Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Peter Lee, Professor of Applied Ethics and Director, Security and Risk Research, University of Portsmouth

Russia has long used harsh weather as a defensive ally. During Napoleon’s 1812 invasion, his Grand Army was defeated as winter closed in – the ground became impassable and logistical support to his army collapsed. Similarly, Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa in 1941-42 was halted by heavy rains and deep mud followed by freezing temperatures.

Today, in a different kind of war, Russia is again turning to its old ally, harsh weather – but this time to help in its offensive against Ukraine.

Ukraine’s extensive use of small, low-cost drones has transformed attack and defence strategies across the front lines. The Modern War Institute reports that drones are responsible for around 70% of Russia’s battlefield casualties, although it is unclear which kind of drones are killing in greater numbers: loitering one-way attack drones (known as “kamikaze drones”) or quadcopter first-person view (FPV) drones, armed with small explosives.

Read more:
How drone attacks are changing the rules and the costs of the Ukraine war

Beyond direct strikes, small drones play a vital role in intelligence gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance. They allow Ukrainian units to identify targets and coordinate ground operations with far greater precision. Real-time aerial imagery enables artillery crews to rapidly adjust fire, making bombardments more accurate – and more lethal.

Drones have become the eyes and, increasingly, the hands of Ukraine’s ground forces, increasing their defensive effectiveness against the larger and often better-equipped Russian ground forces. Mass Ukrainian use of FPV and one-way-attack drones has significantly improved defensive effectiveness, blunting larger Russian ground force assaults by using real-time targeting data and precise strikes.

Both sides in the war also regularly deploy electronic jamming, rendering radio-controlled FPV drones inoperable. Russia has, of necessity, become a global leader in this area.

The jamming disrupts the radio links and video feeds that pilots rely on for navigation and targeting. This places Ukraine’s forces, which rely heavily on drones to offset Russia’s advantages, at a considerable disadvantage.

Bad weather and drones

When bad weather combines with electronic interference, the effect is even more damaging. Snow, fog, wind and cold already limit drone endurance and visibility – sharply reducing Ukraine’s technological edge in aerial reconnaissance and precision battlefield drone strikes.

Russia, in contrast, gains relative advantage in such conditions. Its older, heavier ground-based systems – tanks, artillery and armoured vehicles – are more resilient against poor weather. The battlefield becomes a place where Russia’s attritional approach to war grinds out bloody advances.

Small quadcopter drones are light, have limited endurance and are easily influenced by weather. Take the DJI Mavic 3 series, used by many Ukrainian units for frontline reconnaissance. It is only effective in temperatures between –10°C and +40 °C and winds below about 12 metres per second. Strong gusts or freezing weather can quickly push this small drone off course.

More advanced Ukrainian systems, such as the winged Shark uncrewed aerial system, can operate from –15 °C to +45 °C and withstand winds up to 20 metres per second. Yet even these are restricted to dry conditions: rain or snow can ground them.

In cold conditions, batteries drain more quickly, cutting both flight time and operational range. Icing can ground large numbers of drones if it changes the characteristics of the quadcopter propellers – ice makes propeller blades thicker, heavier and less aerodynamic, reducing performance.

Winged drones can suffer from wing-tip icing, which changes their flight characteristics – reducing lift, increasing drag and the danger of stalling, and degrading control. Fog and snow also reduce visibility, limiting the ability to identify or track targets.

Russian offensive

In October 2025, Russia timed several large ground assaults to coincide with poor weather. This approach exploited conditions that significantly reduced Ukraine’s ability to defend itself with drones. Fog, rain and cloud cover made small reconnaissance drones unreliable or even unflyable. Visibility dropped so low that attacks on individual soldiers become far less effective.

In theory, Ukraine’s allies can offset some of this loss through satellite intelligence. US reconnaissance satellites can still gather valuable information on cloudy days by using synthetic aperture radar to detect ground movements. Yet even these advanced systems cannot see visually through thick cloud banks or heavy rainstorms.

