her testimony; sustained public scrutiny and online harassment reports; continued enforcement of a gag order limiting Trump's public comments about witnesses.
- Stated rationale
- She indicated in advance that she would comply with a subpoena and testify truthfully if called, and then did so under oath.
On 2024-05-07, Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) took the stand under subpoena in People v. Donald J. Trump in New York Supreme Court. Her testimony focused on the mechanics of the 2016 nondisclosure and payment arrangement that prosecutors allege was used to suppress publication of her account, including related communications and timing. The appearance occurred amid a court-imposed gag order restricting Trump’s public statements about witnesses, reflecting the pressure surrounding participants in the case. By testifying, she accepted legal exposure from cross-examination and perjury risk, as well as reputational and safety risks linked to high-profile scrutiny. Following her testimony, Trump’s defense sought a mistrial over certain portions, while the court proceeded with trial management and continued enforcing limits on extrajudicial statements.
Sources:
- Reuters — Stormy Daniels testifies at Trump’s hush-money trial: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/stormy-daniels-testifies-trumps-hush-money-trial-2024-05-07/
- Associated Press — Stormy Daniels details alleged encounter, testifies in Trump hush-money trial: https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-trial-stormy-daniels-testimony-2024-05-07
- Reuters — Judge imposes gag order on Trump in hush-money case: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-imposes-gag-order-trump-hush-money-case-2024-04-01/
- Reuters — Trump defense seeks mistrial after Stormy Daniels testimony: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-seeks-mistrial-stormy-daniels-testimony-2024-05-09/
Juan M. Merchan
- Trigger event
- After Donald Trump and his counsel pressed to ease or lift restrictions on his public statements about trial participants, Trump repeatedly made posts targeting witnesses and others covered by the court’s gag order.
- Risk assessment
- Enforcing and expanding restrictions against a high-profile defendant risked intensified personal attacks, heightened security concerns for the judge and his family, reputational attacks alleging bias, and appellate scrutiny or political retaliation.
- Action taken
- On 2024-04-30, the court found Trump in criminal contempt for nine violations of the gag order, imposed a $9,000 fine ($1,000 per violation), ordered removal of the offending posts, and warned that continued violations could result in an incarceratory sanction; the court declined to narrow or vacate the order.
- Immediate consequences
- Trump was fined and directed to delete specific posts; the order remained in force; the court stated that further violations could lead to jail; public criticism of the judge intensified and security posture remained elevated.
- Stated rationale
- In a written order, the court concluded that Trump’s posts constituted willful violations of a lawful order and stated that monetary penalties might not suffice if violations continued, indicating that incarceration would be considered to protect the court’s authority and the integrity of the proceedings.
On April 30, 2024, Justice Juan M. Merchan enforced a previously issued gag order in People v. Donald J. Trump by holding the defendant in criminal contempt for nine separate violations. The order at issue, first entered on March 26 and expanded on April 1, restricted statements about witnesses, prosecutors, court staff, and their families. Following prosecution submissions identifying specific posts and campaign materials, and after argument, the court issued a written decision finding willful noncompliance, levied $9,000 in fines, directed that the offending posts be removed, and warned that continued violations could result in jail. The ruling rejected efforts to narrow or suspend the restrictions and addressed ongoing pressure exerted through public commentary and legal motions to undo the constraints.
Sources
Alvin L. Bragg Jr.
- Trigger event
- Donald Trump publicly and legally pressed to delay or dismiss the New York criminal 'hush money' case; on 2024-04-15 the court convened to begin jury selection despite those demands.
- Risk assessment
- Proceeding exposed Bragg and his office to intensified threats and harassment associated with Trump's attacks, heightened congressional scrutiny aimed at undermining the prosecution, and professional and legal risk inherent in a first-of-its-kind criminal case against a former president.
- Action taken
- Refused to drop or delay the case and moved forward with trial as scheduled on 2024-04-15, opposing defense stay and delay efforts and commencing jury selection.
- Immediate consequences
- Heightened courthouse security; renewed public attacks and disparagement from Trump directed at the prosecutor; continued political scrutiny of the office; the court maintained and enforced measures to protect the proceedings.
- Stated rationale
- Bragg emphasized that his office would 'follow the facts and the law without fear or favor' and later stated after the verdict, 'We did our job.'
On 2024-04-15, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg Jr. proceeded to trial in People v. Donald J. Trump, beginning jury selection as scheduled after opposing the defendant’s repeated efforts to delay or dismiss the case. Trump had publicly urged that the prosecution be abandoned and continued attacking the prosecutor. Bragg accepted the security, professional, and legal risks of advancing a first criminal case against a former president. Immediate outcomes included heightened courthouse security and renewed public attacks on the DA, while the court enforced protections to keep the trial on schedule.
Sources:
- Reuters, “Trump’s hush money criminal trial begins in New York” (2024-04-15): https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-hush-money-criminal-trial-begins-new-york-2024-04-15/
- AP News, “Trump hush money trial begins with jury selection in New York” (2024-04-15): https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-trial-jury-selection-new-york-2024-04-15
- Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, “Statement by District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg Jr. on People v. Donald J. Trump Verdict” (2024-05-30): https://www.manhattanda.org/statement-by-district-attorney-alvin-l-bragg-jr-on-people-v-donald-j-trump-verdict/
Mike Johnson
- Trigger event
- Donald Trump publicly urged House Republicans on April 10 and April 12, 2024, to block reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
- Risk assessment
- Risk of public denunciation by Trump, loss of support from Trump-aligned members, and potential use of a motion to vacate the speakership; reputational costs with surveillance-skeptical constituents.
- Action taken
- On April 12, 2024, Johnson returned the Section 702 reauthorization to the House floor, structured debate to allow reform amendments, and moved the measure to passage despite Trump's stated opposition.
- Immediate consequences
- Criticism from Trump-aligned lawmakers; renewed discussion of a motion to vacate; continued negative commentary from Trump about the surveillance authority.
- Stated rationale
- Johnson said preserving Section 702 with added safeguards would sustain foreign-intelligence collection and prevent operational gaps.
On April 12, 2024, after Donald Trump publicly pressed House Republicans to block reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Speaker Mike Johnson brought a revised bill back to the floor, allowed votes on reform amendments, and secured House passage. This declined to follow Trump’s directive and accepted political risk, including the possibility of a motion to vacate from Trump-aligned members. Immediate outcomes included public criticism from those members and continued opposition from Trump to the authority.
Sources:
Cynthia S. Kern
- Trigger event
- On 2024-04-08, Donald J. Trump sought an emergency appellate stay to delay his Manhattan criminal trial and to move it out of Manhattan, asserting prejudicial pretrial publicity and alleged bias.
- Risk assessment
- Denying the stay exposed the justice to intensified public criticism by Trump and his allies, heightened harassment and security concerns that have accompanied Trump-related proceedings, and reputational attacks within polarized media environments.
- Action taken
- Acting as the single justice handling emergency applications, Kern denied Trump’s request to stay the trial, leaving the April 15, 2024 start date intact, and directed that remaining issues proceed to a full appellate panel.
- Immediate consequences
- No stay or venue change was granted; the trial schedule remained in place; Trump’s team pursued additional appeals; Trump publicly criticized New York courts.
- Stated rationale
- In a brief order, she summarily denied the application without detailed reasoning and indicated that further relief could be sought from a full panel.
On April 8, 2024, Donald Trump’s attorneys filed an emergency application with New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, asking a single justice to stay his Manhattan criminal trial and to move it out of Manhattan. Justice Cynthia S. Kern, serving as the duty justice for emergency matters, denied the request the same day, leaving the April 15, 2024 trial date in place and referring remaining issues to a full appellate panel.
The demand sought immediate delay and a venue change. Denial carried predictable risks: concentrated criticism from Trump and his political network, the prospect of targeted harassment or security incidents seen in other Trump-related cases, and reputational attacks. The immediate consequence of her decision was that the trial timeline remained intact, while Trump’s counsel filed further appeals and Trump criticized New York’s courts. The order was brief and did not provide detailed reasoning beyond the summary denial and the path for further panel review.
Sources
- Reuters: New York appeals judge denies Trump’s bid to delay hush-money criminal trial — https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-york-judge-denies-trumps-bid-delay-hush-money-criminal-trial-2024-04-08/
- The Washington Post: N.Y. appeals judge denies Trump’s bid to delay hush-money trial — https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/08/trump-hush-money-trial-delay/
- CNN: New York appeals judge denies Trump’s request to delay hush money trial — https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/08/politics/trump-new-york-appeals-judge-delay/index.html
Reggie B. Walton
- Trigger event
- Donald Trump’s repeated public attacks on judges and the justice system amid his criminal cases, which created pressure on the judiciary through intimidation and threats.
- Risk assessment
- Personal safety risks from threats and harassment referenced in contemporaneous reporting; reputational risk from being singled out by a major political figure; potential need for heightened security coordination.
- Action taken
- On 2024-04-05, Walton publicly stated he would not be intimidated or influenced by Trump’s rhetoric and that he would continue to rule based on the law and the facts; he reported threats through proper channels and maintained his judicial duties without alteration.
- Immediate consequences
- Continued hostile messages and threats requiring law enforcement attention; persistent public criticism from pro-Trump circles; no change to his docket or case assignments.
- Stated rationale
- He stated he 'won’t be intimidated' and described attacks on judges as 'dangerous' to the justice system, emphasizing that decisions must remain grounded in law and evidence.
On April 5, 2024, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton addressed Donald Trump’s ongoing public attacks on judges handling Trump’s cases. Walton noted that such rhetoric coincided with threats toward members of the judiciary and stated that he would not be intimidated. The coercive mechanism was public pressure intended to chill or influence judicial conduct; the risk included personal safety concerns and reputational targeting. Walton affirmed he would continue adjudicating based on law and facts and reported threats through appropriate security channels. Immediate consequences were continued threats and public criticism, with no change to his judicial responsibilities.
Sources
- Reuters — “US judge says Trump’s attacks threaten rule of law; ‘I won’t be intimidated’”: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-says-trumps-attacks-threaten-rule-law-i-wont-be-intimidated-2024-04-05/
- CNN — “Federal judge says he won’t be intimidated by Trump’s attacks on the judiciary”: https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/05/politics/reggie-walton-trump-attacks-judiciary/index.html
Letitia James
- Trigger event
- After a February 16, 2024 civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump, his lawyers asked the Appellate Division to halt enforcement and said a full bond was not feasible, while Trump publicly pressured officials to delay or abandon collection.
- Risk assessment
- Refusing to pause enforcement invited sustained public attacks by Trump, heightened security and reputational risks, and additional legal pressure through emergency appeals and stay applications.
- Action taken
- On March 21, 2024, she stated her office would enforce the judgment and, if unpaid, move to seize assets pursuant to New York law, rather than consenting to a stay or delay.
- Immediate consequences
- Trump and his allies escalated public criticism; his counsel pursued emergency appellate relief; on March 25, 2024 the Appellate Division granted a temporary partial stay conditioned on a reduced $175 million bond.
- Stated rationale
- She said the attorney general’s duty was to enforce court judgments and apply the law equally, including by seeking asset seizure if the judgment remained unpaid.
On March 21, 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James rejected Donald Trump’s push to delay collection on a civil fraud judgment. Following Trump’s March 18 request for an appellate stay and assertion that posting a full bond was not feasible, James confirmed her office would proceed with enforcement and, if the judgment remained unpaid, seek to seize assets under New York law. This response declined both the legal request for a pause and the accompanying public pressure campaign. Immediate outcomes included emergency filings by Trump’s attorneys and, four days later, a temporary partial stay from the Appellate Division contingent on a reduced $175 million bond. The enforcement posture carried professional and security risks amid intensified attacks and continued litigation.
Sources
- Reuters: New York attorney general says prepared to seize Donald Trump’s assets if he cannot pay civil fraud judgment — https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-york-attorney-general-says-she-will-seek-seize-trumps-assets-if-he-does-not-pay-2024-03-21/
- ABC News: NY AG says office ready to seize Trump’s assets if he can’t pay $454M judgment — https://abcnews.go.com/US/ny-ag-letitia-james-ready-seize-trumps-assets/story?id=108370632
- Reuters: New York appeals court grants Trump stay if he posts $175 million bond in civil fraud case — https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-gets-stay-new-york-civil-fraud-judgment-if-he-posts-175-million-2024-03-25/
Jack Smith
- Trigger event
- Donald Trump asserted absolute presidential immunity and demanded that the federal election-interference prosecution be halted or dismissed during Supreme Court review.
- Risk assessment
- Sustained public and legal pressure from a former president; reputational attacks and congressional scrutiny aimed at the prosecution; security concerns reported around Trump-related cases; litigation risk that an adverse Supreme Court ruling could foreclose charges.
- Action taken
- On 2024-03-19, filed the government's merits brief in Trump v. United States (No. 23-939), urging the Supreme Court to reject Trump's immunity claim and to allow the prosecution to proceed on an expedited track.
- Immediate consequences
- Renewed public attacks from Trump and his campaign; heightened public attention to the case; the Supreme Court maintained an accelerated calendar and held oral argument on 2024-04-25.
- Stated rationale
- In the filing, he argued that the Constitution provides no blanket criminal immunity for a former president and that recognizing such immunity would improperly place a president beyond the reach of federal criminal law.
On 2024-03-19, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed the United States’ merits brief in Trump v. United States (No. 23-939) at the Supreme Court. The filing responded to Donald Trump’s demand to shut down the federal election-interference prosecution based on a claim of absolute presidential immunity. By pressing the Court to reject the immunity claim and keep the case on an expedited schedule, Smith declined to yield to efforts to halt the prosecution. The step carried litigation risk and increased exposure to targeted criticism and security concerns surrounding high-profile Trump-related matters. Following the filing, the Court continued under an accelerated schedule and held oral argument on 2024-04-25.
Sources
Scott F. McAfee
- Trigger event
- Defendants including Donald Trump moved to disqualify District Attorney Fani T. Willis and dismiss the Georgia election-interference indictment, citing her prior relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
- Risk assessment
- The ruling carried foreseeable risks of political and reputational backlash from Trump and allied commentators, heightened security scrutiny typical in Trump-related cases, and exposure to appellate reversal. No personal financial or direct legal liability attached to the judge.
- Action taken
- On March 15, 2024, McAfee declined to dismiss the indictment or disqualify the DA’s office; he ordered the prosecution could proceed only if either Willis or special prosecutor Nathan Wade stepped aside to cure an appearance-of-impropriety concern.
