The rule of law promises something simple: The same rules apply to everyone and apply the same way. Not sometimes, not when it is convenient, and not only when the target is weak.
When that promise breaks, it does not collapse all at once. It erodes—through selective enforcement, tolerated conflicts, politicized investigations, and the quiet normalization of power protecting itself.
That is where we are now.
Welcome to Trump 2.0, where the question is no longer whether the law is enforced, but who it is enforced against—and who it is not.
The Constitution imposes a duty on the President to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty runs through the United States Department of Justice—an institution designed, especially after Watergate, to operate independently of political pressure in individual cases. Presidents set policy, but they are not supposed to decide who gets investigated, charged, or spared.
When that line blurs, the law does not disappear. It simply becomes discretionary
Recently, federal authorities charged a U.S. serviceman, Gannon Ken Van Dyke, with using nonpublic government information to profit from a prediction-market bet tied to a military operation involving Nicolás Maduro.
If proven, that conduct is criminal. And if there is evidence sufficient to bring charges, an indictment and prosecution are absolutely appropriate. The case demonstrates that the current Justice Department knows how to enforce the law—when it chooses to. And this raises a more interesting question:
In the Trump 2.0 Justice Department, why does enforcement look so different when power, access, and influence increase?
“Fraud” is a popular theme or rallying cry of the current administration.. It is used to justify investigations, enforcement actions, and sweeping public claims about corruption in American life. And some of these cases are real.
Allegations of Medicaid fraud in large state systems
Reported fraud in childcare programs
Individual non-influential, less powerful actors misusing government information for personal gain
If proven, those cases should be prosecuted. But the issue is not whether fraud exists. The issue is which fraud is pursued—and which fraud is tolerated. Premise: The rich, powerful, or politically connected actor is frequently given a free pass to lawlessness.
On one side:
Individual actors are investigated and pursued aggressively,
cases are publicized,
And enforcement is swift and visible.
On the other:
Financial entanglements tied to political power remain unresolved,
conflicts of interest operate in gray zones,
and large-scale questions involving influence and profit are delayed, minimized, or ignored.
And in some cases, individuals convicted of serious federal offenses—including Michael Flynn, Rod Blagojevich, Paul Manafort, Steve Bannon, and the January 6th rioters—have received pardons or clemency. And while the Constitution allows that, its use matters.
When fraud is prosecuted at the margins and forgiven at the highest levels, the law loses its meaning.
Donald Trump entered office with a global business empire and retained ownership interests while in power. Management shifted to Family members—not to a true blind trust. That distinction matters.
Why, you ask?
Because public decisions and private financial outcomes are not mutually exclusive. Private economic benefits for a president who is supposed to be working in the interest of the public are conflicts of interest, even when direct control is reduced.
At the same time, foreign and domestic actors spent Money at Trump-owned properties. Government entities incur expenses at those properties, mandated by the Commander-in-Chief. These concerns have triggered litigation under the Constitution’s emoluments provisions—designed to prevent federal officials from receiving benefits tied to government influence. And while many of these cases have ended on procedural grounds, they were not dismissed on their merits. Thus, a widely recognized constitutional concern has never been sufficiently resolved.
During both Trump administrations, the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has played a central role in Middle East policy. Most recently, as some sort of special envoy (not a government official), his investment firm secured billions in funding, including a widely reported $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund. Does this violate a criminal statute? Maybe, maybe not. But it raises two fundamental questions:
Other members of the President’s family have pursued business ventures in sectors shaped by federal policy, including defense-adjacent technologies and emerging financial markets. These ventures may operate within the law. But they also flaunt the law:
When those closest to presidential power participate in markets influenced by that power, conflict is not an exception—it is built into a system that allows substantial benefits with no accountability..
Recent reporting indicates potential negotiations involving a lawsuit brought by President Trump against the Internal Revenue Service. If such a dispute results in a financial resolution, it raises an extraordinary question:
Can the executive branch oversee a system—and simultaneously benefit from it?
Even the possibility highlights a structural weakness. No official should be in a position to influence—or appear to influence—the outcome of a matter in which he has a direct financial interest. But such is life in Trump 2.0 land.
The Justice Department has reportedly entered into financial settlements involving individuals aligned with the President. And again, settlements may be appropriate, but the pattern raises a concern:
Is the Justice Department correcting past errors—or reinforcing political narratives through selective payouts?
At the same time, investigations involving perceived adversaries have been opened, publicized, and later abandoned—leaving reputational damage without adjudication.
When the process becomes the punishment, the rule of law breaks down.
Conflicts involving institutions such as Harvard University and Columbia University highlight another risk. Presidents have authority. But they also face limits. The First Amendment protects speech and academic freedom, and federal power cannot be used to punish lawful dissent. But Trump’s Justice Department continues to pursue his revenge campaign.
Power used to influence or intimidate lawful expression is not governance—it is leverage, or worse, extortion.
Step back for a moment, please. The pattern should become clear:
Fraud is pursued aggressively when it involves individuals with limited power
Fraud is tolerated, delayed, or reframed when it intersects with influence and access
Conflicts of interest at the highest levels remain unresolved
Pardons erase consequences for connected actors
Investigations target critics and dissolve without charges
Public power and private benefit increasingly overlap
These are not isolated events. They are connected. And accountability becomes harder as power increases.
The rule of law does not fail because laws don’t exist or aren’t clear. It fails when law enforcement is uneven, accountability is selective, and power or access to power determines outcomes.
The danger is not that the law cannot reach misconduct; it is that, in the case of the rich and powerful, it too often chooses not to try. The result is a system in which the weak are prosecuted, the powerful are given a slap on the wrist or a pass, and the public is told that both outcomes represent justice
These outcomes represent justice denied. America does not need a king who dispenses justice based on what’s in it for him. America needs a legal system with the courage to say that no man—no president, billionaire, or political family—is above the law.
Mark M. Bello is an attorney and award-winning author of the Zachary Blake Legal Thriller Series, ripped-from-the-headlines, realistic fiction that speaks truth to power and champions the rights of citizens in our justice system. These novels are dedicated to the social justice movement. They educate, spark discussion, and inspire readers to action. One of these was “Betrayal of Justice, a blistering novel about presidential misconduct and hypocrisy” For more information, please visit www.markmbello.com.
Â
The post Trump: The Lawbreaker appeared first on Lean to the Left.