Historically, Russia’s severe weather served a defensive purpose, turning back invading armies from Napoleon to Hitler. In the present war, however, Russia is using the same harsh climate offensively, turning natural concealment into a tactical advantage as it advances across Ukrainian ground.

Winter has not yet arrived, but Ukrainian and Russian military planners will be watching the weather. Ukraine’s vaunted ability to innovate and respond to Russian tactics will be tested even further in the months ahead.

Peter Lee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Russia turns to an old ally in its war against Ukrainian drones: the weather – https://theconversation.com/russia-turns-to-an-old-ally-in-its-war-against-ukrainian-drones-the-weather-268019

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

One American company called Strategy owns more than 3% of all bitcoin in existence. Its executive chairman, Michael Saylor, is the pioneer of a new business model where publicly listed companies buy cryptocurrency assets to hold on their balance sheet.

Strategy, formerly called MicroStrategy, first bought US$250 million (£187 million) worth of bitcoin in mid-2020 during the depths of the COVID economic slump. As it continued to buy bitcoin, its share price soared, and it kept buying. As of October 2025, Strategy held 640,418 bitcoin, worth around $70 billion.

In the years since, more than 100 other public companies have followed Saylor’s lead and become bitcoin treasury companies, together holding more than $114 billion of bitcoin. There’s been a new rush into crypto treasury assets in 2025 following the general crypto enthusiasm of the new Trump administration.

But holding bitcoin assets also comes with some big risks, particularly given the volatility of cryptocurrency prices, and the share prices of some of these companies are now coming under pressure.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Larisa Yarovaya, director of the centre for digital finance at the University of Southampton, about whether bitcoin treasury companies are the future of corporate finance, or another speculative bubble waiting to burst.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Katie Flood, Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware. Mixing and sound design by Michelle Macklem and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Newsclips in this episode from CBC News, Bloomberg Television, Yahoo Finance, Altcoin Daily, Strategy and CNBC Television.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Larisa Yarovaya is affiliated with the British Blockchain Association.

– ref. Companies now own more than $100 billion in bitcoin – but the shine may be wearing off crypto treasury companies – https://theconversation.com/companies-now-own-more-than-100-billion-in-bitcoin-but-the-shine-may-be-wearing-off-crypto-treasury-companies-268127

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sergey V. Popov, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Cardiff University

Donald Trump has finally decided to hit Russia with sanctions – the first package he has imposed since he came back to the White House in January.

The sanctions target Rosneft and Lukoil, Russia’s two largest oil companies, as a retaliation for Vladimir Putin’s refusal to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine. The announcement came in the wake of the decision to call off a planned summit between the two leaders in Budapest next month.

The US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said in a statement: “We encourage our allies to join us in and adhere to these sanctions.” In fact the EU has imposed 19 rounds of sanctions against Russia since the full-scale invasion in 2022.

The UK government has passed sanctions which it estimates have cost Russia more than £28 billion since the start of the war. And the Biden administration also repeatedly imposed sanctions on Russia after the invasion.

In March 2022, I wrote a piece for The Conversation explaining why I thought the sanctions imposed on Russia in the aftermath of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine wouldn’t topple Putin. Sanctions often fail to achieve their goals the Russian economy has specifically been set up to resist western sanctions.

Three years on, Russia’s land grab continues to ravage Ukraine, albeit clearly with much less success than expected by Russia’s generals. A lot of this resistance is due to Ukrainian military heroism and creativity, and a lot of it due to humanitarian and military assistance from EU, the US and other allies. But how much of it was due to sanctions is open to debate.

Russia’s economy is now focused on waging war. And even in these days of drone combat, to wage war you needs soldiers. The amounts paid to people joining up in Russia are unprecedented. Not only is their enlistment pay about the price of a decent apartment in a regional capital, but any debt they hold up to 10 million rubles (£76,500) is wiped out.

Their salary is not a large amount by western standards – a policeman in New York earns a comparable amount in a year. But when the alternative in Russia is being a security guard for £400 per month, it is clear why many people who see no future – especially convicts who are also given pardons – enlist in the Russian armed forces.