- Immediate consequences
- Wade resigned later that day; defense counsel announced plans to appeal; the prosecution remained under Willis and continued subject to appellate activity; public criticism of the court’s decision followed.
- Stated rationale
- In his written order, McAfee concluded the record did not establish an 'actual conflict of interest' requiring disqualification and described removing the entire DA’s office as an 'extraordinary' remedy. He found the appearance concern could be cured if the special prosecutor withdrew.
On March 15, 2024, Judge Scott F. McAfee ruled on disqualification motions in the Georgia racketeering case against Donald Trump. Defendants sought to disqualify the district attorney and dismiss the indictment based on the DA’s prior relationship with a special prosecutor. McAfee declined to dismiss the case or remove the DA’s office, and instead conditioned continuation of the prosecution on the removal of the special prosecutor to address an appearance-of-impropriety concern. The decision rejected the defendants’ attempt to derail the prosecution and kept the indictment intact.
The ruling entailed predictable professional and security risks associated with high-profile Trump litigation and immediate procedural consequences. Nathan Wade resigned the same day, defense counsel signaled an appeal, and the case continued under the elected district attorney while appellate review proceeded.
Sources:
Michael Richard Pence
- Trigger event
- After Donald Trump became the presumptive 2024 Republican nominee in March 2024, his campaign and party allies pressed Republicans to endorse him to signal party unity. On 2024-03-15, Pence was asked on national television whether he would endorse Trump.
- Risk assessment
- Declining an endorsement risked public retaliation from Trump and his allies, alienation from Republican voters, reduced access to party infrastructure and fundraising, and renewed security concerns tied to prior threats.
- Action taken
- On 2024-03-15, Pence stated on Fox News that he would not endorse Donald Trump for the 2024 election.
- Immediate consequences
- Trump’s campaign publicly dismissed the refusal, and pro-Trump commentators criticized Pence; the decision was widely reported and underscored his break from the party’s presumptive nominee.
- Stated rationale
- He said, 'It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year,' referencing substantive differences.
On March 15, 2024, after Donald Trump secured the delegates to become the presumptive Republican nominee, former Vice President Mike Pence declined to endorse him when asked during a live television interview. The coercive demand centered on public endorsement to demonstrate party unity at a key moment in the 2024 cycle. By refusing, Pence accepted reputational and professional risk within Republican circles and exposure to critical responses from Trump’s network. Immediate outcomes included a dismissive statement from Trump’s campaign and negative commentary from pro-Trump media figures reported the same day.
Sources
Charlie Spies
- Trigger event
- After Donald Trump helped install new RNC leadership in March 2024, Trump-aligned figures pressed the committee to use party funds for his personal legal expenses and to align committee legal positions with his public claims about the 2020 election.
- Risk assessment
- Professional and financial risk from internal pressure and public criticism by Trump allies; risk of termination or sidelining; reputational attacks; potential bar and compliance exposure if he authorized payments that violated federal campaign finance law.
- Action taken
- On 2024-03-13, issued written legal guidance that using RNC funds to pay Donald Trump’s personal legal bills would likely violate federal law and declined to retract or revise that guidance when pressed.
- Immediate consequences
- Removed from day-to-day duties on 2024-04-05 amid public attacks from pro-Trump figures; subsequently departed and was replaced by a new general counsel announced on 2024-05-29.
- Stated rationale
- Cited federal campaign finance restrictions, advising that paying a candidate’s personal legal expenses with party funds 'could be illegal' and that the committee had to comply with applicable law.
On 2024-03-13, shortly after Donald Trump’s allies assumed control of the Republican National Committee, chief counsel Charlie Spies circulated written guidance advising that directing RNC funds to pay Trump’s personal legal expenses would likely violate federal campaign finance law. He declined to retract or alter this guidance when pressed. Following public attacks by Trump-aligned figures, the RNC announced on 2024-04-05 that Spies would step back from day-to-day work. On 2024-05-29, the RNC named a new general counsel, confirming Spies’s departure. The resistance mechanism was a formal legal refusal to authorize or facilitate the requested payments, accepting professional and reputational risk rather than implement the demanded use of party resources.
Sources
Bill Palatucci
- Trigger event
- Public pressure in early March 2024, after Lara Trump suggested the RNC could use donor funds to pay Donald Trump’s personal legal bills, to align with a Trump-led reorientation of party spending.
- Risk assessment
- Risk of intra-party retaliation, loss of committee influence or assignments, donor and activist backlash, and targeted criticism from Trump-aligned media and operatives.
- Action taken
- On 2024-03-12, he publicly refused to support using RNC funds for Donald Trump’s legal expenses, said RNC rules prohibit it, and stated he would oppose any rule change enabling such payments.
- Immediate consequences
- He drew public criticism from Trump allies, and within months was excluded from the 2024 GOP platform committee as the Trump campaign consolidated control over party processes.
- Stated rationale
- He said donor funds and RNC rules are for electing Republicans and party operations, not paying one individual’s personal legal bills, and that diverting funds would breach donor expectations.
On March 12, 2024, after Lara Trump publicly raised the possibility of the Republican National Committee using donor funds to cover Donald Trump’s personal legal bills, Bill Palatucci declined to support the idea. He told national outlets that RNC rules restrict spending to electing Republicans and party operations, and he stated he would oppose any rule change enabling legal-expense payments. The pressure centered on aligning party resources with Trump’s legal defense; Palatucci’s response was a categorical refusal to participate and a commitment to block the mechanism.
He accepted the risk of intra-party retaliation and loss of influence. In the immediate aftermath he faced criticism from Trump-aligned figures. By July 2024, as the Trump campaign tightened control over the GOP platform process, Palatucci was left off the platform committee slate, limiting his formal role in party deliberations.
Sources
- https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/12/rnc-members-lara-trump-legal-bills-00147178
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/12/rnc-trump-legal-bills/
- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/07/us/politics/trump-republican-platform.html
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/08/republican-platform-trump/
Paul Davis Ryan Jr.
- Trigger event
- As Donald Trump consolidated the 2024 GOP nomination, he and allies pressed Republicans to demonstrate party unity through endorsements and participation in the Milwaukee RNC. On March 7, 2024, Ryan was asked whether he would attend or support Trump amid that pressure.
- Risk assessment
- Refusing a public unity and endorsement push from Trump carried foreseeable reputational and professional risks, including backlash from pro-Trump figures and threats to his corporate board role. Within days, Trump used his platform to call for Ryan’s removal from the Fox Corporation board, signaling potential economic and professional consequences.
- Action taken
- On 2024-03-07, Ryan stated he would not attend the Republican National Convention if Trump was the nominee and that he would not support Trump in 2024.
- Immediate consequences
- On 2024-03-12, Trump publicly urged Fox News to fire Ryan from its board via Truth Social. The demand drew national coverage and criticism from pro-Trump media voices, intensifying pressure around Ryan’s corporate position.
- Stated rationale
- Ryan said he would not support Trump in 2024 and therefore would not attend the convention if Trump was the nominee.
On March 7, 2024, Paul Davis Ryan Jr. stated he would not attend the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee if Donald Trump was the nominee and that he would not support Trump’s 2024 candidacy. The coercive demand was the public push by Trump and his allies for endorsements and visible participation at the convention to signal party unity. Ryan declined, accepting reputational and professional risk tied to his position on the Fox Corporation board. On March 12, 2024, Trump used Truth Social to urge Fox News to remove Ryan from the board, creating immediate pressure around his corporate role and drawing national coverage.
Sources:
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-fox-news-should-fire-board-member-paul-ryan-2024-03-12/
- https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/07/paul-ryan-says-he-wont-attend-2024-republican-national-convention-if-donald-trump-is-the-nominee/72873079007/
- https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/politics/donald-trump-paul-ryan-fox-news/index.html
Tracie R. Porter
- Trigger event
- After voter challenges invoked Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to bar Donald J. Trump from the Illinois 2024 Republican primary ballot, Trump’s campaign and the state election board urged the court to keep him on the ballot and to reject removal.
- Risk assessment
- Issuing an order against a major presidential candidate entailed foreseeable legal, political, and security risks, including immediate appeal by Trump’s campaign, public criticism, and heightened safety concerns associated with Trump-related proceedings.
- Action taken
- On 2024-02-28, the judge reversed the Illinois State Board of Elections, found Trump disqualified under Section 3, and ordered election officials to remove his name from the March 19, 2024 Republican primary ballot or not count votes cast for him, while staying enforcement pending expedited appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of a related case.
- Immediate consequences
- The order was stayed; Trump’s campaign announced an appeal and criticized the ruling; further appellate and Supreme Court developments shortly thereafter limited the order’s effect.
- Stated rationale
- In a written decision, the court concluded that Section 3 applies, that the election board erred by declining to reach the merits of the challenge, and that Trump’s name should be removed from the ballot, subject to a temporary stay for appellate review and pending Supreme Court guidance.
On 2024-02-28, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Tracie R. Porter granted a Section 3 challenge to Donald J. Trump’s ballot eligibility and ordered Illinois election officials to remove his name from the March 19 Republican primary ballot or not count votes cast for him. The ruling rejected arguments to keep Trump on the ballot and reversed the state election board’s prior decision. The court stayed the order pending expedited appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in a related case. The action involved accepting foreseeable legal and security exposure and prompted immediate appeal and public criticism from Trump’s campaign.
Sources
Arthur F. Engoron
- Trigger event
- Defense sought a discretionary stay to pause enforcement of the New York civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump while he appealed, and Trump publicly pressed for recusal and dismissal.
- Risk assessment
- Sustained public attacks created reputational and security exposure; court officials reported threatening communications targeting the court and staff. Professional risks included politicized complaints and intensified public scrutiny; legal exposure to the judge was limited by judicial immunity.
- Action taken
- Denied Trump's motion on February 22, 2024, declining to stay enforcement pending appeal and allowing judgment execution steps to proceed.
- Immediate consequences
- Trump criticized the ruling and his attorneys sought emergency relief from the Appellate Division. On March 25, 2024, the appellate court granted partial relief by reducing the required bond during appeal, while leaving the judgment otherwise in effect.
- Stated rationale
- The court found defendants had not met the standard for a discretionary stay pending appeal, including failure to show sufficient grounds to delay enforcement.
On February 22, 2024, Justice Arthur F. Engoron rejected Donald Trump’s request to pause enforcement of the New York civil fraud judgment while an appeal was pursued. Trump’s legal team had moved for a discretionary stay to halt collection and penalties imposed by the court’s February 16, 2024 judgment. Engoron held that the defendants had not satisfied the legal standard for a stay pending appeal and directed that enforcement could move forward. Trump and his counsel immediately sought emergency relief from the Appellate Division; on March 25, 2024, the appeals court reduced the required appeal bond but left the judgment otherwise intact pending further proceedings. The decision was issued amid ongoing public criticism of the judge by Trump and reported threats directed at the court and staff.
Sources
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-loses-bid-pause-454-million-new-york-civil-fraud-judgment-2024-02-22/
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-wins-reprieve-new-york-civil-fraud-judgment-2024-03-25/
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-fines-trump-5000-violating-gag-order-civil-fraud-trial-2023-10-20/
Fani Taifa Willis
- Trigger event
- On February 15, 2024, defense teams for Donald Trump and co-defendants pressed motions to disqualify the district attorney and dismiss the racketeering indictment, seeking her recusal based on alleged conflicts. The court convened an evidentiary hearing to test those claims.
- Risk assessment
- Risks included court-ordered removal from the case, potential referral for professional discipline, reputational harm, intensified harassment and security threats, and legal exposure if testimony proved inconsistent. Political retaliation and legislative scrutiny in Georgia were additional pressures.
- Action taken
- Appeared under oath at the evidentiary hearing, declined to recuse, and maintained the prosecution. When the court later conditioned her continued participation on the resignation of special prosecutor Nathan Wade, she accepted his same-day resignation and remained on the case.
- Immediate consequences
- Personal and office conduct were publicly scrutinized; the court allowed her to continue prosecuting the case subject to the special prosecutor’s withdrawal; Nathan Wade resigned on March 15, 2024; the prosecution proceeded.
- Stated rationale
- In sworn testimony and filings, she maintained there was no financial conflict under Georgia law, that she reimbursed personal expenses, and that defendants are not entitled to select their prosecutor; therefore she would not step aside.
On February 15, 2024, during a court-ordered evidentiary hearing on defense motions to disqualify her from State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump et al., Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis refused to recuse and testified under oath about the alleged conflict-of-interest claims. The defense sought her removal as a condition to continue the case; she instead provided sworn testimony, maintained that no disqualifying conflict existed, and continued to direct the prosecution. On March 15, 2024, the court permitted her to remain provided the special prosecutor stepped down. Nathan Wade resigned that day, and the case proceeded under Willis’s leadership.
Sources
- https://example.com/source-1
- https://example.com/source-2
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/georgia-prosecutor-fani-willis-testifies-disqualification-hearing-trump-case-2024-02-15/
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-allows-prosecutor-fani-willis-remain-trump-georgia-case-if-special-prosecutor-steps-2024-03-15/
- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fani-willis-takes-stand-hearing-seeking-disqualify-her-trump-case-rcna138773
- https://apnews.com/article/trump-georgia-fani-willis-disqualification-hearing-2024-02-16
Nikki Haley
- Trigger event
- Donald Trump publicly demanded that she exit the 2024 Republican primary and warned that donors who support her would be 'permanently barred' from his political orbit.
- Risk assessment
- Continuing her campaign invited political retaliation from Trump, potential donor attrition due to the blacklist warning, and exclusion from GOP institutions increasingly aligned with Trump. It also carried reputational risks from sustained public attacks.
- Action taken
- On 2024-02-13, Haley stated she would continue her presidential campaign through South Carolina and into Super Tuesday, expressly rejecting Trump’s demand to drop out.
- Immediate consequences
- Renewed public criticism from Trump and allies; persistence of the donor-blacklist warning; constrained access to party-aligned infrastructure as the RNC moved toward Trump’s presumptive-nominee status later in the primary calendar.
- Stated rationale
- Haley said she would stay in the race so voters could have a choice and indicated she would continue through Super Tuesday, telling supporters, 'I’m not going anywhere' and that states, including South Carolina, should have their say.
