Reuters documentó al menos 470 víctimas de represalias bajo el liderazgo de Trump, desde empleados federales y fiscales hasta universidades y medios de comunicación. La lista ilustra el amplio esfuerzo del presidente y su administración para castigar la disidencia y reformar el gobierno.
En su segundo mandato, Donald Trump ha convertido la promesa de campaña de castigar a los oponentes políticos en un principio rector de su gobierno.
Lo que comenzó como un grito de guerra provocador en marzo de 2023 –“Yo soy tu retribución”– se ha endurecido hasta convertirse en una amplia campaña de represalias contra los enemigos percibidos, que está remodelando la política federal, la dotación de personal y la aplicación de la ley.
Un recuento de Reuters revela la magnitud: al menos 470 personas, organizaciones e instituciones han sido blanco de represalias desde que Trump asumió el cargo, un promedio de más de una al día. Algunas fueron sancionadas; otras fueron incluidas en purgas más amplias de supuestos enemigos. El recuento excluye a personas, instituciones y gobiernos extranjeros, así como a empleados federales despedidos como parte de reducciones de personal.
La campaña de venganza de Trump combina venganzas personales con un afán de dominio cultural y político, según descubrió Reuters. Su administración ha ejercido el poder ejecutivo para castigar a quienes percibe como adversarios, despidiendo a los fiscales que investigaron su intento de anular las elecciones de 2020, ordenando sanciones a medios de comunicación considerados hostiles, penalizando a bufetes de abogados vinculados a la oposición y marginando a funcionarios públicos que cuestionan sus políticas. Muchas de estas acciones enfrentan recursos legales.
Al mismo tiempo, Trump y sus designados han utilizado al gobierno para imponer su ideología: destituyendo a líderes militares considerados “despiertos”, recortando fondos para instituciones culturales consideradas divisivas y congelando subvenciones de investigación a universidades que adoptaron iniciativas de diversidad.
Reuters contactó a todas las personas e instituciones que Trump o sus subordinados señalaron públicamente para tomar represalias, y revisó cientos de órdenes oficiales, directivas y registros públicos. El resultado: el informe más completo hasta la fecha sobre su campaña de venganza.
El análisis reveló dos grandes grupos de personas y organizaciones que fueron blanco de represalias.
Al menos 247
Los miembros del primer grupo —al menos 247 personas y entidades— fueron señalados por su nombre, ya sea públicamente por Trump y sus designados o posteriormente en memorandos gubernamentales, documentos legales u otros registros. Para ser considerados, los actos debían estar dirigidos contra personas o entidades específicas, con evidencia de intención de castigar. Los periodistas de Reuters entrevistaron o mantuvieron correspondencia con más de 150 de ellos.
Otras 224 personas se vieron envueltas en represalias más amplias; no se nombran individualmente, sino que se vieron envueltas en la represión contra grupos de supuestos opositores. Casi 100 de ellas eran fiscales y agentes del FBI despedidos u obligados a jubilarse por trabajar en casos vinculados a Trump o sus aliados, o por ser considerados «conscientes». Esto incluye a 16 agentes del FBI que se arrodillaron en una protesta de Black Lives Matter en 2020. El resto eran funcionarios públicos, la mayoría suspendidos por oponerse públicamente a las políticas del gobierno o por resistirse a las directivas en materia de salud, medio ambiente y ciencia.
La retribución adoptó tres formas distintas.
Los más comunes fueron actos punitivos, como despidos, suspensiones, investigaciones y revocación de autorizaciones de seguridad.
Reuters encontró al menos 462 casos de ese tipo, incluido el despido de al menos 128 trabajadores y funcionarios federales que habían investigado, desafiado o de alguna manera se habían opuesto a Trump o su administración.
La segunda forma fueron las amenazas. Trump y su administración atacaron a al menos 46 personas, empresas y otras entidades con amenazas de investigaciones o sanciones, incluyendo la congelación de fondos federales para ciudades lideradas por demócratas como Nueva York y Chicago.