Reservists and volunteers mean that Russia is able to maintain its fighting force. While the sanctions clearly hurt Russia’s economy, having sufficient soldiers is priority number one – and this is still largely unaffected.

Russia is managing to pay for the war, sanctions or no sanctions, by passing on the cost to the public. VAT is forecast to rise from 20% to 22% in 2026 and the revenue threshold under which businesses will be required to pay will come down. This will lower investment into things like barber shops, but investment in military production will not be affected.

The sanctions do hurt the Russian economy – lifting sanctions is always the most important demand anytime Russia is consulted about a ceasefire – but not so much that the war economy is slowing down.

Finding loopholes

Thus far, Russia has managed to circumvent sanctions. Europe still buys large quantities of oil and gas from Russia (more than it has given Ukraine in aid, in fact). Moscow has also exported massive amounts to India and China, but the quantities are expected to fall sharply as a result of the US sanctions.

Earlier this year, the US president also announced a massive tariff hike on Indian exports in retaliation for India buying Russian energy supplies.

All of this will make the war more expensive – but it will not stop it. For a start, Russia controls a big “shadow fleet” of ships that have been transporting its oil and other banned goods such as military equipment and stolen Ukrainian grain. The EU has imposed port bans on 117 ships believed to be part of this shadow fleet. But experience suggests that this is by no means a foolproof way of preventing them from operating.

Death by 1,000 cuts

It’s tempting to imagine sanctions as trying to cause death by 1,000 cuts. The EU has made 19 cuts, so we are still 981 away – 980 with Trump’s latest move.

The west could have done more and it could have done it sooner. It could have acted as early as 2008 when Russia signalled its aggressive intent by invading Georgia. It could have imposed more effective sanctions after Russia annexed Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine in 2014.

In any case, these sanctions are designed against a western democracy, if they were imposed against the US or the UK, they would have changed governments. In western democracies governments have power at the discretion of the voters who can take these mandates back. Sanctions against autocracies, where power is not in the hands of the people, need to be different.

The good news is that the Trump administration is finally doing something besides putting out the red carpet for Putin. There is hope.

Sergey V. Popov does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Sanctions on Russia have failed to stop the war so far – will Trump’s latest package be any different? – https://theconversation.com/sanctions-on-russia-have-failed-to-stop-the-war-so-far-will-trumps-latest-package-be-any-different-268228

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rosalie Hayes, Research Assistant, Centre for Public Health & Policy, Queen Mary University of London

The first ever injectable drug that can prevent HIV has been approved for use in England and Wales.

The drug, cabotegravir, would benefit an estimated 1,000 people at risk of HIV in England and Wales. It offers a long-acting alternative to other existing preventive HIV drugs, which are only available as pills and usually must be taken on a daily basis.

The jab belongs to a group of drugs called antiretrovirals, which were originally developed to treat HIV. It’s now well established that antiretrovirals can also be used by HIV-negative people to dramatically reduce their risk of acquiring HIV.

The jab stops HIV from replicating within a person’s cells, meaning infection cannot take hold. This approach is called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or Prep.

Injectable cabotegravir for Prep is administered by a single, intramuscular injection into the buttocks every two months. It must be administered by a trained health professional to ensure that the drug is delivered correctly into the muscle.

It is important to understand that cabotegravir is not a vaccine. Vaccines work by training the immune system to fight infections – whereas cabotegravir works by ensuring there are adequate levels of the antiretroviral drug in the bloodstream to prevent the HIV virus from replicating.

That’s why people using cabotegravir as Prep need to make sure they get their injections every two months for as long as they’re at risk of HIV.

Oral vs injectable Prep

Oral Prep is around 99% effective at preventing HIV when taken as prescribed – but this is reliant on people adhering to their pill regimen. Real-world effectiveness declines depending on adherence.

In contrast, injectable cabotegravir requires only six injections per year. Largely because it is easier to adhere to, cabotegravir has been found to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV by 66% in gay men, bisexual men and transgender women, and by 88% in cisgender women, compared to daily oral Prep.