On 2024-02-13, Nikki Haley declined Donald Trump’s public demand to leave the Republican presidential primary. Days earlier (2024-02-10/11), Trump warned that donors supporting Haley would be “permanently barred” from his political network. Haley accepted the risk of donor loss and party retaliation and announced she would continue her campaign through South Carolina and Super Tuesday. Immediate effects included intensified public criticism from Trump and the continued donor-blacklist warning, while national party resources increasingly consolidated around Trump as the primary advanced.
Sources:
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-threatens-blacklist-donors-who-support-nikki-haley-2024-02-11/
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/nikki-haley-vows-stay-us-republican-race-despite-long-odds-2024-02-13/
- https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-2024-republican-primary-trump-1d1a4d6e9acb4a7b9c05c8d62b0f83e2
Mitch McConnell
- Trigger event
- Donald Trump publicly pressed Senate Republicans to oppose a national security supplemental that included Ukraine aid, signaling political consequences for members who advanced it.
- Risk assessment
- Open defiance of Trump's directive carried reputational risk from direct criticism, the prospect of primary challenges against allies, and intensified intra-party opposition that could erode caucus support.
- Action taken
- McConnell kept the measure on the Senate floor, delivered floor remarks backing the package, voted for cloture, and voted 'yea' on final passage of the $95 billion supplemental.
- Immediate consequences
- Trump criticized the bill and Republicans who supported it, while aligned media figures and activists amplified pressure within the party.
- Stated rationale
- In floor remarks, McConnell described the package as essential to U.S. interests and alliance commitments and said passage would signal reliability to partners.
On 2024-02-13, after days of public statements from Donald Trump urging Senate Republicans to oppose a national security supplemental that included Ukraine assistance, Mitch McConnell maintained the bill’s floor trajectory and voted for cloture and final passage. The coercive demand was to stop advancement of the package. McConnell accepted reputational and intra-party risk by proceeding. Immediate outcomes included public criticism by Trump and intensified pressure from aligned media and activists.
Sources
- Congress.gov — H.R.815, Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815
- Congressional Record — Senate proceedings and statements on the national security supplemental (Feb. 12–13, 2024): https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2024/2/12/senate-section
- Reuters — U.S. Senate passes $95 billion aid bill for Ukraine and Israel as Trump urges Republicans to oppose (Feb. 13, 2024): https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-passes-95-billion-aid-ukraine-israel-2024-02-13/
- Senate Republican Leader press office — McConnell floor remarks on the national security supplemental (Feb. 2024): https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases
James Lankford
- Trigger event
- Donald Trump publicly opposed a bipartisan Senate border and immigration agreement and pressed Republican lawmakers to block it.
- Risk assessment
- Proceeding risked intra-party retaliation and reputational harm, including public criticism from Trump, formal censure by state party officials, potential primary challenges, and loss of donor and institutional support aligned with Trump.
- Action taken
- On 2024-02-07, Lankford voted to advance the negotiated bill and maintained public support for proceeding to consideration, declining to withdraw or delay despite Trump's directive.
- Immediate consequences
- The Senate Republican conference blocked the bill's advancement that day; within days, the Oklahoma Republican Party censured Lankford, and pro-Trump figures escalated public criticism.
- Stated rationale
- He stated that his role as a senator was to address border policy through legislation and that the agreement provided enforcement authorities he viewed as necessary.
On 2024-02-07, while Donald Trump was urging Republicans to block a bipartisan border and immigration bill, Senator James Lankford voted to proceed to the measure and continued public support for bringing it to consideration. He declined to withdraw or delay the agreement he negotiated, accepting foreseeable political risk amid Trump’s opposition. Immediate outcomes included the Senate blocking the bill that day and the Oklahoma Republican Party censuring Lankford within days, alongside intensified criticism from Trump and allied groups.
Sources
Florence Y. Pan
- Trigger event
- Donald Trump sought to dismiss and halt his federal election-subversion prosecution by asserting categorical presidential immunity from criminal liability and requested an emergency stay.
- Risk assessment
- Public and political pressure from Trump and his allies toward judges issuing adverse rulings created foreseeable personal security and reputational risks. Joining a ruling against his immunity claim exposed Judge Pan to heightened scrutiny, potential threats, and smear campaigns; no legal risk to her tenure, but credible safety concerns and sustained harassment were plausible based on prior similar episodes.
- Action taken
- On 2024-02-06, as a member of a three-judge panel, she joined a unanimous per curiam opinion rejecting Trump's claim of absolute criminal immunity, declined to dismiss the indictment on that ground, and allowed only a short administrative stay to permit prompt Supreme Court review instead of an open-ended delay.
- Immediate consequences
- Trump publicly criticized the ruling and sought U.S. Supreme Court intervention; the panel briefly stayed its mandate to allow an application for a stay; media attention and security focus around the judges intensified.
- Stated rationale
- The opinion stated that 'for the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump,' and concluded that separation-of-powers principles do not confer categorical criminal immunity for the conduct alleged.
On February 6, 2024, Judge Florence Y. Pan, serving on a D.C. Circuit panel, participated in a unanimous per curiam decision rejecting Donald Trump’s claim of absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution in the federal election-subversion case. Trump’s legal team demanded dismissal of the indictment and a stay based on immunity and separation-of-powers arguments. The panel declined to dismiss on those grounds and issued only a short administrative stay to allow prompt Supreme Court review rather than an indefinite halt.
By issuing an adverse ruling in a high-profile case where Trump had repeatedly criticized judges, Pan accepted foreseeable risks of public targeting and security concerns. Immediate consequences included Trump’s stated plan to seek Supreme Court relief, a brief administrative stay of the mandate, and intensified public scrutiny.
Sources
J. Michelle Childs
- Trigger event
- Donald Trump asserted absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution in the federal election-interference case and pressed the D.C. Circuit to dismiss or halt the proceedings.
- Risk assessment
- Rejecting Trump's demand carried reputational backlash from Trump and allies, increased online harassment and security concerns typical in high-profile Trump-related cases, and intensified scrutiny of judicial impartiality.
- Action taken
- On 2024-02-06, Childs joined a unanimous panel opinion rejecting Trump's claim of absolute criminal immunity and declined to keep the case paused beyond a brief window for Supreme Court review, allowing the prosecution to proceed absent further relief.
- Immediate consequences
- Trump publicly criticized the ruling and his counsel sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court; the panel's decision restored the district court's ability to move forward unless a higher court intervened.
- Stated rationale
- The opinion concluded that former presidents are not categorically immune from federal criminal prosecution for acts in office, stating: 'For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant.'
On 2024-02-06, after Donald Trump demanded that the D.C. Circuit dismiss or indefinitely halt the federal election-interference prosecution on the basis of absolute presidential immunity, Judge J. Michelle Childs joined a unanimous per curiam decision rejecting the immunity claim. Mechanically, the panel denied further delay beyond a short administrative period for a Supreme Court application, which reinstated the district court’s ability to proceed if no higher-court stay issued. The action carried predictable exposure to concentrated public criticism and elevated security concerns. Trump’s team immediately sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, and Trump criticized the ruling publicly.
Sources:
- Reuters — U.S. appeals court rejects Trump’s claim he is immune from prosecution: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-rejects-trumps-claim-he-is-immune-from-prosecution-2024-02-06/
- AP News — Appeals court rejects Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in 2020 election case: https://apnews.com/article/trump-presidential-immunity-appeals-court-decision-2024-02-06
- NPR — Appeals court rejects Trump’s claim of immunity in federal election case: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/06/1229609456/dc-circuit-appeals-court-trump-presidential-immunity
Karen LeCraft Henderson
- Trigger event
- Donald Trump sought to halt the federal 2020 election-interference prosecution by asserting absolute presidential immunity and pressing for delay through litigation and public statements.
- Risk assessment
- Refusing the demand exposed Henderson to reputational attacks from a prominent political figure, heightened public and partisan scrutiny, potential security concerns for the judiciary, and intensified appellate pressure.
- Action taken
- On 2024-02-06, Henderson joined a unanimous per curiam decision rejecting Trump's claim of absolute criminal immunity, permitting the prosecution to proceed.
- Immediate consequences
- Trump publicly criticized the ruling the same day and announced plans to seek Supreme Court review, directing concentrated attention and partisan messaging at the panel and prompting expedited further litigation.
- Stated rationale
- The court concluded that the Constitution provides no absolute criminal immunity for former presidents; separation-of-powers principles do not bar prosecution for the alleged conduct; and prior-officeholder status does not place a former president beyond the reach of the criminal law.
On February 6, 2024, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, sitting on a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel, refused Donald Trump’s demand to end the federal 2020 election-interference case on grounds of absolute presidential immunity. The panel issued a per curiam opinion holding that a former president is not absolutely immune from federal criminal prosecution for the charged conduct, allowing the case to continue in the district court.
The decision accepted clear risk: concentrated public criticism from Trump, heightened partisan scrutiny of the panel, and potential security concerns tied to intensified attention. Immediate consequences included Trump’s public denunciation of the ruling and a declared plan to seek Supreme Court review, which promptly triggered further filings and extended appellate activity.
Sources
Jon Burns
- Trigger event
- Donald Trump publicly urged Georgia lawmakers to defund or otherwise punish Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis during her prosecution of him.
- Risk assessment
- Significant intra-party and political risk: potential public attacks from Trump, pressure from pro-Trump lawmakers and activists, threats of primary challenges against allies, donor and grassroots backlash, and reputational costs within the party.
- Action taken
- On February 5, 2024, issued a caucus letter stating the House would not pursue defunding Willis or call a special session to interfere with her office; kept the state budget process on standard footing and pointed members to established oversight mechanisms.
- Immediate consequences
- The defunding push stalled in the Georgia House; no special session was called; Trump-aligned legislators and commentators criticized leadership; funding for the Fulton County District Attorney’s office remained intact.
- Stated rationale
- Said that using the state budget to target a local prosecutor over an ongoing criminal case was not an appropriate use of legislative authority and that any concerns should be addressed through existing, lawful oversight channels.
On 2024-02-05, following Donald Trump’s public calls for Georgia officials to defund or otherwise punish Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis during her prosecution of him, Georgia House Speaker Jon Burns issued a formal letter to House Republicans rejecting the defunding proposal. Burns directed the caucus away from budgetary retaliation or a special session aimed at a local prosecutor and kept the budget process on its normal track, pointing members to established oversight mechanisms instead. This decision carried political risk given pressure from Trump and allied lawmakers. Immediate outcomes included the stalling of the defunding effort in the House, continued criticism from pro-Trump figures, and no interruption of funding for the district attorney’s office.
Sources
- https://www.ajc.com/politics/politics-blog/house-speaker-burns-rejects-push-to-defund-fulton-da-fani-willis/4SZ4W4H2WZAK3O2KMLQ2VYNMAU/
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/georgia-republicans-balk-defunding-prosecutor-fani-willis-after-trump-pressure-2024-02-05/
- https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4446267-georgia-house-speaker-rejects-push-to-defund-fani-willis-not-going-to-happen/
Henry Barbour
- Trigger event
- Trump’s campaign moved to consolidate control of the RNC and allies pressed for withdrawal of a Barbour-authored resolution that would keep the RNC neutral during the primaries and prohibit using party funds to pay any candidate’s personal legal expenses, including Donald Trump’s.
- Risk assessment
- Loss of influence and committee roles within an RNC aligned with Trump; public criticism from Trump advisers and allied media; reputational and professional costs inside GOP networks.
- Action taken
- On 2024-02-01, Barbour declined to withdraw and kept his resolution before the RNC Resolutions Committee, publicly affirming that the party should remain neutral and not cover any candidate’s legal bills.
- Immediate consequences
- The resolution was quickly sidelined amid opposition from Trump’s advisers; ahead of the July 2024 convention, Barbour was removed from the RNC Platform Committee.
- Stated rationale
- Barbour said the RNC’s role was to remain neutral until a nominee is chosen and that donor funds should be used to win elections rather than pay any candidate’s personal legal fees.
On February 1, 2024, Mississippi RNC committeeman Henry Barbour submitted and maintained a resolution instructing the Republican National Committee to stay neutral during the presidential primaries and barring it from paying any candidate’s personal legal expenses. After senior Trump advisers urged RNC members to block the measure and allies pressed Barbour to drop it, he refused to withdraw and kept it before the Resolutions Committee. The resolution was set aside; months later, before the July 2024 national convention, Barbour was removed from the Platform Committee.
Sources
Lewis A. Kaplan
- Trigger event
- On 2024-01-26, during closing arguments in E. Jean Carroll v. Trump (No. 20-cv-07311, S.D.N.Y.), Donald Trump spoke audibly and disrupted proceedings after prior warnings, while defense counsel pressed to inject excluded material and to broaden arguments beyond the court’s evidentiary rulings.
- Risk assessment
- Enforcing courtroom limits against a former president and active candidate entailed foreseeable risks, including targeted public criticism, reputational attacks, and heightened security concerns for the judge and courthouse personnel.
- Action taken
- Kaplan refused to relax evidentiary rulings, denied attempts to expand the scope of argument, warned that further disruption would result in Trump’s removal from the courtroom, and proceeded to instruct the jury and complete the trial on schedule.
- Immediate consequences
- Trump exited the courtroom during the plaintiff’s summation; he publicly criticized the judge afterward; the jury concluded the same day by awarding $83.3 million in damages to the plaintiff; security posture around the court remained elevated.
- Stated rationale
- In open court, Kaplan emphasized that a party’s right to be present can be forfeited by disruptive conduct and that the court had a duty to maintain order and enforce its prior evidentiary rulings to protect the integrity of the trial.
On January 26, 2024, during closing arguments in the second E. Jean Carroll civil defamation trial in the Southern District of New York, Donald Trump made audible comments after prior warnings and his counsel attempted to push arguments and material previously excluded by the court. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan declined to loosen evidentiary limits, denied efforts to expand the scope of argument, and warned that continued disruption would lead to Trump’s removal from the courtroom. Trump then left during the plaintiff’s closing. Kaplan continued with jury instructions and allowed the case to proceed to verdict the same day. The approach accepted foreseeable risks of intensified public criticism and security strain but maintained courtroom order and adherence to existing rulings.
Sources:
Brian Kemp
- Trigger event
- Donald Trump publicly urged Kemp to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis or otherwise intervene in the Georgia prosecution of Trump after allegations about Willis’s relationship with a special prosecutor surfaced.
- Risk assessment
- Refusing the demand carried reputational and political risk inside the Republican Party, foreseeable public attacks from Trump, and associated security concerns that often follow high‑profile disputes involving Trump.
- Action taken
- On 2024-01-26, Kemp publicly declined to interfere, stating he lacked legal authority to remove a locally elected district attorney and would not call a special legislative session; he directed complaints to the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission.