Por ejemplo, Trump habló abiertamente de despedir al presidente de la Reserva Federal, Jerome Powell, por resistirse a los recortes de las tasas de interés. La semana pasada, amenazó con juzgar a seis congresistas demócratas por sedición —un delito que, según él, se castiga con la muerte— después de que los legisladores recordaran al personal militar que pueden desobedecer órdenes ilegales. Esta semana, el Departamento de Defensa amenazó con someter a juicio militar a uno de ellos, el senador estadounidense Mark Kelly, exoficial de la Marina.
La tercera forma fue la coerción. En al menos una docena de casos, organizaciones como bufetes de abogados y universidades firmaron acuerdos con el gobierno para revertir iniciativas de diversidad u otras políticas tras enfrentarse a amenazas de sanciones por parte de la administración, como la revocación de autorizaciones de seguridad y la pérdida de fondos y contratos federales.
Es una campaña dirigida desde arriba: la Casa Blanca de Trump ha emitido al menos 36 órdenes, decretos y directivas dirigidas a al menos 100 personas y entidades con acciones punitivas, según el análisis de Reuters.
En su última campaña presidencial, Trump hizo campaña abiertamente con una plataforma de venganza, prometiendo castigar a los enemigos de su movimiento Make America Great Again. «Para quienes han sido agraviados y traicionados, yo soy su retribución», dijo en un discurso de marzo de 2023. Semanas después, durante la campaña en Texas, repitió el lema: «Yo soy su justicia».
Hoy, la Casa Blanca cuestiona la idea de que la administración busque venganza. Describe las recientes investigaciones y acusaciones contra adversarios políticos como correcciones de rumbo válidas, investigaciones necesarias sobre irregularidades e iniciativas políticas legítimas.
“Todo este artículo se basa en la premisa errónea de que hacer cumplir un mandato electoral constituye, en cierto modo, una ‘retribución’. No lo es”, declaró la portavoz de la Casa Blanca, Abigail Jackson. No hay cabida en el gobierno para funcionarios públicos “que busquen activamente socavar la agenda que el pueblo estadounidense eligió al presidente para promulgar”, añadió. Trump está cumpliendo sus promesas de campaña de restaurar un sistema de justicia que fue utilizado como arma por la administración Biden, afirmó Jackson, y de “garantizar que los fondos públicos no se destinen a causas partidistas”.
Las acciones de Trump han sido aplaudidas por sus más firmes partidarios. El comentarista de derecha y exasesor de Trump, Steve Bannon, declaró a Reuters que el uso del poder gubernamental para castigar a los enemigos de Trump «no es venganza en absoluto», sino un intento de «responsabilizar a la gente» por lo que, según él, fueron investigaciones injustas contra Trump. Añadió que hay más en camino.
“Quienes intentaron arrebatarle el primer mandato al presidente Trump, quienes lo acusaron de ser un agente ruso y dañaron esta república, y luego robaron las elecciones de 2020, rendirán cuentas y serán juzgados en los tribunales”, dijo en una entrevista. “Eso está por venir. No hay duda”. No hay pruebas de que las elecciones de 2020 fueran fraudulentas.
“Para aquellos que han sido agraviados y traicionados, yo soy su retribución”. Donald Trump en un discurso de marzo de 2023.
Los aliados de Trump señalan las acciones que el expresidente Joe Biden tomó al asumir el cargo. Tras el ataque de partidarios de Trump al Capitolio de Estados Unidos el 6 de enero de 2021, en un intento fallido por revertir su derrota electoral, Biden le revocó el acceso a información clasificada, algo inédito para un expresidente. Biden también ganó una batalla judicial para destituir a directores de agencias independientes con mandatos fijos, confirmados por el Senado, como la Autoridad Federal de Financiamiento de la Vivienda, y destituyó a decenas de personas designadas durante la era Trump de consejos asesores no remunerados.
Sin embargo, la magnitud y la naturaleza sistemática del esfuerzo de Trump por castigar a quienes percibe como enemigos marcan una ruptura radical con las normas tradicionales de gobernanza estadounidense, según 13 politólogos y juristas entrevistados por Reuters. Algunos historiadores afirman que el paralelo moderno más cercano, aunque inexacto, es la búsqueda de venganza del difunto presidente Richard Nixon contra sus enemigos políticos. Desde mayo, por ejemplo, decenas de funcionarios de diversas agencias federales se han reunido como parte de un grupo de trabajo formado para impulsar la campaña de represalias de Trump contra quienes percibe como enemigos, según informó previamente Reuters.