There are other differences between injectable Prep and oral Prep beyond effectiveness.

People using cabotegravir for Prep will need to attend the clinic every two months to receive their injections. In comparison, people taking oral Prep will only need to get their prescription filled every three to six months.

Both injectable and oral Prep are very safe and well-tolerated medications, but possible side-effects differ between the two types. The most common side-effect of cabotegravir is swelling or tenderness around the injection site. Oral Prep’s possible side-effects can include nausea, vomiting and headaches.

At the moment, current guidelines recommend cabotegravir is offered to people in need of Prep but who cannot use oral Prep effectively. This includes the small number of people with health conditions (such as severe liver or kidney problems) which may make oral Prep unsuitable for them and those with difficulty swallowing tablets.

It also includes those who are unable to adhere to oral Prep for social or personal reasons. For example, people who are homeless or in unstable housing who may easily lose medication or have it stolen, people experiencing intimate partner violence who may worry about their partner finding their pills and people who use drugs and find regular pill-taking challenging.

A significant milestone

Cabotegravir was already approved for use in England and Wales as part of a combination treatment for people living with HIV. Now, the drug will be available to those who are HIV-negative and looking to protect themselves from acquiring HIV. This is the first time an alternative to oral Prep has been made available on the NHS.

It offers access to highly effective HIV prevention for those who previously could not use Prep. Research shows that there is a strong preference for injectable Prep among people at risk of HIV, due to its convenience and the reduced pill burden.

This approval may also pave the way for other forms of injectable Prep that have an even longer duration. For instance, lenacapavir, which is already available in the United States, only needs to be administered every six months.

Currently, there are issues around inequitable access to Prep. For example, women make up only 3% of current Prep users but 35% of new HIV diagnoses. Recent research indicates that current Prep provision does not align with women’s needs.

Giving patients more choice in the type of Prep they can access is an important step forward in addressing this inequality. But it will be crucial that sexual health services are adequately funded so they can deliver injectable Prep services.

Ongoing research also shows that delivering Prep outside of traditional sexual health settings, such as in community pharmacies and GP practices, could also make an important contribution to equitable access. Considering how injectables could be incorporated into these services will be a vital next step.

By increasing the numbers of people who can use Prep, injectables offer a critical new tool for achieving the government’s goal of eliminating new HIV infections by 2030.

Sara Paparini has received funding from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences.

Sophie Strachan receives funding from ViiV and Gilead and MSD she is affiliated with Sophia Forum

Rosalie Hayes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. HIV prevention jab approved for use in England and Wales – here’s how it works – https://theconversation.com/hiv-prevention-jab-approved-for-use-in-england-and-wales-heres-how-it-works-268037

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom F. Wright, Reader in Rhetoric, University of Sussex

Every few decades, Americans rediscover that their republic was built on a rejection – the rejection of being ruled by a monarch. Now, in one of the largest protest movements in many years, the phrase “No kings” is everywhere: on placards, online memes, and in chants aimed at a president who seems to want to rule rather than serve.

Yet the words are hardly new. They are the first note in the American political scale, the country’s founding slogan before it even had a flag.

Long before it echoed through the colonies, the slogan “No king but Jesus” rang out in the English civil war, where it was used to declare that divine authority, not royal prerogative, should rule the conscience.

Read more:
In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings − and for being skeptical

When it crossed the Atlantic, colonial Americans inherited a phrase, a stance and an image that could turn theology into politics and rebellion into virtue.

As Thomas Paine put it in his 1776 pamphlet, Common Sense: “Of more worth is one honest man than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.” Republican speech was invented by rejecting monarchy.

When independence was achieved, America’s experiment rested on a paradox: it needed strong leadership but feared the aura of command. “No kings” was a self-diagnosis of a nervous republic. A way of keeping the charisma of a leader on a leash.