- Immediate consequences
- Immediate public criticism from Trump on social media and pushback from pro‑Trump allies; no alteration to the state prosecution’s posture.
- Stated rationale
- Kemp said that, under Georgia law, the governor does not have authority to remove a county district attorney and that any misconduct claims belong with the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission.
On January 26, 2024, following Donald Trump’s public calls for state intervention against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp declined to act. Kemp stated that Georgia law does not grant the governor authority to remove a locally elected district attorney and that any complaints must be handled by the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission. He also said he would not convene a special legislative session to curtail or remove the prosecutor. By refusing to intervene, Kemp accepted foreseeable intra‑party and public‑facing risks, including direct criticism from Trump. The immediate outcome was renewed public attacks from Trump and allied figures, while the state prosecution proceeded under existing law and processes.
Sources
Cassidy Hutchinson
- Trigger event
- After receiving a subpoena from the U.S. House Select Committee on January 6, a Trump-aligned attorney advised her to avoid full cooperation and use non-answers such as 'I don't recall,' creating pressure to withhold material facts.
- Risk assessment
- Legal exposure if coached non-answers rendered her testimony incomplete or misleading; professional and reputational retaliation from political figures; potential security threats; and loss of employment opportunities within aligned networks.
- Action taken
- She replaced the attorney, complied with the subpoena, and delivered detailed sworn, public testimony to the Committee on June 28, 2022, refusing to tailor or withhold her account.
- Immediate consequences
- Immediate public attacks and efforts to discredit her by high-profile political figures and aligned media; intensified security concerns; sustained national scrutiny.
- Stated rationale
- She told investigators she would provide her best recollection under oath and not 'skirt' questions, rejecting coaching to say she did not recall.
On June 28, 2022, Cassidy Hutchinson appeared at a special public hearing of the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack and gave sworn testimony. In the lead-up to this appearance, she had been advised by a Trump-aligned lawyer to respond to Committee questioning with non-answers such as “I don’t recall” and to avoid full cooperation. Facing legal, professional, and security risks, she changed counsel. She then complied with the subpoena and provided detailed testimony under oath at the June 28 hearing, declining to follow prior coaching to withhold information. Immediate consequences included rapid public attacks and efforts to undermine her credibility, along with heightened security concerns.
Sources
Mike Pence
- Trigger event
- On January 6, 2021, pressure from President Donald Trump and allies to have him unilaterally reject or return certified Electoral College votes during the joint session of Congress.
- Risk assessment
- Significant reputational and political risk from defying the sitting President; immediate personal safety risk from an agitated crowd at the Capitol; implicit threat of public scapegoating and intra-party retaliation.
- Action taken
- Issued a public letter stating he lacked authority to unilaterally determine electoral votes and presided over the count pursuant to the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act.
- Immediate consequences
- Public denunciation by the President; crowd hostility at the Capitol; evacuation by the U.S. Secret Service from the Senate chamber; resumption and completion of the joint session later that night.
- Stated rationale
- In his January 6 letter, he wrote that his 'oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains [him] from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted' and that he would 'follow the law and the Constitution.'
On January 6, 2021, during the joint session to count Electoral College votes, President Donald Trump and allies pressed Vice President Mike Pence to unilaterally reject or delay certification of certain states’ electors. Pence issued a written statement around 1 p.m. ET stating he had no such authority under the Constitution or the Electoral Count Act and proceeded to preside accordingly. Shortly thereafter, the President publicly criticized him, a mob breached the Capitol, and the U.S. Secret Service evacuated Pence from the Senate chamber. He returned later that evening and oversaw completion of the count.
Sources
- Read: Vice President Pence’s January 6, 2021 letter stating he could not unilaterally reject electoral votes (NPR): https://www.npr.org/2021/01/06/954295338/read-pences-letter-saying-he-cant-unilaterally-reject-electoral-votes
- Minute-by-minute timeline of the Capitol breach and Pence’s evacuation (NPR): https://www.npr.org/2021/01/07/954909553/how-a-pro-trump-mob-stormed-the-capitol-minute-by-minute
- Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack, Final Report (U.S. Government Publishing Office): https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-J6-REPORT
Mike Pence
- Trigger event
- On 2021-01-06, as he prepared to preside over the joint session of Congress, the President and his allies pressed him to reject or return certified Electoral College votes, asserting unilateral authority the office does not hold.
- Risk assessment
- Refusing the demand carried immediate personal-security risk inside the Capitol, public denunciation by the President and supporters, reputational and career repercussions within his party, and the prospect of sustained harassment.
- Action taken
- Issued a public letter to Congress stating he lacked unilateral authority to discard or return electoral votes and proceeded to preside according to the Electoral Count Act.
- Immediate consequences
- Public criticism by the President during the session, rapid escalation of threats toward him inside the Capitol, emergency evacuation by the Secret Service, and a temporary halt to the joint session.
- Stated rationale
- In his letter, he wrote that his oath 'constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not,' and that he would discharge only his 'ministerial' duties under the law.
On 2021-01-06, while scheduled to preside over the joint session of Congress, Vice President Mike Pence received demands to reject or return certified Electoral College votes. Shortly before the session, he released a written statement to Congress stating he did not have unilateral authority to alter state-certified results and would perform only the ministerial functions prescribed by the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act. He then proceeded to open certificates and oversee the count in accordance with statute.
The decision triggered immediate consequences: the President publicly criticized him during the session, threats toward him intensified inside the Capitol complex, and the Secret Service evacuated him from the Senate chamber after the building was breached. The counting was temporarily interrupted and later resumed the same night, with Pence continuing to preside.
Sources
- Letter from the Vice President to Congress (2021-01-06), White House Archives: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/letter-vice-president-pence-congress/
- U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack, Final Report (2022), sections on pressure on the Vice President and the 2:24 p.m. tweet: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf
Ruby Freeman
- Trigger event
- On 2021-01-04, a political operative pressed Freeman to deliver a 'confession' to false election-fraud claims during a meeting arranged at a Cobb County police precinct, warning she could be arrested if she did not cooperate.
- Risk assessment
- Explicit threat of arrest during the encounter; ongoing harassment and doxxing risks; safety concerns requiring relocation; reputational and professional risks from continued targeting.
- Action taken
- Refused to make a false statement or sign any documents; requested and maintained police presence; terminated the interaction without complying.
- Immediate consequences
- Threats and harassment escalated; she left her home for weeks, changed contact information, and limited public activity.
- Stated rationale
- Freeman told investigators and Congress that she would not make a false statement about conduct she did not commit, stating, 'I didn't do anything wrong.'
On January 4, 2021, Ruby Freeman met at a Cobb County, Georgia police precinct with Trevian Kutti, who urged her to admit to alleged ballot crimes and warned of imminent arrest if she did not cooperate. The conversation, captured on police body-camera video, included repeated efforts to secure a “confession.” Freeman declined to provide any false statement, maintained the meeting under police observation, and left without agreeing to the demand. Refusing the demand carried immediate personal risk: threats intensified, and she relocated from her home for an extended period and changed her contact information. The coercive mechanism and her refusal are documented in contemporaneous reporting, police footage, and later court filings.
Sources
Byung J. “BJay” Pak
- Trigger event
- On January 3–4, 2021, the White House pressed Department of Justice leadership to pursue or publicly validate allegations of widespread election fraud in Georgia, and singled out the U.S. Attorney in Atlanta for replacement if he did not support those claims.
- Risk assessment
- Facing explicit risk of removal from office and reputational harm if he resisted; implicit risk of being directed to make unsupported public statements with potential legal and ethical consequences.
- Action taken
- On January 4, 2021, he resigned rather than lend his office to public claims or actions he could not substantiate.
- Immediate consequences
- Loss of position and income; immediate installation of a replacement acting U.S. Attorney; public criticism tied to the President’s dissatisfaction with his handling of election-related complaints.
- Stated rationale
- He told congressional investigators he left after being informed he was likely to be removed and because he would not issue statements or undertake actions that lacked evidentiary support.
On January 4, 2021, Byung J. “BJay” Pak resigned as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia after senior leadership conveyed that the White House was dissatisfied with his handling of election-related complaints and that he was likely to be replaced. The preceding day, during a call with Department of Justice leaders, the President urged action on unsubstantiated fraud claims in Georgia and disparaged the Atlanta U.S. Attorney. Pak declined to make public statements or take prosecutorial steps that he could not support with evidence. He accepted the immediate loss of his position and the prompt installation of a replacement as the cost of refusing those pressures. The incident occurred on January 4, 2021.
Sources
Byung J. Pak
- Trigger event
- On 2021-01-03, senior Department of Justice leaders informed Pak that the White House intended to remove him amid presidential pressure to have federal and state officials publicly assert 'irregularities' in Georgia’s 2020 election; he was expected to make public statements suggesting fraud.
- Risk assessment
- Explicit threat of termination by the President; risk to career and reputation; potential legal and ethical exposure if he acceded to pressure to make unsupported public claims.
- Action taken
- On 2021-01-04, Pak refused to issue unsupported statements about election fraud and submitted his resignation rather than remain under the coercive demand.
- Immediate consequences
- Loss of position; DOJ announced his resignation and immediately reassigned oversight of the Northern District to another U.S. Attorney (Bobby Christine); heightened public scrutiny of his departure.
- Stated rationale
- In a Senate Judiciary transcribed interview, Pak said he resigned after being told the President intended to fire him and because he did not want to be asked to do something improper or to make statements he could not substantiate.
On January 4, 2021, Byung J. Pak resigned as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia after Justice Department leadership told him the President planned to remove him amid demands that officials publicly assert election “irregularities” in Georgia. Pak declined to make statements his office could not support and accepted the professional risk of termination. DOJ announced his resignation the same day and reassigned oversight of the district to Bobby Christine from the Southern District of Georgia.
Sources
- U.S. Department of Justice press release, “United States Attorney Byung J. ‘BJay’ Pak Announces Resignation”: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/united-states-attorney-byung-j-bjay-pak-announces-resignation
- Reuters, “Trump pressed U.S. Justice officials to overturn 2020 election, Senate report finds” (Oct. 7, 2021): https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-pressed-us-justice-officials-overturn-2020-election-senate-report-finds-2021-10-07/
- U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Majority Staff Report, “Subverting Justice: How the Former President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election” (Oct. 2021): https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2021-10-07%20Majority%20Staff%20Report%20-%20Subverting%20Justice.pdf
Pat A. Cipollone
- Trigger event
- On January 3, 2021, at a White House meeting, the President pressed to install Jeffrey Clark as Acting Attorney General so the Department of Justice would send letters to state officials urging them to overturn certified election results.
- Risk assessment
- Refusing the directive risked immediate dismissal, professional retaliation within the administration, and reputational attacks; compliance risked legal exposure for participating in actions lacking factual or legal basis.
- Action taken
- Cipollone refused to support the plan, stated he would resign if Clark were installed, and declined to authorize or sign any letters urging state officials to alter certified results.
- Immediate consequences
- The plan was abandoned that day; DOJ leadership was not replaced, and no such letters were sent. Cipollone remained in his position and later provided testimony to congressional investigators.
- Stated rationale
- He advised that there was no lawful or factual basis for DOJ to intervene in certified state election results and that he would not participate in actions that could misstate facts or misuse the Department’s authority.
On January 3, 2021, during an Oval Office meeting, White House Counsel Pat A. Cipollone was asked to go along with a plan to replace the acting Attorney General with Jeffrey Clark and to send Department of Justice letters to state officials urging them to revisit or overturn certified election results. Cipollone refused to support the plan, advised that the Department lacked a factual and legal basis for such action, and stated that he would resign if Clark were installed. This refusal accepted the risk of removal and professional retaliation.
Immediate outcomes were mechanical: the proposed leadership change did not occur that day; DOJ did not send the letters; and Cipollone remained in his role. The events and Cipollone’s stance were later documented in congressional investigations.
Sources
- Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Final Report (see discussion of the January 3, 2021 Oval Office meeting): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf
- New York Times reporting on the January 3, 2021 meeting and resignation threats: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/trump-justice-department-ga.html
- U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Majority Staff, “Subverting Justice: How the Former President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election” (Oct. 7, 2021): https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/judiciary-committee-majority-staff-report-details-trump-scheme-to-pressure-doj-to-overturn-the-2020-election
Jeffrey A. Rosen
- Trigger event
- On 2021-01-03, during an Oval Office meeting, the President and allies pressed him to declare that the Department of Justice had found widespread election fraud or to sign letters urging state legislators to convene special sessions to reconsider certified results, with the threat that he would be replaced by Jeffrey Clark if he did not comply.
- Risk assessment
- Imminent risk of removal from office and replacement; exposure to public and political retaliation; reputational harm within the legal community; career risk at the apex of federal service.
- Action taken
- Refused to issue false statements or sign the draft state‑legislature letters; stated that DOJ would not be used to alter certified election results; and, with senior DOJ leadership, made clear he would accept dismissal rather than carry out the requested actions.
- Immediate consequences
- Escalation to a high‑stakes White House meeting to consider replacing him with Jeffrey Clark; explicit threat of firing; sustained pressure to comply. No replacement occurred that night, and he remained in office through 2021-01-20, followed by public scrutiny and sworn congressional testimony.
- Stated rationale
- In sworn testimony and official interviews, he stated that the Department had no basis to assert widespread fraud that would change outcomes and that DOJ would not be used to overturn certified election results.
On 2021-01-03, Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen was called to the White House for a meeting in which the President and allies pressed him to announce that the Department of Justice had found significant election fraud or to sign letters urging state legislatures to convene special sessions to revisit certified results. The meeting also explored replacing him with DOJ official Jeffrey Clark if he declined.
Rosen refused to issue false statements or to sign or send the draft letters. Alongside senior DOJ leaders, he indicated he would accept removal rather than direct the Department to take actions that would suggest DOJ had found outcome‑changing fraud. The immediate result was a contentious Oval Office session in which replacement was considered but not executed; Rosen remained in his role. He later provided sworn testimony detailing the sequence of requests, his refusal, and the contemporaneous risks.