“The main aim is concentration of power and destruction of all checks against power,” said Daron Acemoglu, Nobel laureate in economics and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which faces an ongoing federal investigation for embracing diversity and equity programs. “Retribution is just one of the tools.”
Dozens of Trump’s targets have challenged their punishments as illegal. Fired and suspended civil servants have filed administrative appeals or legal challenges claiming wrongful termination. Some law firms have gone to court claiming the administration exceeded its legal authority by restricting their ability to work on classified contracts or interact with federal agencies. Most of those challenges remain unresolved.
Investigating foes of Trump
The administration has moved aggressively against officials in the government’s legal and national security agencies, institutions central to investigations of Trump’s alleged misconduct during and after his first term.
At least 69 current and former officials were targeted for investigating or sounding alarms about Russian interference in U.S. elections. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded soon after the 2016 election that Moscow sought to tilt the race toward Trump, a finding later affirmed by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in August 2020. Acts of retribution tied to the Russia probe include the September 25 indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, a break from Justice Department norms meant to shield prosecutions from political influence.
Comey, who led the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign, was charged after Trump demanded his prosecution. The Justice Department has cast the case as a corruption crackdown. Comey and his lawyers said in court documents that the case was “vindictive” and motivated by “personal animus.” Comey, who pleaded not guilty, declined to comment. A federal judge dismissed the case on Monday, ruling that Trump’s handpicked prosecutor had been unlawfully appointed.
Acts of retribution tied to the Russia probe include the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. His lawyers say he is the target of a «vindictive» prosecution. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
At least 58 acts of retribution have targeted people Trump viewed as saboteurs of his election campaigns, including Chris Krebs, the top cybersecurity official during his first term. Trump fired him in 2020 for disputing claims that the election was rigged. In April, Trump stripped Krebs’ security clearance and ordered a federal investigation into his tenure. Krebs, still asserting that Trump’s defeat was valid, has vowed to fight the probe. He did not respond for this story.
“This kind of political retribution leads to a loss of trust, which ultimately leads to a failure of governing.”
Leon Panetta, former CIA director and defense secretary
Reuters documented 112 security clearances revoked from current and former U.S. officials, law firms and state leaders – credentials needed for work that involves classified information. In August, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced she was revoking 37 clearances.
In a response to Reuters posted on X, an agency spokesperson said Gabbard and Trump are working “to ensure the government is never again wielded against the American people it is meant to serve.” She added: “President Trump said it best, ‘Our ultimate retribution is success.’”
Leon Panetta, CIA director and defense secretary under former President Barack Obama, had his security clearance revoked in January along with others who signed an October 2020 letter suggesting Russia may have been behind reports about emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop. At the time, Joe Biden – Hunter’s father – was Trump’s Democratic rival in the 2020 election. An executive order Trump signed in January claimed: «The signatories willfully weaponized the gravitas of the Intelligence Community to manipulate the political process and undermine our democratic institutions.» Panetta has said he stands by signing the letter.
Panetta told Reuters he had already surrendered his clearance after leaving government nearly a decade ago. Trump’s retribution campaign is hurting CIA morale and wrecking the bipartisan trust that allows Washington to function, Panetta said. “What I worry about is that our adversaries will look at what’s happening and sense weakness,” he said. “This kind of political retribution leads to a loss of trust, which ultimately leads to a failure of governing.” The CIA did not respond to a request for comment.
Former CIA director Leon Panetta had his security clearance revoked along with others who signed a letter suggesting Russia may have been behind reports about emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop. REUTERS/Nathan Howard
The revenge effort also reaches deep into the civil service, punishing employees who speak out against Trump’s policies and turning forms of dissent that were tolerated by past administrations into grounds for discipline.
This summer, hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency staffers wrote an open letter protesting deep cuts to pollution control and cleanup programs. The fallout was swift. More than 100 signers who attached their names were placed on paid leave. At least 15 senior officials and probationary employees were told they would be fired. The rest were informed they were under investigation for misconduct, leading to at least 69 suspensions without pay. Many remained out of work for weeks.