That allergy to grandeur shaped the early republic. In the 1790s when John Adams proposed that the president be addressed as “His Highness”, he was swiftly mocked as “His Rotundity”. The laughter mattered. It expressed the conviction that democracy could not survive reverence.

By the 1830s, this suspicion of pomp had become visual. Critics of the seventh president, Andrew Jackson, issued a famous broadside “King Andrew the First” showing him crowned and trampling the constitution. It wasn’t just partisan art – it was an act of democratic hygiene.

A generation later, Abraham Lincoln faced the same charge. During the American civil war, a notorious 1864 pamphlet Abraham Africanus I accused him of seeking to become a “hereditary ruler of the United States”. His sweeping wartime powers fed old fears that emergency rule would harden into monarchy.

Sometimes, the charge is justified. When Puck magazine in 1904 depicted Theodore Roosevelt crowning himself Louis XIV (or perhaps Napoleon), it captured the public’s mixture of thrill and alarm at his trust-busting, canal-building, imperial swagger. Citizens wanted vitality in office, but not vanity.

Other times, the imagery seemed to speak more to American paternal longings. Take images of Dwight Eisenhower as “King Ike” in the 1950s, a genial ruler among smiling courtiers, soothing cold war nerves.

In our own century, the crown returns in sharper form. The American Spectator’s 2014 cover, “The Good King Barack” showed Obama beaming beneath a red velvet crown.

When Donald Trump triumphed in 2016, crown memes returned as America’s simplest moral shorthand for power that has gone too far.

It fell to his successor Joe Biden to officially declare, in response to the July 2024 Supreme Court ruling that Trump was not immune from prosecution: “This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America.”

Why the crown keeps returning

The crown is both insult and safety valve at once. It’s an instantly legible piece of political folk art reminding citizens that authority is temporary, fallible and – like its wearer – mortal.

When protesters revive “No kings”, they aren’t just quoting the revolution. They’re translating an older language of civic republican virtue into an accent everyone can understand. No person above the law, no office above criticism, no citizen beneath respect.

The slogan reawakens the moral reflex that freedom depends on vigilance, and that dignity belongs to the governed as much as the governors.

And here’s the irony: both parties were founded on that same cry. Democrats and Republicans trace their roots to the anti-monarchical Democratic-Republicans of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who defined their movement against the spectre of kingly power. That party later fractured, giving rise to both modern traditions.

In that sense, “No kings” was the nation’s first party platform, the point of agreement from which every later disagreement grew.

Can it still work?

In today’s fractured America, “No kings” offers something rare: a language of protest that feels constitutional rather than ideological. It has the potential to speak to conservatives alarmed by executive overreach, to progressives wary of authoritarian drift, and to independents nostalgic for civic balance.

That gives it unusual rhetorical strength. Unlike most modern slogans – “Drill baby, drill”, “Make America great again” (Maga), or “Defund the police” – it doesn’t divide, it recalls a principle. “No kings” reminds Americans that what unites them is the rejection of tyranny.

The phrase also appeals to exhaustion as much as outrage. After years of political spectacle, “No kings” gestures toward humility, order and self-restraint: the virtues both parties claim to miss.

The movement may go nowhere. But if this moment does turn out to be an inflection point, it is a fitting way to frame it.

To chant “No kings” now is not nostalgia but muscle memory. That is how a republic tests its pulse: by mocking grandeur, refusing awe and rediscovering equality in the act of saying no.

Tom F. Wright does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ‘No kings’: America’s oldest political slogan is drawing millions out onto the streets – https://theconversation.com/no-kings-americas-oldest-political-slogan-is-drawing-millions-out-onto-the-streets-268174

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lara Warmelink, Lecturer, Department of Psychology, Lancaster University

The Traitors is a game built on lies and deceit. Contestants live together in a Scottish castle. Those secretly chosen as Traitors are tasked with “murdering” their fellow players while avoiding suspicion. The rest are Faithfuls, trying to banish the Traitors.

Of course, the Traitors must tell lies all the time to avoid getting caught – but many Faithfuls tell lies as well: to throw the traitors off their scent, build alliances or manage how other players think of them.