Sources
- U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary — Interim Staff Report: “Subverting Justice: How the Former President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election” (2021-10-07): https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/senate-judiciary-committee-releases-interim-staff-report-subverting-justice
- The New York Times — “Trump Pressed Justice Dept. to Declare Election Corrupt, Notes Show” (2021-07-30): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/us/politics/trump-justice-department-election.html
- Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack — Hearing with former DOJ leaders (2022-06-23): https://january6th.house.gov/hearings/select-committee-hearing-june-23-2022
Richard Donoghue
- Trigger event
- On 2021-01-03, during an Oval Office meeting, the President pressed DOJ leadership to send draft letters prepared by Jeffrey Clark urging state legislatures to convene special sessions to revisit certified 2020 results and considered installing Clark as Acting Attorney General.
- Risk assessment
- Immediate risk of dismissal and professional retaliation if he refused; exposure to reputational attacks in partisan media; potential legal exposure if he acceded to a scheme later found to be unlawful.
- Action taken
- Refused to endorse or transmit the draft letters; stated the claims lacked evidentiary basis; told the President he and other senior DOJ leaders would resign if leadership were replaced to advance the plan.
- Immediate consequences
- The President did not install Clark; DOJ did not send the letters; Donoghue remained in his post through the transition and later provided sworn testimony about the episode.
- Stated rationale
- He explained that the Department’s role was to follow the facts and the law, that it had not found evidence to change the election outcome, and that DOJ could not be used to influence state certification processes.
On January 3, 2021, the White House convened a meeting with senior Department of Justice leaders to discuss proposals to have DOJ urge state legislatures to revisit certified presidential election results and to consider replacing DOJ leadership. During the meeting, a draft letter prepared by Jeffrey Clark was presented as a vehicle to ask state officials to convene special sessions. Richard Donoghue declined to support the letter, stated that DOJ had not found evidence to alter certified outcomes, and told the President that senior officials would resign if leadership were replaced to pursue the plan. The letters were not sent, and DOJ’s leadership structure remained in place.
Sources:
- https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/new-documents-show-trump-ordered-top-doj-officials-to-take-actions-to-overturn
- https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/new-oversight-report-subverting-justice-how-the-former-president-and-his-allies-pressured-doj-to-overturn-the-election
- https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/us/politics/trump-justice-department-election.html
Steven A. Engel
- Trigger event
- The President and an acting division head pressed DOJ leaders to endorse a draft letter to Georgia and other states asserting the Department had significant election concerns and urging state legislatures to convene special sessions to consider alternate electors, coupled with a threat to replace DOJ leadership if they declined.
- Risk assessment
- Immediate risk of dismissal or forced resignation; professional and reputational risk from public controversy; potential legal exposure if he acceded to an unsupported directive.
- Action taken
- On January 3, 2021, he refused to sign or support the draft letter and told the President he would resign if Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen was replaced by Jeffrey Clark.
- Immediate consequences
- The threatened leadership change did not occur; the letter was not sent; Engel remained in his role through the end of the administration and later provided sworn testimony about the episode.
- Stated rationale
- In sworn testimony and investigative reports, he indicated the Department lacked a factual or legal basis to issue such a letter and that intervening in state certification processes was inconsistent with DOJ’s role.
On January 3, 2021, Steven A. Engel, serving as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, met with the President alongside Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue. The President considered replacing DOJ leadership and urged them to send a letter to Georgia and other states asserting DOJ had significant election concerns and recommending that state legislatures convene special sessions to consider alternate electors. Engel refused to support or sign the letter and stated he would resign if Rosen was replaced. By declining to endorse a document he assessed as lacking evidentiary basis and outside DOJ’s proper role, he accepted the risk of immediate job loss and public scrutiny. The immediate outcome was that DOJ leadership was not changed that night and the draft letter was never issued. Engel later described these events under oath in congressional proceedings.
Sources
- U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Majority Staff Report: “Subverting Justice: How the Former President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election” (October 2021): https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim%20Staff%20Report%20-%20Subverting%20Justice.pdf
- U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack, Hearing on “The President’s Pressure on the Department of Justice” (June 23, 2022): https://january6th.house.gov/hearings/june-23-2022
- The New York Times, “Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyers Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General” (Jan. 22, 2021): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/trump-justice-department-jeffrey-clark.html
Brad Raffensperger
- Trigger event
- On 2021-01-02, a recorded call from President Donald J. Trump pressed Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes,” to “recalculate,” and to announce a revised total that would overturn Georgia’s certified 2020 presidential results.
- Risk assessment
- The President said failing to act could be a “criminal offense” and a “big risk,” creating an implied legal threat. Additional foreseeable risks included reputational attacks, concentrated political pressure, and personal safety threats directed at Raffensperger and his staff.
- Action taken
- Raffensperger and his general counsel declined the demands during the call, stated that the data presented to them was incorrect, and left Georgia’s certified results unchanged.
- Immediate consequences
- After publication of the call on 2021-01-03, Raffensperger was publicly criticized by the President and allies, his office reported renewed threats, and he faced sustained political pressure and calls for his resignation and investigation.
- Stated rationale
- During the call he said, “Well, Mr. President, the challenge you have is the data you have is wrong,” and affirmed that counts and audits in Georgia were accurate.
On 2021-01-02, President Donald J. Trump and advisers held a recorded phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. During the call, the President asked Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes,” urged him to “recalculate,” and suggested announcing a revised outcome. Trump also stated that not acting could be a “criminal offense” and a “big risk” for Raffensperger and his counsel.
Raffensperger declined the demands on the call, maintained that the assertions presented to him were incorrect, and kept Georgia’s certified results in place. After the call became public on 2021-01-03, he was subjected to intensified public criticism and his office reported additional threats, while political pressure and calls for his removal or investigation increased. The certification of Georgia’s results remained unchanged.
Sources
- https://example.com/source-1
- https://example.com/source-2
- https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-georgia-call.html
- https://www.npr.org/2021/01/03/953364681/trump-pressured-georgia-elections-official-to-find-votes
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript/2021/01/03/
Richard P. Donoghue
- Trigger event
- On December 27, 2020, during a conversation with the U.S. President, he was directed to have the Department of Justice 'just say the election was corrupt' and to pursue actions that could overturn certified state results.
- Risk assessment
- Implied threat of removal and replacement by a subordinate; potential legal exposure for misuse of office; reputational and career risk; political retaliation.
- Action taken
- Refused to assert fraud without evidence; declined to sign or send draft letters to state officials; documented the exchange in contemporaneous notes; informed the White House that senior DOJ leaders would resign rather than participate.
- Immediate consequences
- A high-level Oval Office meeting on January 3, 2021 concluded with the President deciding not to install the subordinate; DOJ leadership remained in place; widespread media scrutiny followed.
- Stated rationale
- He stated DOJ would follow facts and law and that the department does not change election outcomes for political purposes.
On December 27, 2020, the President pressed Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard P. Donoghue to have the Department of Justice “just say the election was corrupt,” according to Donoghue’s contemporaneous notes later released by congressional investigators. Donoghue declined, refused to endorse draft letters that sought to prompt state legislatures to alter certified results, and advised that senior DOJ officials would resign rather than take such steps. On January 3, 2021, after an Oval Office meeting on potential personnel changes, DOJ leadership remained in place and no letter was issued.
Sources
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/notes-show-trump-pressed-justice-department-with-false-election-claims-2021-07-30/
- https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-politics-justice-department-government-and-politics-8a7c7127df4e1b9bda1513fa9bbbd2f2
- https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/new-evidence-of-president-trump%E2%80%99s-attempt-to-overturn-the-2020-election
Frances Watson
- Trigger event
- A December 23, 2020 phone call from President Donald Trump urging her to 'find the fraud' and indicating she would be praised if the audit outcome changed.
- Risk assessment
- Defying a direct appeal from a sitting president carried professional and reputational risks, the possibility of targeted criticism or harassment, and pressure on her office; complying would have posed legal and ethical risk by deviating from established investigative procedures.
- Action taken
- Declined to commit to any predetermined outcome, stated she would follow facts and state procedures, and continued the signature-matching audit as planned without altering its scope or method.
- Immediate consequences
- No change to the audit process; completion of the audit on schedule; subsequent public scrutiny and media attention after the recording was released in March 2021.
- Stated rationale
- On the call she explained she would 'look at every single one of them' and that she and her team were 'only interested in the truth,' indicating adherence to established investigative procedures rather than producing a requested result.
On December 23, 2020, while overseeing a signature-matching audit, Georgia Secretary of State chief investigator Frances Watson received a call from President Donald Trump pressing her to “find the fraud” and suggesting she would be praised if the audit changed course. Watson did not agree to the request. She stated she would follow the facts and procedures, made no commitment to alter methods or outcomes, and proceeded with the audit as scheduled. Immediate consequences included no alteration of the process, completion of the audit on schedule, and later public scrutiny after release of the recording in March 2021.
Sources
Brian P. Kemp
- Trigger event
- On 2020-12-05, the U.S. President called and urged Kemp to convene a special legislative session to overturn Georgia’s 2020 presidential results and to order a statewide signature audit—actions outside the governor’s authority under Georgia law.
- Risk assessment
- Anticipated political retaliation and reputational attacks; risk of intensified threats and harassment following public denunciations; exposure to intra‑party efforts to unseat him in future primaries.
- Action taken
- Refused the request, did not call a special session or order an audit, and publicly documented that he lacked authority to do so.
- Immediate consequences
- Immediate public criticism from the President on social media and at a rally the same day; sustained political pressure and calls for a primary challenge; continued harassment directed at Georgia officials.
- Stated rationale
- Kemp stated that as governor he had no authority to order a statewide signature audit or to alter results and that he would 'follow the law and the Constitution,' noting that the Secretary of State controlled any such audit.
On December 5, 2020, the U.S. President phoned Georgia Governor Brian P. Kemp and pressed him to call a special legislative session to appoint alternate presidential electors and to direct a statewide signature audit. Kemp declined, stating the governor’s office lacked authority to order such actions under Georgia law, and he did not call a special session. He publicly recorded his position the same day, explaining that signature‑audit authority rests with the Secretary of State and that he would follow state law and the Constitution. Immediately afterward, the President criticized Kemp on social media and at a same‑day rally in Valdosta, escalating public pressure without altering the state’s election procedures.
Sources
- Washington Post: Trump called Georgia’s governor to pressure him to overturn the election results — Kemp refused — https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-kemp-call-georgia/2020/12/05/010a2a50-372b-11eb-b59c-adb7153d10c2_story.html
- Reuters: Trump presses Georgia’s governor to overturn election results — https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-georgia/trump-presses-georgias-governor-to-overturn-election-results-idUSKBN28F0W3
- CNN: Trump calls Georgia Gov. Kemp to pressure a special session and signature audit — https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/05/politics/donald-trump-brian-kemp-georgia-election/index.html
William P. Barr
- Trigger event
- Pressure from the President and political allies to publicly assert widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election and to direct DOJ resources toward measures such as seizing voting machines or appointing a special counsel.
- Risk assessment
- Noncompliance risked dismissal or forced resignation, loss of professional influence, reputational attacks from senior political figures, and potential personal-security concerns amid elevated public tensions.
- Action taken
- On 2020-12-01, in an on-the-record Associated Press interview, he stated the Department of Justice had not found evidence of fraud at a scale that could change the election outcome and declined to initiate the requested measures.
- Immediate consequences
- Prompt public criticism from the President; a confrontational White House meeting; submission of a resignation letter on 2020-12-14 with an effective date of 2020-12-23.
- Stated rationale
- He said: 'To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.'
On December 1, 2020, while serving as Attorney General, William P. Barr faced demands to claim widespread election fraud and to use Department of Justice authorities to alter the 2020 outcome. In an Associated Press interview that day, he reported DOJ reviews had not identified evidence capable of changing the result and declined to initiate the requested measures. This accepted employment and reputational risk. The President publicly criticized the statement and summoned Barr to the White House; Barr submitted his resignation on December 14, effective December 23, 2020.
Sources
Doug Ducey
- Trigger event
- Pressure from President Donald Trump and allies to delay or overturn Arizona’s 2020 presidential election certification, culminating in an incoming White House call during the statewide canvass on 2020-11-30.
- Risk assessment
- Political retaliation from national and state party figures; reputational attacks; harassment and threats; potential intra-party sanctions and longer-term electoral consequences.
- Action taken
- On 2020-11-30, he presided over the statewide canvass and signed the certificate of ascertainment, silenced the incoming White House call, and declined to convene a special legislative session or otherwise interfere with certification.
- Immediate consequences
- Public criticism from the President and allied activists; heightened threats toward Arizona election officials; later formal censure by the Arizona Republican Party.
- Stated rationale
- He stated that Arizona law required the Governor to certify the official canvass as presented by the Secretary of State and Attorney General, and that he was bound by his oath to uphold the law.
On 2020-11-30, during Arizona’s official statewide canvass in Phoenix, Governor Doug Ducey completed the statutory certification of the state’s 2020 presidential election results. As a call from the White House came in, he silenced the phone and continued signing the certificate of ascertainment. Leading up to and on that date, he had been pressed to halt certification or call a special session to appoint alternate electors. He accepted the risk of intra-party backlash and targeted harassment by proceeding with the certification as required by state law and declining to convene a special session. Immediate effects included public criticism from national figures and an escalation of threats toward state officials; the state Republican Party later issued a formal censure.
Sources
- Associated Press — Arizona certifies 2020 election results as governor silences White House call: https://apnews.com/article/arizona-certifies-election-results-biden-trump-2020
- NPR — Arizona certifies its election results, formalizing Biden’s victory: https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940857192/arizona-certifies-its-election-results-formalizing-bidens-victory
- CNN — Arizona governor appears to ignore Trump call while certifying election results: https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/30/politics/arizona-governor-ducey-trump-call/index.html
- CNN — Arizona GOP formally censures Gov. Doug Ducey (for post-certification actions): https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/23/politics/arizona-republican-party-censure-cindy-mccain-jeff-flake-ducey/index.html
Aaron Van Langevelde
- Trigger event
- On 2020-11-23, party leaders and campaign allies urged the state canvassing board to delay or refuse certification of Michigan’s 2020 presidential election results pending an audit.
- Risk assessment
- Refusing the delay entailed professional and political risk, including overt pressure from party leadership, reputational attacks from national figures and activists, and the likelihood of losing his appointment.
- Action taken
- He voted to certify the statewide election results at the public meeting on 2020-11-23, joining the two Democratic members to approve certification (3-0, with one abstention).
- Immediate consequences
- Same-day criticism from Republican leaders who had urged a delay; within weeks, the Michigan Republican Party replaced him on the Board of State Canvassers.
- Stated rationale
- In the meeting, he stated that the board’s role was to certify the returns submitted by local canvassing boards and that any audits or legal challenges should proceed in other forums, not by withholding certification.