“They followed all the rules” of conduct for civil servants, said Nicole Cantello, one of the signers and an officer with the American Federation of Government Employees, a union that represents many affected workers. She called the punishments an attempt to “quell dissent,” stifle free speech and “scare the employees.” In a statement, the EPA said it has “a zero-tolerance policy for career officials using their agency position and title to unlawfully undermine, sabotage, and undercut” administration policy.
At the Federal Emergency Management Agency, about 20 staffers were put on leave and now face misconduct investigations after signing a letter criticizing the agency’s decision to scrap bipartisan reforms adopted years ago to speed disaster relief. Cameron Hamilton, a Republican who served briefly as acting head of FEMA, was fired in May, a day after telling Congress he didn’t believe the agency should be shut down, contradicting the administration.
Hamilton told Reuters he still supports Trump. But he said too many senior officials are firing people in the name of retribution, trying to impress the White House. “They want to find ways to really launch themselves to prominence and be movers and shakers, to kick ass and take names,” said Hamilton. “They’re trying to show the president ‘look at what I am doing for you.’”
In a statement to Reuters, the Department of Homeland Security, which includes FEMA, said it is building a “new FEMA” to fix “inefficiency and outdated processes.” Employees “resisting change” are “not a good fit,” the statement said.
Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, former head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, sees her firing in October – three weeks after filing a whistleblower complaint alleging politicization of research and vaccine policy – as a warning shot. She told Reuters the administration’s purge of dissenting health officials is breeding “anticipatory obedience” – a reflex to comply before being asked. “People know if they push back … this is what happens,” she said. The effect, she says, is an ecosystem of fear: those who stay in government self-censor; those who speak out are branded “radioactive, too hot to handle.”
The Department of Health and Human Services, the agency that oversees NIAID, did not respond to a request for comment.
Federal agency leaders have dismissed a wide array of officials they deemed out of step with Trump’s MAGA agenda, including employees involved in diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and those working on transgender issues.
David Maltinsky, a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, says he was fired by Director Kash Patel for displaying a Pride flag at work – one of at least 50 bureau personnel dismissed on Patel’s watch. Maltinsky sued the FBI and Justice Department, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and seeking reinstatement. The Justice Department has yet to file a formal response.
En su libro de 2023, «Gánsteres del Gobierno», Patel nombró a 60 personas que, según él, pertenecían a un «estado profundo del Poder Ejecutivo» que se oponía a Trump, incluyendo exfuncionarios demócratas y republicanos que sirvieron en la primera administración de Trump pero que finalmente rompieron con él. Exigió despidos y afirmó que cualquiera que abusara de su autoridad debería ser procesado. En su audiencia de confirmación ante el Congreso en 2025, Patel negó que se tratara de una «lista de enemigos».
Reuters descubrió que al menos 17 de las 60 personas incluidas en la lista de Patel han enfrentado algún tipo de represalia, incluyendo despidos y la retirada de sus autorizaciones de seguridad. El FBI no respondió a una solicitud de comentarios.
Contra supuestos adversarios del sector privado, la administración ha utilizado sanciones económicas como palanca. Al menos dos docenas de bufetes de abogados se enfrentaron a indagaciones, investigaciones o restricciones en la contratación federal, a menudo por emplear o representar a personas vinculadas a casos anteriores contra Trump. Ocho firmaron acuerdos para evitar nuevas medidas.
Nueve medios de comunicación se han enfrentado a investigaciones federales, demandas, amenazas de revocar sus licencias de transmisión y restricciones de acceso a los eventos de la Casa Blanca. Trump también ha sugerido revocar las licencias de transmisión de las cadenas cuya cobertura no le gusta.
Los objetivos incluyen universidades, consideradas desde hace tiempo por el presidente y sus aliados como bastiones de radicales de izquierda.