This means all players “take heat” at the nightly roundtable, when they are accused of being Traitors and telling lies. But what does psychology tell us about how best to defend yourself from accusations that you are lying?

Outside of TV shows, when you lie you have one big advantage: the people you are trying to deceive might not be looking out for any signs that you are lying. According to communication expert Timothy Levine’s Truth Default Theory, people normally assume that anything they are told is true – in other words, truth is the default.

This makes sense: people hear and read so much information in a day, and normally this information is true. Doubting everything we experience would be exhausting, possibly dangerous, and very bad for our social relationships.

If you are crossing the road and suddenly you hear someone yell “Stop!”, your first instinct should be to stop – not keep going, thinking: “I wonder whether they are lying to me.” And your friends would probably not stay your friends for long if you responded to everything they said with suspicion that they are lying.

This is something you can rely on when you’re telling a quick white lie. Whoever you are lying to is unlikely to submit you to a third degree in response to you saying: “We’d have loved to be at your party this weekend, but we just couldn’t make it.”

Strategies to use

However, on The Traitors, neither Traitors nor Faithfuls have that luxury. All other players are on the lookout for the slightest sign – a sly smile, a head turned at the wrong moment, an above-average vocabulary. Anything can lead to you being put under the spotlight. So, what options do you have then? Here are a few strategies to consider.

1. Think about the evidence.

What does the person who is accusing you know and what can they prove? Denying something vehemently only to have a third player say “You did say that, I heard it too” is likely to land you in hot water.

And don’t just think about evidence they have already confronted you with: consider whether your accuser might be holding other evidence back, to lure you into a lie and then confront you. This “strategic use of evidence” can be very effective for an interrogator, so guard against it.

2. Don’t protest too much.

When trying to look like you’re telling the truth, don’t overdo it. Your first instinct might be to do everything to look Faithful, but that’s not how normal truth-telling people behave. Doing too much can be as harmful as doing too little.

For example, research shows that many liars make too much eye contact. Because people think liars avoid eye contact, they try to prove they are telling the truth by staring into people’s eyes and end up giving themselves away.

3. Tell the truth.

Sometimes it might be better to just come out and admit you lied. The cover-up can be worse than the crime.

For example, in series 3 of The Traitors, when Lisa Coupland started being put under pressure over her lies, she decided she was best off coming clean and admitting she was an Anglican priest. This worked out beautifully: everyone believed her and the other Faithfuls stopped suspecting her of being a traitor (although the truth was almost certainly a factor in her “murder” four episodes later).

Strategies might not keep you safe for long though. The Traitors is a game designed to keep you on your toes. The rules of banishment mean all players benefit from you being the one who is accused. Once you have been named as a possible Traitor, any reprieve may well be temporary.

Faithfuls have long memories and can haunt you with the tiniest mistake, roundtable after roundtable. And even if they believe what they tell you, that might only make you a more juicy target for “murder”.

Lara Warmelink does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Celebrity Traitors: psychologist explains how to defend yourself when you’re accused of lying – https://theconversation.com/the-celebrity-traitors-psychologist-explains-how-to-defend-yourself-when-youre-accused-of-lying-268027

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Vince Pescod, Senior lecturer, The University of Law

The Trump administration is coming under fire for politicising the Department of Justice (DoJ) and undermining the US government’s enshrined separation of powers, which relies on an independent system of justice. This is a central principle of the US constitution, without which a president could govern virtually unchecked.

Critics point to recent indictments of people perceived to be Donald Trump’s political enemies, alleging the DoJ has acted on instructions or percived pressure from the president.

Former FBI director James Comey was indicted at the end of September on one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding.

Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, has been charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution, relating to a property she purchased in Virginia in 2023. James led a civil prosecution of Trump on fraud charges the same year.

And most recently, John Bolton, the national security adviser during Trump’s first term and now an outspoken critic of the president, has been indicted on federal charges pertaining to the alleged mishandling of classified information.