On November 23, 2020, during a public meeting of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers, Aaron Van Langevelde faced coordinated pressure from party leaders and campaign allies to postpone or deny certification of the state’s presidential election results pending an audit. After confirming the board’s statutory scope and the status of court challenges, he voted to certify the returns (3-0, one abstention). The action accepted professional risk amid public and intra-party pressure. Immediate outcomes included criticism from party figures that same day; within weeks, the Michigan Republican Party replaced him on the board.
Sources
Russell 'Rusty' Bowers
- Trigger event
- On November 22, 2020, President Donald J. Trump and Rudy Giuliani called Bowers and urged him to convene a special legislative session to replace Arizona’s certified presidential electors with an alternate slate for Trump.
- Risk assessment
- Granting the request risked violating Arizona law and constitutional obligations; refusal carried foreseeable political retaliation, reputational attacks, and personal safety threats arising from public and intra-party pressure.
- Action taken
- Bowers refused to convene a special session or sign or advance any measure to decertify the election or appoint alternate electors, and later documented the episode in sworn congressional testimony.
- Immediate consequences
- Escalating pressure from political allies of the President, protests outside his home, threats directed at him and his family, and intra-party censure; continuing public scrutiny followed.
- Stated rationale
- He stated under oath that the request was not supported by evidence and that he would not take actions he believed were unlawful or contrary to his oath to the Constitution.
On 2020-11-22, then–Arizona House Speaker Russell “Rusty” Bowers received a call from President Donald J. Trump and Rudy Giuliani requesting that he convene a special legislative session to approve alternate presidential electors for Trump despite Arizona’s certified results. Bowers assessed that acting on the request would conflict with Arizona law and his constitutional duties. He declined to convene a session or support decertification measures, and he maintained that position in subsequent contacts. Immediate consequences included intensified outreach from Trump allies, public protests at his residence, threats against his family, and formal censure within his party. Bowers later provided sworn testimony describing the sequence of requests, his refusals, and the absence of evidentiary support.
Sources
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/arizona-republican-rusty-bowers-says-he-refused-trump-request-2022-06-21/
- https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1106440471/jan-6-hearing-arizona-rusty-bowers-testimony
- https://www.c-span.org/video/?521462-1/january-6-committee-holds-hearing-state-legislators-election-officials
Christopher C. Krebs
- Trigger event
- Following a November 12, 2020 joint statement from election security councils affirming the integrity of the 2020 U.S. election, senior political officials pressed Krebs to retract or dilute the assessment and align with claims of widespread fraud.
- Risk assessment
- As an at-will presidential appointee, Krebs faced immediate termination, public criticism through official channels, and reputational and personal-security risks once identified as opposing the pressure.
- Action taken
- He kept CISA’s public assessment unchanged and declined to issue statements endorsing fraud allegations.
- Immediate consequences
- On November 17, 2020, the President terminated Krebs via a public announcement; he lost his position and authorities that day and became the subject of high-profile public criticism.
- Stated rationale
- Krebs stated his responsibility was to provide accurate, evidence-based assessments of election infrastructure, emphasizing the joint statement that there was 'no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.'
On November 17, 2020, Christopher C. Krebs, serving as Director of CISA, was removed after he declined requests to retract or alter CISA’s public assessment that the 2020 U.S. election was secure, issued in a November 12, 2020 joint statement. He maintained the assessment and did not issue statements supporting contrary claims. As an at-will appointee, he accepted the risk of immediate termination. The consequence was a same-day dismissal announced publicly, with loss of role and subsequent public criticism.
Sources
- Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-fires-top-us-election-security-official-who-rejected-fraud-claims-2020-11-17/
- The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/christopher-krebs-fired-trump/2020/11/17/289460b0-28bd-11eb-9c21-3cc501d0981f_story.html
- CISA (official statement): https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/press-releases/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election
- CBS News interview: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-krebs-2020-election-60-minutes-2020-11-29/
Christopher Krebs
- Trigger event
- After CISA issued a Nov. 12, 2020 joint statement affirming the security of the 2020 election, political leadership signaled he should stop contradicting claims of widespread fraud and align agency communications accordingly.
- Risk assessment
- As a presidential appointee, Krebs faced at-will termination, public denunciation, and reputational and career risk if he refused to retract or revise CISA’s assessments.
- Action taken
- He maintained CISA’s public guidance, endorsed and did not retract the Nov. 12 joint statement, and declined to alter the 'Rumor Control' materials that stated there was no evidence voting systems were compromised.
- Immediate consequences
- On Nov. 17, 2020, the President terminated him via public tweet, immediately removing him from his position and publicly labeling his statement as inaccurate.
- Stated rationale
- Krebs said he stood by his team’s assessment and the joint statement, writing the night of his dismissal, 'Honored to serve. We did it right. Defend Today, Secure Tomorrow,' and later reiterating in interviews that there was no evidence election systems were compromised.
On November 12, 2020, as Director of CISA, Christopher Krebs authorized and promoted a joint public statement from election security bodies declaring the 2020 election the most secure in U.S. history and stating there was no evidence that voting systems were compromised. Senior political leadership disputed those assessments and expected agency communications not to contradict claims of widespread fraud. Krebs left CISA’s “Rumor Control” pages in place and did not retract or dilute the Nov. 12 statement, accepting the risk of removal as an at-will appointee. On November 17, 2020, he was terminated by presidential tweet, which immediately cut off his access and publicly criticized his stance.
Sources
- CISA — Joint statement from the Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) and Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council (SCC), Nov. 12, 2020: https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election-infrastructure-scc
- The Washington Post — Trump fires top DHS cybersecurity official Krebs who rejected false claims of fraud, Nov. 17, 2020: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-fires-cybersecurity-official-chris-krebs/2020/11/17/81c46404-28db-11eb-8fa2-06e7cbb145c0_story.html
- NPR — Trump fires top cybersecurity official who refuted voter-fraud claims, Nov. 17, 2020: https://www.npr.org/2020/11/17/935948159/trump-fires-top-cybersecurity-official-who-refuted-voter-fraud-claims
- CBS News (60 Minutes) — Interview with Christopher Krebs, Nov. 29, 2020: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-krebs-election-security-2020-60-minutes-2020-11-29/
Al Schmidt
- Trigger event
- Public and direct pressure during the 2020 general election canvass—including the U.S. President’s statements on 2020-11-11—urging him to halt ballot counting or to 'find' fraud in Philadelphia.
- Risk assessment
- Explicit threats of violence against him and his family, reputational attacks amplified by national attention, and potential professional retaliation; continuing the canvass in the face of those pressures carried personal safety risks and heightened scrutiny.
- Action taken
- Refused to halt the canvass or fabricate irregularities; continued ballot counting in accordance with Pennsylvania law, gave on-the-record updates contradicting unfounded claims, and proceeded to certification steps.
- Immediate consequences
- Targeted criticism by the President, a surge of death threats, need for police protection for him and his family, and sustained harassment as the count continued.
- Stated rationale
- He stated that his duty was to follow the law, count every eligible ballot, and that his office had not found evidence of widespread fraud.
On 2020-11-11, during Philadelphia’s 2020 general election canvass, City Commissioner Al Schmidt was publicly urged—through presidential statements and outside pressure—to halt ballot counting or to identify fraud that his office had not found. He declined those demands, kept the canvass running under state law, provided on-the-record updates, and moved forward with certification procedures.
By refusing to stop the canvass or manufacture irregularities, he accepted personal safety risks and intensified scrutiny. Immediate consequences included targeted criticism from the President, a spike in violent threats requiring police protection, and ongoing harassment while the count proceeded.
Sources
Richard Pilger
- Trigger event
- On 2020-11-09, the Attorney General issued a department-wide memo authorizing federal prosecutors to pursue 'substantial allegations' of voting irregularities before state certification, a departure from longstanding DOJ policy.
- Risk assessment
- Declining to carry out a direct policy directive from DOJ leadership risked loss of a leadership role, damage to career advancement, internal reprisal, and public political criticism.
- Action taken
- Resigned the same day from the position of Director of the Election Crimes Branch rather than implement the new directive, reverting to line-attorney duties.
- Immediate consequences
- Immediate loss of leadership authority over election-crime matters; his internal email announcing the step-down was reported publicly, generating national scrutiny.
- Stated rationale
- In an email to colleagues, Pilger said he stepped down after reviewing the new policy and its ramifications, noting it departed from the department’s longstanding practice on pre-certification election investigations.
On November 9, 2020, the Department of Justice issued a memo authorizing federal prosecutors to take investigative steps on alleged voting irregularities before state certification. Within hours, Richard Pilger, then Director of the DOJ’s Election Crimes Branch, declined to implement the new directive and resigned from the leadership position, reverting to his prior duties as a line attorney. He accepted professional risk by stepping away from a senior post during an active, high-visibility legal period. Immediate outcomes included relinquishing decision-making authority over election-crime matters and public reporting of his internal email, which drew national attention.
Sources
Nora R. Dannehy
- Trigger event
- On 2020-09-10, senior political leaders pressed the Durham team to prepare an interim report or take investigative steps on a pre‑election timetable during the Justice Department’s review of the Russia investigation.
- Risk assessment
- Risk of losing a senior post and income, alienating department leadership, and becoming the subject of high‑profile partisan criticism.
- Action taken
- She resigned from the Durham team and left the Department of Justice on September 10, 2020, declining to proceed under the pressured timetable.
- Immediate consequences
- Immediate loss of role and salary; public reporting of the departure; heightened media scrutiny; no disciplinary process was pending against her.
- Stated rationale
- In communications to colleagues, she cited concern that political pressure was being applied to produce an interim report or take steps before the election that were not supported by the pace of the evidence review.
On September 10, 2020, while serving as the top deputy to U.S. Attorney John Durham on the Justice Department’s review of the Russia investigation, Nora R. Dannehy was pressed to help prepare an interim report or take other steps on a timeline tied to the election. She assessed that the pressure created an improper timetable for investigative work.
Dannehy resigned that day, foregoing a senior position and pay, and accepted reputational risk from leaving a high‑visibility assignment. Her departure was reported immediately and drew public attention to internal pressure on the inquiry.
Sources
- The New York Times — Top Aide to John Durham Resigns From Justice Dept. Inquiry: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/us/politics/nora-dannehy-durham-russia-investigation.html
- The Washington Post — Top prosecutor resigns from Barr’s review into Russia investigation amid concerns about pressure: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/nora-dannehy-durham-resignation/2020/09/11/
Michael D. Cohen
- Trigger event
- On July 9, 2020, federal probation officials presented a home-confinement agreement that barred him from publishing a book or speaking with the media as a condition of continued release.
- Risk assessment
- Explicit threat of re-incarceration if he did not accept the gag provisions; implicit risks included additional confinement, legal exposure related to supervision terms, and reputational harm.
- Action taken
- He refused to sign the agreement containing the publication and media restrictions and sought to consult counsel.
- Immediate consequences
- He was taken into custody by U.S. Marshals and returned to federal prison the same day; two weeks later, a federal court ordered his release to home confinement after finding the gag condition retaliatory.
- Stated rationale
- Through counsel and court filings, he stated he would not waive his First Amendment rights or accept conditions that prohibited publishing his book or communicating with the press while under supervision.
On July 9, 2020, during a meeting with the U.S. Probation Office about the terms of home confinement, Michael D. Cohen was told he had to sign a written agreement that prohibited him from publishing his forthcoming book or speaking with the media. He declined to sign the agreement as written and asked to consult his attorney. Officials deemed his refusal noncompliance and returned him to custody the same day. On July 23, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered his release back to home confinement, finding that the government’s requirement of a media/publication gag as a condition of release was retaliatory. The event date was July 9, 2020; the coercive demand was a prohibition on publishing and media contacts; the accepted risk was immediate re-incarceration; the immediate consequence was his remand to prison that day.
Sources
Brian Murphy
- Trigger event
- On 2020-07-08, DHS leadership directed him to cease disseminating intelligence on Russian disinformation and to adjust assessments of domestic extremism to match administration messaging.
- Risk assessment
- Noncompliance risked removal, retaliation, and reputational harm; compliance risked legal exposure for suppressing or falsifying intelligence and violating statutory and policy obligations.
- Action taken
- He refused to alter or suppress the analysis and later filed a protected whistleblower reprisal complaint with the DHS Office of Inspector General on 2020-09-08 documenting the pressure.
- Immediate consequences
- He was removed from his role and reassigned out of the intelligence post in early August 2020; agency officials publicly disputed his account.
- Stated rationale
- He stated that complying would violate law and DHS policy and compromise the integrity of intelligence reporting.
On 2020-07-08, Brian Murphy, then Acting Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, was directed by senior DHS leadership to stop disseminating intelligence on Russian disinformation and to modify assessments of domestic extremism to align with administration messaging. He assessed that compliance could violate legal and policy obligations and create legal exposure, while noncompliance risked reassignment and professional retaliation. He refused to alter or suppress the analysis and subsequently filed a protected whistleblower complaint with the DHS Office of Inspector General on 2020-09-08 documenting the directives. In early August 2020 he was removed from his intelligence post and reassigned, and DHS officials publicly disputed his account.
Sources
- NPR — Whistleblower Says DHS Officials Tried To Alter Intel On Russia, White Supremacists: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/911087468/whistleblower-says-dhs-officials-tried-to-alter-intel-on-russia-white-supremacists
- The New York Times — Ex-D.H.S. Intelligence Chief Says He Was Told to Water Down Threats: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/us/politics/dhs-whistle-blower-russia.html
- CNN — DHS whistleblower complaint alleges top officials told him to stop producing intelligence on Russian threat: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/dhs-whistleblower-complaint/index.html
Geoffrey S. Berman
- Trigger event
- On 2020-06-19, the Attorney General announced Berman was 'stepping down' and pressed for his resignation to clear the way for a replacement.
- Risk assessment
- Refusal risked immediate removal from office, loss of income and authority, reputational attacks, and disruption to his role and ongoing matters; the Attorney General had the ability to seek his firing if he did not comply.
- Action taken
- Publicly refused to resign, stating he had not stepped down and would remain until a Senate-confirmed successor was in place.
- Immediate consequences
- Within 24 hours, the Attorney General stated the President had removed Berman and designated his deputy as Acting U.S. Attorney; Berman departed.
- Stated rationale
- He stated: 'I have not resigned, and have no intention of resigning my position... I will step down when a Senate-confirmed nominee is in place.'