Más que $ 4 mil millones de dólares
Las autoridades congelaron más de 4000 millones de dólares en subvenciones federales y fondos de investigación a al menos nueve universidades, exigiendo cambios en las políticas, como la eliminación de los programas de diversidad, equidad e inclusión, la prohibición de la participación de atletas transgénero en deportes femeninos y la represión del presunto antisemitismo en medio de las protestas propalestinas. Cinco universidades han firmado acuerdos para restablecer la financiación. La Universidad de Harvard presentó una demanda con éxito para bloquear la congelación de 2200 millones de dólares en ayuda federal para la universidad, a la que Trump acusó de «impulsar dogmas políticos, ideológicos y de inspiración terrorista». Harvard declinó hacer comentarios.
La administración ha descrito la congelación de fondos y otros esfuerzos para forzar cambios de políticas en universidades e instituciones de educación superior como un impulso necesario para revertir años de deriva izquierdista en la educación estadounidense. «Si Reuters considera como ‘retribución’ restaurar el mérito en las admisiones, recuperar los títulos femeninos apropiados indebidamente por atletas masculinos, hacer cumplir las leyes de derechos civiles e impedir que el dinero de los contribuyentes financie programas radicales de DEI, entonces nos encontramos en realidades muy diferentes», declaró Julie Hartman, portavoz del Departamento de Educación de Estados Unidos.
Un paralelo histórico: los enemigos de Nixon
It’s impossible to predict, of course, how far the Trump revenge campaign will go, or whether it will be affected by a recent slide in popular support. Trump has been hurt by public frustration with the high cost of living and the investigation into late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Nixon resigned in 1974 over the Watergate scandal, in which aides to his re-election campaign broke into Democratic Party headquarters and the president himself later directed a cover-up. While in office, he kept a list of more than 500 enemies. But while Trump has conducted his retribution campaign in the open, historians note, Nixon’s enemies list was conceived as a covert tool.
John Dean, chief counsel in the Nixon White House, wrote a confidential memo in 1971 addressing «how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.» The planned methods included tax audits, phone-tapping, the cancellation of contracts and criminal prosecution. Yet the execution faltered: IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander refused to conduct mass audits, and most targets escaped serious punishment.
Other recent presidents, to be sure, have been accused of seeking to punish opponents, though on a smaller scale. The Obama administration pursued “aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information,” the Committee to Protect Journalists said in a 2013 report. Two IRS employees alleged they were retaliated against during the Biden administration for raising concerns about the handling of the tax-compliance investigation of Hunter Biden.
Nixon’s plotting remained a secret until the Watergate hearings exposed it, turning his enemies list into a symbol of presidential abuse. The secrecy reflected a political culture in which retaliation was whispered, not broadcast, and where institutional checks blunted many of Nixon’s ambitions.
Trump’s approach reverses that pattern, historians say. He has openly named his perceived enemies, urged prosecutions in public and framed vengeance as a campaign vow. Some say today’s “enemies list” politics are in that sense farther‑reaching than Nixon’s, possibly signaling a shift toward a normalization of retribution in American political life.
Corey Brettschneider, a political science professor at Brown University who has written a book on power grabs by American presidents, said Nixon was ultimately checked and forced to resign by Congress, including members of his own Republican Party. “That’s just not happening now,” he said.
People, organizations and institutions singled out for retribution by the Trump administration
Federal officials
Lisa Cook
Governor, U.S. Federal Reserve
Aug 15: Criminal referral made to U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleging mortgage fraud
Aug 22: Threatened with firing by Trump
Aug 25: Firing ordered by Trump
Sep 4: DOJ opens criminal investigation, mortgage fraud allegations
Adam Schiff
U.S. Senator, California, Democrat
May 27: Referred for DOJ investigation, mortgage fraud allegations
Jul 20: Threatened by Trump with criminal prosecution
Aug 8: DOJ criminal investigation revealed, mortgage fraud allegations
Aug 13, Sep 20: Threatened by Trump again with criminal prosecution
Chuck Schumer
U.S. Senate Minority Leader
Jan 21: Subject of DOJ inquiry
Show 39 more
Former federal officials
John Brennan
Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); Former White House Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor
Jan 20: Security clearance revoked
Jul 9: Unspecified criminal investigation
Jul 18: Among several Obama administration officials named by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in a report alleging they conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency
Jul 23: DOJ creates “strike force” to investigate allegations that senior Obama administration officials conspired to undermine Trump’s first presidency
James Comey
Former Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
May 15: Placed under U.S. Secret Service investigation over alleged hostile social media post about Trump
Jul 9: New, unspecified DOJ criminal investigation
Sep 20: Threatened by Trump with criminal prosecution
Sep 25: Criminally charged by DOJ, allegations of making false statements to Congress; A federal judge later dismissed the charges
Dr. Anthony Fauci
Former Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
Jan 24: Security detail removed
Show 88 more
* individual says they had no security clearance or it already was inactive.