All these indictments followed messages posted by the president on his TruthSocial platform, urging for them to be charged. In an often angry four-hour session in the senate judiciary committee on October 7, Democrat lawmakers accused the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, of “brazenly political” decision-making.

Democrat senators raised multiple areas of concern. These included the firing of hundreds of senior DoJ officials and their replacement with Trump loyalists, the dropping of investigations into some Trump loyalists, and the initiation of investigations, apparently at the behest of the president, into his political enemies.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said Bondi had “systematically weaponised our nation’s leading law enforcement agency to protect President Trump and his allies and attack his opponents and, sadly, the American people … What has taken place since January 20 2025 would make even Richard Nixon recoil.”

Trump’s critics say his recent actions, appearing to put pressure on the US attorney general and DoJ to pursue certain investigations, are an abuse of power.

As US legal scholars Bruce Green and Rebecca Roiphe wrote in the the New York Law School’s journal in 2018, the attorney general must refuse a “president’s direction to indict a political opponent or to dismiss charges against a political ally because the president’s motivations are partisan”. They must also refuse, according to Green and Roiphe, when professional conduct rules require no action to be taken, such as where there is insufficient evidence to proceed.

But there are competing perspectives on the scope of the president’s power. During Trump’s first term, he and his lawyers – along with supportive legal scholars – argued that the president has absolute control over all decisions to prosecute. In a 2017 interview with the New York Times, Trump claimed to have an “absolute right to do what I want to do with the justice department”.

An independent system of justice?

The DoJ was set up in 1870 by an Act of Congress – headed by the attorney general, who is appointed by the president. The DoJ’s functions included prosecuting violations of federal law and protecting the country from subversive activities.

But when the DoJ was established, there was little federal criminal law in place. Most criminal activity was dealt with by each state, independently of the president.

This changed in 1908 with the creation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which was aimed at professionalising law enforcement (largely undertaken by locally trained state police) and rooting out government corruption. FBI investigations, particularly in relation to organised crime, highlighted the need for the creation of laws recognising a range of federal offences, which Congress duly passed.

The Hatch Act of 1939 then sought to limit the political activities of federal employees, establishing precedents for regulating executive branch behaviour. This significantly expanded the scope for misuse of the attorney general’s powers.

A year later, then-attorney general Robert H. Jackson warned: “With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some sort on the part of almost anyone.” He added that: “It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group.”

The danger highlighted by Jackson became clear during the Nixon presidency. Most egregiously, at the height of the Watergate scandal in 1973, the president ordered the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor appointed by the Senate to investigate the growing scandal.

Both Richardson and Ruckelshaus refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered the solicitor general, Robert Bork, to carry out the firing. Bork complied.

Ensuring independence

The administrations of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter that followed set out to reestablish public confidence in both presidential integrity and the independence of the DoJ. The Independent Counsel Act of 1978 (part of the Ethics in Government Act) attempted to remedy some of the conflict of interest concerns highlighted by Watergate, and ensure impartial investigations in situations where the attorney general could face a conflict of interest.

While there is no formal separation, there has been a clear policy since the 1980s to limit communications between the White House and the DoJ to situations necessary for the discharge of the president’s constitutional duties. This would not include instructing or bringing any form of pressure on the DoJ to investigate or prosecute a perceived opponent, to prosecute someone at the request of the president, nor to drop an investigation for partisan reasons.

Commenting on the Comey indictment, Democrat senator Mark Warner severely criticised the charges, stating: “Donald Trump has made clear that he intends to turn our justice system into a weapon for punishing and silencing his critics.”

Warner added that this was “a dangerous abuse of power. Our system depends on prosecutors making decisions based on evidence and the law, not on the personal grudges of a politician determined to settle scores.”

It remains to be seen whether the US justice system is robust enough to hold, in the face of intense political pressure from the Trump administration.

Vince Pescod does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump assault on US justice department independence revisits a Nixon-era problem – https://theconversation.com/trump-assault-on-us-justice-department-independence-revisits-a-nixon-era-problem-266379