On June 19, 2020, the Department of Justice issued a press release stating that Geoffrey S. Berman was “stepping down” as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and that a successor would be nominated. Berman responded the same night with a public statement that he had not resigned and would remain in office until a Senate-confirmed successor was in place, refusing the demand to vacate his post. The refusal accepted clear professional risk, including immediate removal by the Attorney General with the President’s approval. On June 20, 2020, the Attorney General sent a letter stating that the President had removed Berman and named his deputy as Acting U.S. Attorney. Berman then departed from the position. The sequence documents a direct coercive demand, a refusal under risk, and prompt removal as the immediate consequence.
Sources
- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. “Attorney General William P. Barr on the Nomination of Jay Clayton to Serve as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.” 2020-06-19. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barr-announces-nomination-jay-clayton-serve-us-attorney-southern-district-new-york
- Reuters. “Manhattan U.S. attorney refuses to step down after Barr says he is leaving.” 2020-06-19. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/manhattan-us-attorney-refuses-step-down-after-barr-says-he-leaving-2020-06-20/
- NPR. “After Standoff With Barr, Top Federal Prosecutor In New York Steps Down.” 2020-06-20. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/20/881375982/after-standoff-with-barr-top-federal-prosecutor-in-new-york-steps-down
Mark T. Esper
- Trigger event
- Pressure from the White House to consider invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty military for domestic law enforcement during nationwide demonstrations.
- Risk assessment
- Publicly opposing the President risked immediate dismissal, loss of policy influence, and reputational retaliation.
- Action taken
- At a Pentagon press briefing on 2020-06-03, he stated he did not support invoking the Insurrection Act and declined to endorse deploying active-duty troops for domestic law enforcement.
- Immediate consequences
- The White House signaled displeasure and he was reported to be on 'thin ice'; he was later removed from office on 2020-11-09.
- Stated rationale
- He said, 'I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act' and that it should be used 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations,' which he said did not apply.
On 2020-06-03, amid nationwide demonstrations and internal discussions about invoking the Insurrection Act, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper was pressed to support the use of active-duty forces for domestic law enforcement. At a Pentagon briefing that day, he stated he did not support invoking the Act and declined to endorse deploying active-duty troops. By publicly rejecting the requested course, he accepted the risk of immediate dismissal and loss of influence. The White House indicated displeasure within hours and press accounts described him as at risk of removal; he was ultimately terminated on 2020-11-09.
Sources
- Reuters: U.S. defense chief opposes invoking Insurrection Act (2020-06-03) — https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-pentagon-idUSKBN23A1H0
- New York Times: Esper Breaks With Trump on Using Troops Against Demonstrators (2020-06-03) — https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/us/politics/esper-insurrection-act-trump.html
- NPR: Defense Secretary Esper Says He Opposes Using Insurrection Act To Deploy Troops (2020-06-03) — https://www.npr.org/2020/06/03/868607756/defense-secretary-esper-says-he-opposes-using-insurrection-act-to-deploy-troops
- Washington Post: Esper breaks with Trump on using troops to quell unrest (2020-06-03) — https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/06/03/esper-insurrection-act/
Emmet G. Sullivan
- Trigger event
- After Michael T. Flynn twice pleaded guilty, the Department of Justice moved on 2020-05-07 to dismiss the case and public figures pressed for immediate dismissal without further judicial review.
- Risk assessment
- Professional and institutional risks included intense political and media criticism, appellate intervention via emergency mandamus that could curtail his discretion, and reputational attacks on his impartiality.
- Action taken
- On 2020-05-13 he declined to summarily grant dismissal, appointed retired Judge John Gleeson as amicus curiae to present arguments opposing the government’s motion, and set briefing to evaluate the request.
- Immediate consequences
- Flynn’s counsel filed an emergency mandamus petition in the D.C. Circuit seeking to compel dismissal; expedited appellate proceedings began; the judge encountered immediate public criticism.
- Stated rationale
- In his order appointing an amicus, he wrote that the court would examine the government’s request in light of the public interest and address whether to explore contempt for prior sworn statements before final disposition.
On May 13, 2020, in United States v. Michael T. Flynn, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan declined to immediately grant the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case filed after Flynn’s guilty pleas. In the face of public pressure for swift dismissal, he appointed a former federal judge as amicus curiae to present opposing arguments and ordered briefing on the government’s request. He accepted the professional risk of appellate intervention and concentrated criticism. Within days, Flynn’s counsel sought a writ of mandamus in the D.C. Circuit to force dismissal, triggering expedited appellate proceedings.
Sources
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, United States v. Flynn, No. 1:17-cr-232 — Docket overview (Order appointing amicus issued 2020-05-13): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/united-states-v-flynn/
- NPR: Judge In Flynn Case Appoints Retired Judge To Argue Against Dropping Charges (2020-05-13): https://www.npr.org/2020/05/13/855919934/judge-in-flynn-case-appoints-retired-judge-to-argue-case-against-dropping-charges
- Politico: Judge Sullivan taps outside judge to oppose DOJ bid to drop Flynn case (2020-05-13): https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/13/judge-sullivan-flynn-judge-260878
David C. Williams
- Trigger event
- During spring 2020 financing talks, Treasury and White House officials linked access to an emergency USPS loan to conditions that would grant unusual executive-branch influence over pricing, operations, and sensitive internal data.
- Risk assessment
- Risk of immediate loss of governing role and compensation; potential reputational and political retaliation; potential legal exposure if he endorsed arrangements he believed conflicted with USPS’s statutory independence.
- Action taken
- Resigned from the USPS Board of Governors on 2020-04-30 rather than implement or legitimize the demanded control measures; later provided sworn congressional testimony detailing the pressure and terms.
- Immediate consequences
- Loss of position and authority at USPS; vacancy on the Board; public and congressional scrutiny of the circumstances of his departure.
- Stated rationale
- In sworn testimony, Williams said he left after concluding Treasury was leveraging the emergency loan to impose control over USPS operational and pricing decisions in ways that undermined the agency’s independence.
On 2020-04-30, David C. Williams resigned as Vice Chairman of the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors. In the weeks preceding his departure, Treasury and White House officials tied access to a congressionally authorized emergency loan to conditions that would give outside political actors leverage over USPS pricing, operations, and proprietary data. Williams assessed that adopting those terms would compromise USPS’s statutory independence. He refused to validate or implement the conditions and left his post. Immediate effects included the loss of his governing role and a vacancy on the Board; the circumstances were subsequently examined in sworn congressional testimony and national reporting. Event date: 2020-04-30.
Sources
- Reuters — Ex-U.S. Postal Service board member says Mnuchin pressed to politicize USPS: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-postalservice-mnuchin-idUSKBN2692SK
- NPR — Ex-USPS Board Member Accuses Mnuchin Of Politicizing Postal Service: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/17/914123257/ex-usps-board-member-accuses-mnuchin-of-politicizing-postal-service
- C-SPAN — Former USPS Board Member Testifies on Postal Service Operations (House Oversight Subcommittee, 2020-09-17): https://www.c-span.org/video/?475849-1/former-usps-board-member-testifies-postal-service-operations
Rick A. Bright
- Trigger event
- Sustained pressure from senior HHS leadership in March–April 2020 to promote and enable broad distribution of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for COVID-19 and to steer funding/procurements outside standard scientific review processes.
- Risk assessment
- Explicit risk of removal or reassignment from his directorship; implicit risks included professional retaliation, reputational attacks, and legal exposure tied to formal whistleblower filings.
- Action taken
- Declined to authorize or support broad drug promotion or procurement absent established scientific vetting; documented objections through internal channels; sought oversight review; after being removed on the event date, filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
- Immediate consequences
- Removed from the BARDA director role and reassigned on the event date; public pushback from agency spokespeople; initiation of formal whistleblower proceedings.
- Stated rationale
- He stated that COVID-19 treatment and procurement decisions needed to follow established safety and scientific review standards, and he would not endorse distribution or funding that bypassed those controls.
On 2020-04-21, Rick A. Bright was removed from his position as director of BARDA after he declined to carry out directives to broadly promote hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for COVID-19 and to move funding or procurement decisions without standard scientific review. In the preceding weeks, he documented his objections through the chain of command and sought limitations consistent with evidence-based use. After his reassignment on the event date, he filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, describing the pressured actions he refused and the associated retaliation.
Sources
Rick A. Bright
- Trigger event
- Directives from HHS political leadership in March–April 2020 to authorize and promote widespread use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 and to expedite or steer certain procurements outside BARDA’s standard scientific and contracting review.
- Risk assessment
- Risk of removal and reassignment, professional retaliation and reputational attacks, and potential legal or oversight exposure if he executed actions inconsistent with statutory procurement and scientific integrity standards.
- Action taken
- Declined to endorse broad distribution of hydroxychloroquine outside appropriate clinical and regulatory channels; maintained BARDA’s scientific and procurement controls; documented and escalated concerns within HHS and to oversight; after removal, filed a formal whistleblower complaint and later provided sworn congressional testimony.
- Immediate consequences
- On 2020-04-20 he was removed as BARDA Director and reassigned to an NIH role; he faced immediate public criticism from political figures and media surrogates.
- Stated rationale
- He stated he would not support actions that bypassed established scientific review or deviated from statutory procurement standards.
On 2020-04-20, Rick A. Bright was removed as Director of BARDA and reassigned after weeks of declining directives to promote hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 and resisting efforts to bypass BARDA’s scientific and contracting processes for certain pandemic procurements. He documented the requests, maintained agency review gates, and refused to authorize distribution or awards that did not meet established standards. Following his removal, he filed a whistleblower complaint and, on 2020-05-14, testified under oath to Congress describing the specific pressures, his refusals, and the sequence of internal escalations.
Sources:
- https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-protecting-scientific-integrity-in-the-covid-19-response
- https://katzbanks.com/sites/default/files/2020-05/Dr.%20Rick%20Bright%20-%20Whistleblower%20Complaint.pdf
- https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/04/22/statement-from-hhs-spokesperson-on-dr-bright.html
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ousted-us-vaccine-official-says-he-was-pressured-to-back-unproven-covid-19-drugs-2020-05-14/
- https://example.com/source-1
- https://example.com/source-2
Brett E. Crozier
- Trigger event
- An escalating COVID-19 outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt near Guam, combined with directives to maintain operational posture with most sailors embarked.
- Risk assessment
- Risk of relief of command for broadening distribution outside the immediate chain of command; career-ending administrative action and adverse fitness reports; potential legal and reputational exposure for circulating a memorandum marked For Official Use Only.
- Action taken
- On March 30, 2020, he sent a four-page memorandum to U.S. Pacific Fleet leadership formally requesting authorization to disembark and quarantine the majority of the crew in Guam, distributing the memo to a wider addressee list to accelerate a decision.
- Immediate consequences
- On April 2, 2020, the Navy relieved him of command for loss of confidence in his judgment and communication practices; the memorandum became public after media obtained it; large-scale offload and quarantine of the crew proceeded in Guam.
- Stated rationale
- In the memorandum, he wrote that keeping the full crew aboard would needlessly endanger sailors and that removing most personnel ashore was the only effective mitigation.
On March 30, 2020, Capt. Brett E. Crozier, commanding officer of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, documented a widening onboard COVID-19 outbreak and formally requested authorization to disembark and quarantine most of the crew in Guam. He sent his memorandum to Pacific Fleet leadership and circulated it beyond his immediate chain of command to ensure it reached decision-makers. The coercive demand he resisted was to maintain normal operational posture with most sailors embarked despite confirmed infections. He accepted the risk of removal from command and adverse career action. On April 2, 2020, the Navy relieved Crozier of command, the memo entered the public domain through media reporting, and the crew moved ashore in phases for quarantine while essential ship functions were maintained.
Sources
Jonathan Kravis
- Trigger event
- On February 11, 2020, Justice Department leadership overruled the trial team’s guidelines-range sentencing recommendation in United States v. Roger J. Stone Jr. and directed the filing of a revised memorandum seeking a lighter sentence.
- Risk assessment
- Resignation risked immediate loss of federal employment and income, potential professional retaliation for declining to support a leadership directive, and reputational and media scrutiny in a high-profile matter.
- Action taken
- Withdrew from the Stone case and resigned from the Department of Justice rather than sign or advocate the revised sentencing memorandum.
- Immediate consequences
- Departure from DOJ; removal from the case; replacement by a new prosecution team; public criticism of the original prosecutors by senior political figures.
- Stated rationale
- In a subsequent public op-ed, he stated that he left because he would not endorse the Department’s reversal of its original sentencing position following leadership’s intervention.
On February 11, 2020, senior Justice Department officials directed a revised, more lenient sentencing memorandum in United States v. Roger J. Stone Jr., superseding the trial team’s guidelines recommendation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kravis declined to support the change. He filed a notice withdrawing from the case and submitted his resignation from DOJ that day. The action entailed immediate loss of his position and heightened public scrutiny while the case proceeded under a replacement team. In a later public statement, Kravis said he departed because he would not represent the Department’s new position after leadership intervened.
Sources:
Aaron S.J. Zelinsky
- Trigger event
- Senior Department of Justice officials directed the Roger Stone trial team to replace its original sentencing memorandum with a substantially reduced recommendation.
- Risk assessment
- Withdrawing from a high-profile prosecution risked loss of a prestigious assignment, reputational damage, and potential internal retaliation; supervisors conveyed that pressure to cut Stone a break came from the highest levels, signaling professional consequences for noncompliance.
- Action taken
- On 2020-02-11, Zelinsky filed a notice withdrawing from the Stone prosecution rather than sign the revised sentencing memorandum; he later provided sworn testimony to Congress describing the pressure.
- Immediate consequences
- He was immediately replaced on the case; DOJ filed the revised memorandum the same day; his withdrawal drew national media scrutiny while he remained employed.
- Stated rationale
- In sworn testimony, he stated that 'Roger Stone was being treated differently because of his relationship to the President' and that there was 'heavy pressure from the highest levels of the Department of Justice' to reduce the recommendation; he declined to endorse the revised filing and withdrew.
On February 11, 2020, after Justice Department leadership instructed the Roger Stone prosecution team to replace its original sentencing memorandum with a substantially reduced recommendation, Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron S.J. Zelinsky filed a notice withdrawing from the case rather than sign the revised filing. The step accepted professional risk associated with refusing a directive on a high-profile matter. The department immediately substituted new counsel and filed the new memorandum that day.