Democratic-led states, cities and their elected officials
Ras J. Baraka
Mayor of Newark, New Jersey
May 9: Charged with trespassing at immigrant holding facility; Charges later dropped
Letitia James
Attorney General, New York State
Mar 22: Security clearance revoked; Barred from unescorted access to secure government facilities*
Apr 18: Referred to DOJ for investigation of mortgage fraud allegations
Aug 8: DOJ investigation of James’ successful civil prosecutions of Trump and the National Rifle Association; probe focused on whether the cases deprived defendants of their civil rights
Sep 20: Threatened by Trump with criminal prosecution
Oct 9: Criminal charges brought by DOJ, mortgage fraud allegations; A federal judge later dismissed the charges
Janet Mills
Governor, Maine
Feb 21: Trump threatens cuts to state’s federal funding
Show 11 more
Public figures, political family members and student activists
Chris Christie
Former Governor, New Jersey
Aug 24: Threatened by Trump with investigation
Hunter Biden
Son of former President Joe Biden
Mar 17: Security detail removed
Mahmoud Khalil
Graduate Student, Columbia University
Mar 8: Detained; Released on court order; Faces deportation proceedings
Show 5 more
Universities
Columbia University
Mar 7: $400 million in federal funding frozen by Trump administration
Jul 23: Settlement with Trump administration to resolve antisemitism allegations
Harvard University
Apr 14: $2.2 billion in federal funding frozen by Trump administration; action blocked by federal court
Apr 15: Trump threatens revocation of university’s tax exempt status
Apr 17: Trump threatens to cancel university’s federal funding
May 2: Trump again threatens revocation of university’s tax exempt status
May 26: Trump threatens to cut $3 billion in federal grants
Jun 4: Presidential proclamation bars Harvard’s newly admitted foreign students from entering U.S.; action blocked by federal judge, administration appeal pending
University of Pennsylvania
Mar 19: Trump administration freezes $175 million in federal funding based on school’s policies on transgender athletes
Apr 9: Security clearances revoked, based on school’s association with Miles Taylor, former Trump administration staffer turned critic
Jul 1: University agrees to settlement with Trump administration, changes policies on transgender athletes
Show 8 more
Democratic fundraisers and anti-Trump activists
ActBlue
Democratic Fundraising Platform
Apr 24: Trump orders federal investigation of political fundraising platforms, alleges illegal donations to ActBlue
The Lincoln Project
Political Action Committee
Aug 24: Threatened with lawsuit by Trump lawyers over online criticism of Trump
George Soros
Founder, Open Society Foundations
Aug 27: Threatened by Trump with charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO
Sep 25: Threatened by Trump with federal investigations into alleged funders of “left-wing political violence”
Show 2 more
Military officials
General Charles Q. Brown Jr.