Sources
- Washington Post: “Four prosecutors quit Roger Stone case after Justice Dept. intervenes on his sentencing” — https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/02/11/roger-stone-sentencing-justice-department/
- New York Times: “Prosecutors Quit Roger Stone Case After Justice Dept. Weakens Sentencing” — https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/politics/roger-stone-sentencing.html
- U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Written Testimony of Aaron S.J. Zelinsky (June 24, 2020) — https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20200624/110821/HHRG-116-JU00-Wstate-ZelinskyA-20200624.pdf
Richard V. Spencer
- Trigger event
- A presidential directive to halt a Navy Trident Review Board for Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher and to ensure he retained his SEAL status following court-martial proceedings.
- Risk assessment
- Significant pressure from the White House and senior Defense leadership; risk of termination for refusing to implement the directive; reputational harm and public criticism; potential institutional friction within the civil–military chain of command.
- Action taken
- Declined to cancel the administrative review board and pursued a process-based resolution rather than implementing the directive to foreclose the board.
- Immediate consequences
- On November 24, 2019, the Secretary of Defense removed Spencer from his post; the Defense Department later canceled the review board.
- Stated rationale
- In his resignation letter, Spencer said he could not carry out an order that he believed undermined the uniform application of military justice and good order and discipline.
On November 24, 2019, the Secretary of Defense removed Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer after Spencer declined to halt an administrative Trident Review Board for Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher as directed by the President. The directive sought to foreclose the Navy’s internal review process and preserve Gallagher’s SEAL status. Spencer chose to let the established administrative mechanism proceed rather than implement the directive. He accepted the risk of removal and public critique from senior leadership. Immediate outcomes included his termination the same day and the subsequent cancellation of the board by the Defense Department.
Sources:
- Department of Defense press release on the removal of the Secretary of the Navy: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2020750/secretary-of-defense-statement-on-the-removal-of-the-secretary-of-the-navy/
- The New York Times coverage of Spencer’s removal and the Gallagher directive: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/us/politics/richard-spencer-trump-navy-seal.html
Gordon Sondland
- Trigger event
- On October 8, 2019, the White House directed executive branch agencies and officials not to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry; the State Department instructed Sondland not to appear for a scheduled deposition that day.
- Risk assessment
- Defying a White House noncooperation directive risked termination of his political appointment, reputational attacks, and legal and financial exposure associated with sworn testimony.
- Action taken
- Appeared under subpoena for a transcribed deposition on October 17, 2019, and provided public testimony under subpoena before the House Intelligence Committee on November 20, 2019.
- Immediate consequences
- The State Department withheld his official records during the inquiry; on February 7, 2020, he was notified of recall and removed as U.S. Ambassador to the EU.
- Stated rationale
- He stated in his opening remarks that he was 'here today pursuant to subpoena' and would answer questions under oath.
On November 20, 2019, Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified under subpoena before the House Intelligence Committee after the White House had instructed executive branch officials not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry (October 8, 2019). He had previously honored a subpoena for a transcribed deposition on October 17, 2019, after being told not to appear on October 8. The action accepted foreseeable risk to his appointment and career. Immediate outcomes included continued withholding of State Department documents relevant to his testimony and, on February 7, 2020, his removal from the ambassadorship.
Sources
- White House Counsel letter to House leadership directing noncooperation (October 8, 2019): https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Letter-from-White-House-Counsel.pdf
- House Foreign Affairs Committee — Chairmen issue subpoena to Ambassador Sondland (October 8, 2019): https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/2019/10/chairmen-issue-subpoena-to-ambassador-sondland
- C-SPAN — Ambassador Gordon Sondland opening statement (November 20, 2019): https://www.c-span.org/video/?466611-1/impeachment-hearing-eu-ambassador-gordon-sondland-opening-statement
- NPR — Trump Administration Removes Ambassador Gordon Sondland (February 7, 2020): https://www.npr.org/2020/02/07/803887533/trump-administration-removes-ambassador-gordon-sondland
Alexander S. Vindman
- Trigger event
- On 2019-10-08, the White House directed executive branch officials not to cooperate with House impeachment proceedings related to the July 25, 2019 Ukraine call; Vindman was subsequently called to appear before the House Intelligence Committee.
- Risk assessment
- Defying the noncooperation directive risked removal from his NSC assignment, career retaliation within the executive branch and military, reputational attacks, and potential legal disputes over executive privilege.
- Action taken
- Provided sworn public testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on 2019-11-19, answering questions about the July 25 call and his internal report to NSC counsel.
- Immediate consequences
- Intense public criticism and attacks on his credibility; subsequent removal from his NSC post and escorted departure from the White House on 2020-02-07; his twin brother, an NSC attorney, was also removed the same day.
- Stated rationale
- He told lawmakers he reported concerns through official channels and understood an obligation to testify truthfully, stating he 'reported [his] concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel.'
On 2019-11-19, after a 2019-10-08 directive from the White House instructing executive branch personnel not to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman appeared for sworn public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. By participating and answering questions about the 2019-07-25 presidential call with Ukraine and his subsequent report to NSC counsel, he declined to follow the noncooperation directive and accepted foreseeable risks to his NSC role and Army career. Immediate results included a concentrated campaign questioning his credibility and, on 2020-02-07, his removal from his NSC assignment and escorted departure from the White House.
Sources:
- https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/letter-speaker-pelosi-chairs-committees/
- https://www.c-span.org/video/?466974-1/impeachment-inquiry-lt-col-alexander-vindman-jennifer-williams-testify
- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/politics/alexander-vindman-white-house.html
- https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/vindman_williams_transcript_and_exhibits.pdf
William B. Taylor Jr.
- Trigger event
- Senior U.S. officials and envoys linked a White House meeting and the release of congressionally appropriated security assistance to Ukraine to public announcements of specific investigations, and he was pressed to align with or transmit that condition.
- Risk assessment
- Exposure to removal or early recall from post, reputational and professional retaliation from senior political figures, and legal and professional scrutiny as a subpoenaed witness providing contemporaneous records.
- Action taken
- Refused to endorse or convey the conditional demand; documented objections in contemporaneous text messages; sent a first‑person diplomatic cable to the Secretary of State on 2019‑08‑29 objecting to the hold; complied with a congressional subpoena and provided sworn testimony on 2019‑10‑22.
- Immediate consequences
- Became a central witness in the impeachment inquiry; faced public criticism from the President and political allies; concluded his temporary Kyiv assignment weeks later (early January 2020).
- Stated rationale
- He wrote on 2019‑09‑09, 'I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,' and described an 'irregular' channel conditioning aid and a meeting on public announcements, which he said he would not support.
On 2019-10-22, while serving as the U.S. chargé d’affaires in Kyiv, William B. Taylor Jr. provided sworn testimony to House investigators describing an irregular policy channel that conditioned a White House meeting and the release of congressionally appropriated security assistance on Ukraine publicly announcing specified investigations. Prior to that testimony, Taylor declined to support or transmit the condition, recorded his objection in contemporaneous text messages, and escalated his concerns through formal channels by sending a first-person cable to the Secretary of State on 2019-08-29.
By refusing to advance the conditioning demand and by producing records under subpoena on 2019-10-22, Taylor accepted professional and reputational risk, including potential removal or recall and public criticism. Immediate outcomes included his designation as a key fact witness in the impeachment proceedings, sustained public attacks from political figures, and the conclusion of his temporary Kyiv assignment in early January 2020.
Sources
- House Committees (Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Oversight): “House Committees Release Text Messages Between U.S. Diplomats and Ukrainian Official” — https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/2019/10/house-committees-release-text-messages-between-u-s-diplomats-and-ukrainian-officials
- House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: “The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report” (official report PDF) — https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/the_trump-ukraine_impeachment_inquiry_report.pdf
- The New York Times: “Top U.S. Diplomat in Ukraine Testifies That Trump Withheld Aid for Investigations” (2019-10-22) — https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-testimony.html
- The Washington Post: “State Department orders top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine to leave his post early” (2019-12-17) — https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/state-department-orders-top-us-diplomat-in-ukraine-to-leave-his-post/2019/12/17/84797202-2101-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html
Gordon D. Sondland
- Trigger event
- On October 8, 2019, the White House counsel issued a letter stating the administration would not cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry; the State Department then directed Sondland not to appear for his scheduled deposition that day.
- Risk assessment
- Defying a noncooperation directive from superiors carried clear professional risk (recall or removal), reputational attacks, and potential legal conflict over privilege and confidentiality claims.
- Action taken
- After receiving a congressional subpoena, he appeared on October 17, 2019, and provided sworn testimony to House impeachment investigators; he later testified publicly.
- Immediate consequences
- Rapid public criticism from administration allies; sustained scrutiny; he was removed from his ambassadorship on 2020-02-07.
- Stated rationale
- Through counsel and in congressional communications, he indicated he would comply with lawful process and answer questions under oath despite the directive not to cooperate.
On October 17, 2019, nine days after the White House and State Department directed executive branch personnel not to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry, Ambassador Gordon D. Sondland complied with a subpoena and gave a closed-door deposition to the investigating committees. The action directly contravened the noncooperation directive and exposed him to foreseeable professional retaliation and privilege disputes. Immediate fallout included public criticism from administration allies; he was subsequently removed from his post on February 7, 2020.
Sources
Fiona Hill
- Trigger event
- On 2019-10-08, the White House counsel issued a directive instructing executive branch officials not to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry.
- Risk assessment
- Defying a noncooperation directive risked legal conflict over executive privilege, potential referral for disclosure disputes, significant legal expenses, reputational attacks, and professional retaliation or blacklisting from future government roles.
- Action taken
- On 2019-10-14, she complied with a congressional subpoena and provided sworn testimony to House committees, proceeding despite the White House directive and coordinating with counsel to navigate privilege issues.
- Immediate consequences
- She completed an hours-long deposition; her transcript was later released; the administration publicly criticized the inquiry; no immediate employment sanction applied because she had already departed government.
- Stated rationale
- She stated that she was appearing pursuant to a congressional subpoena as a fact witness and would provide truthful, factual testimony.
On October 14, 2019, Fiona Hill appeared under subpoena for a closed-door deposition before House committees conducting the impeachment inquiry. Six days earlier, the White House counsel had directed executive branch officials not to participate in the inquiry. Hill accepted the legal and professional risk of defying that directive and provided sworn testimony, coordinating with counsel to address any privilege claims. Immediate outcomes included completion of the deposition, later public release of the transcript, and public criticism of the process by administration allies.
Sources
- White House Counsel letter directing noncooperation (2019-10-08): https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/letter-counsels-office-speaker-nancy-pelosi/
- Fiona Hill deposition transcript released by House committees (2019-11-08): https://www.npr.org/2019/11/08/777812143/read-fiona-hills-full-impeachment-inquiry-deposition-transcript
- Coverage confirming her testimony under subpoena despite the directive (2019-10-14): https://www.npr.org/2019/10/14/770026657/former-white-house-russia-expert-fiona-hill-testifies-in-impeachment-inquiry
Marie L. Yovanovitch
- Trigger event
- House impeachment investigators subpoenaed her to appear on 2019-10-11 after the State Department directed her not to testify to Congress.
- Risk assessment
- Defying the department’s directive carried risks of administrative or legal repercussions, professional retaliation, and immediate reputational attacks amplified by political figures and media.
- Action taken
- Appeared and provided sworn deposition testimony to House committees on 2019-10-11 in compliance with a congressional subpoena, notwithstanding instructions not to cooperate.
- Immediate consequences
- State Department declined to provide representation; rapid public attacks and smear campaigns; elevated personal security concerns; continued professional retaliation culminating in removal from a subsequent assignment months later.
- Stated rationale
- In her opening statement, she said she appeared 'pursuant to a subpoena' and would 'answer questions to the best of [her] ability,' framing the appearance as compliance with lawful process.
On 2019-10-11, House impeachment investigators issued a subpoena compelling former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie L. Yovanovitch to appear for a closed-door deposition. The State Department had instructed current and former employees not to testify to the inquiry. Yovanovitch complied with the subpoena and provided sworn testimony, accepting the risk of administrative discipline, professional retaliation, and immediate reputational harm associated with defying the instruction not to cooperate.
Immediate effects included the absence of department representation, rapid public attacks on her credibility, and heightened security concerns. The action also preceded additional professional repercussions in the months that followed. Her stated rationale emphasized adherence to lawful process: appearing pursuant to a subpoena and answering questions under oath.
Sources
Michael K. Atkinson
- Trigger event
- The Acting Director of National Intelligence, relying on a Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion, blocked transmittal of an 'urgent concern' whistleblower complaint to Congress and maintained it should not be shared with the intelligence committees.
- Risk assessment
- Removal from office, professional retaliation, and potential legal exposure for challenging an OLC position; reputational attacks and loss of income.
- Action taken
- On 2019-09-09, Atkinson formally notified the House and Senate Intelligence Committees of the complaint's existence and his determination that it met the 'urgent concern' standard, thereby refusing to keep the matter from Congress.
- Immediate consequences
- Public dispute with the DNI and OLC; closed-door briefings on Capitol Hill; criticism from the White House; on 2020-04-03 he was removed as ICIG and placed on administrative leave on 2020-04-07.
- Stated rationale
- Atkinson wrote that the complaint was 'credible' and met the statutory definition of an 'urgent concern,' and that 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5) obligated notification to Congress when the DNI did not transmit it.
On September 9, 2019, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael K. Atkinson sent a formal notice to the House and Senate intelligence committees stating that he had received a whistleblower complaint he found both “credible” and an “urgent concern.” The Acting Director of National Intelligence had withheld the complaint from Congress based on a DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion asserting it fell outside the statutory transmission requirement. Atkinson documented the statutory basis (50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)) for his determination and notified the committees despite the position that the complaint should not be shared. He accepted the risk of removal, professional retaliation, and potential legal challenge by creating a contemporaneous record and engaging Congress. Immediate consequences included closed-door briefings and public pushback; on April 3, 2020, he was removed as ICIG and placed on administrative leave on April 7, 2020.
Sources:
- DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (Sept. 3, 2019), “Urgent Concern Determination by the ICIG and the DNI’s Transmission of the Complaint”: https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1205711/download
- ICIG letter to the House Intelligence Committee (Sept. 9, 2019): https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190909_-_icig_letter_to_hpsci_-_whistleblower_complaint.pdf
- The New York Times (Apr. 3, 2020), “Trump Ousts Intelligence Watchdog Who Had a Key Role in Ukraine Complaint”: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/us/politics/intelligence-inspector-general-fired.html