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Feb 21: Fired
Admiral Linda Fagan
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
Jan 21: Fired
General Mark Milley
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Jan 28: Security detail removed
Jan 28: Security clearance revoked
Jan 28: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directs Pentagon Inspector General to investigate Milley, allegations of undermining chain of command during first Trump administration
Show 2 more
Corporations and executives
Intel Corporation
Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
Aug 7: Trump demands resignation of Intel Corporation CEO Lip-Bu Tan
Aug 22: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel; Announcing the deal, Trump said Tan “walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States”
Elon Musk
CEO, SpaceX, Tesla
Jun 5: Trump threatens cancellation of federal contracts and subsidies for Musk’s companies
Penguin Random House
Book Publisher
Oct 16: Named as a defendant in refiled defamation lawsuit filed by Trump
Show 3 more
Law firms and lawyers
Covington & Burling LLP
Law Firm
Feb 25: White House orders review of federal contracts and revokes security clearances for lawyers who aided Special Counsel Jack Smith
Milbank LLP
Law Firm
Mar 17: Received inquiry from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeking detailed information on firm’s diversity and equity practices, policies
Apr 2: Reached agreement with the administration, ending inquiry by EEOC
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
Law Firm
Mar 14: Security clearance revoked; Access to federal offices restricted; Federal contracting restricted
Mar 20: Settled with administration to avoid punitive executive order
Show 26 more
Media and media watchdogs
CBS/Paramount
Television Network
Jan 22: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reopens previously dismissed complaint alleging political bias
Jul 2: Agreed to settle Trump lawsuit amid regulatory pressure
NBC/Comcast
Television Network
Jan 22: FCC reopens previously dismissed complaint alleging political bias
Feb 11: Placed under FCC investigation
Apr 16: Threatened with investigation by Trump-appointed FCC chairman
Jul 26: Trump threatens revocation of broadcast license
Jul 29: FCC investigation into broadcast affiliate relationships
Aug 24: Threatened by Trump again with revocation of broadcast license
National Public Radio (NPR)
Public Broadcasting Radio Network
Jan 29: Placed under FCC investigation, allegations of airing commercial advertising
May 1: Trump cancels NPR’s federal funding by executive order after referring to NPR and PBS as “radical left ‘monsters’”
Jun 3: White House requests “rescission” by Congress of $1.1 billion in federal funding for NPR, PBS and other public broadcasters (proposal later approved)
Show 14 more
How Reuters tracked and analyzed acts of retribution, coercion, and threats in the Trump administration
To track how the Trump administration wielded government power against perceived opponents, Reuters grouped its findings into three categories: punitive acts, threats and coercion. “Punitive acts” referred to the use of government power to harm or penalize perceived enemies. “Threats” referred to statements that raised the prospect of punishment, whether or not it occured. “Coercion” described situations when a business or institution changed policies or management in response to – or anticipation of – threats or punitive acts.
Los actos de represalia debían dirigirse a personas, empresas, instituciones u otras entidades específicas con la intención de castigar o presionar a un supuesto oponente o crítico. Las amenazas se contabilizaban solo cuando indicaban una clara intención de utilizar la maquinaria gubernamental para castigar, en lugar de abarcar todos los casos de retórica hostil o intimidatoria. La coerción exigía un cambio demostrable en el comportamiento de la parte afectada, como una universidad que modificaba sus políticas de admisión o un bufete de abogados que modificaba sus compromisos pro bono.
Algunos sujetos enfrentaron múltiples actos de retribución en las tres categorías.
Reuters también dividió a los objetivos de represalia en dos grupos: aquellos señalados públicamente para ser castigados y aquellos atrapados en purgas de supuestos enemigos. Las pérdidas de empleo o las reasignaciones derivadas de medidas generales, como el cierre de programas de diversidad en todo el gobierno, no se consideraron represalia, excepto en los casos en que individuos u organizaciones fueron explícitamente objeto de castigo. Los casos en que empleados federales aceptaron ofertas de jubilación anticipada para evitar despidos tampoco se contabilizaron como represalia. Sin embargo, el recuento de Reuters incluye alrededor de media docena de casos en los que funcionarios federales que se resistieron a las políticas del gobierno optaron por jubilarse tras ser objeto de despido.
Una docena de personas a quienes la administración Trump apuntó públicamente para castigarlas pidieron que no se publicaran sus nombres, alegando temor a amenazas y acoso. Sus solicitudes fueron atendidas.
Reuters solo nombró a personas que fueron señaladas públicamente por el gobierno para recibir represalias o identificadas públicamente en registros judiciales u otros documentos gubernamentales. Se excluyó del recuento a miembros no remunerados de juntas asesoras federales destituidas por el gobierno. Las demandas interpuestas por el presidente Donald Trump como ciudadano particular se contabilizaron como actos de represalia si se iniciaron durante su mandato en la Casa Blanca. No se contabilizaron las demandas presentadas mientras no ocupaba el cargo.
La contabilidad de Reuters es una instantánea de un panorama de represalias en constante evolución. Incluye casos documentados hasta el martes 25 de noviembre.
