How Biden Weaponized The DOJ & FBI Against The Democrat Party

A familiar argument says that one needs only study the prosecutions of Donald Trump and his supporters to see how deeply the FBI and DOJ were corrupted during Joe Biden’s presidency. That argument has force, but it also carries a predictable burden. Many readers will dismiss it as partisan grievance, even when the record shows clear departures from neutral law enforcement. There is a more disarming way to understand the transformation of federal law enforcement under Biden. Look not at Republicans, but at the Democrats who found themselves under scrutiny whenever they obstructed Biden’s political project. A pattern emerges once we do. Across Biden’s four years in office, dozens of Democrats at every level of government were investigated, pressured, or indicted soon after defying the White House on policy. Most of these inquiries never matured into prosecutions, yet the hint of federal attention was usually enough to bring the target back into alignment. When the signal failed, the hammer dropped. The cases of Senator Robert Menendez, Mayor Eric Adams, Representative Henry Cuellar, Representative T.J. Cox, Governor Andrew Cuomo, and Representative Matt Cartwright illustrate this pattern. The case of Cuellar, perhaps the most aggressive example, reveals how federal law enforcement became an informal tool for enforcing intra-party discipline.

The pattern begins with Menendez. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he stood between Biden and a central plank of his early foreign policy. Biden sought to loosen restrictions on financial transactions, remittances, and travel with Cuba. Menendez, invoking human rights and security concerns, blocked the move in May 2022. His opposition lasted for months and left the White House without a clear path forward. The FBI had known about Menendez’s dealings with Egyptian interests since at least 2018, yet no indictment came until September 2023, less than a year after he refused to budge on Cuba policy. Thanks to later whistleblower disclosures, we now know that the decision to indict Menendez did not arise from an independent prosecutorial assessment but from direct pressure inside the Oval Office. The charges included bribery, extortion, obstruction, and acting as a foreign agent. The timing mattered. Once Menendez stepped back from Foreign Relations leadership, the administration gained the room it needed to relax the Cuba restrictions. On its face, the indictment looked like a corruption case, but with the whistleblower reports in view, it looked even more clearly like an enforcement action against a Democrat who obstructed the administration at a consequential moment.

Adams offers a parallel case. As mayor of New York City, he confronted the consequences of Biden’s border policy more directly than almost any other Democrat. By early 2023, the city was overwhelmed by illegal crossings and asylum claims, and Adams said so in public. In April 2023, he openly blamed Biden for the crisis, and in October, he declared a state of emergency. By December, he complained that the White House would not even meet with him. Nine months later, federal prosecutors indicted him for alleged bribery and campaign finance violations built around upgraded airline seats and hotel rooms with an estimated value near $100K. These upgrades had been known for years and had never been treated as criminal acts. The theory of the case, that such upgrades constituted foreign-financed bribery, was novel and strained. What had changed was not the evidence but the politics. Adams had broken ranks at a moment when the White House needed unity on immigration messaging. What followed looked less like routine prosecution and more like a reminder to other Democrats that dissent carried real costs.

The case of Andrew Cuomo fits the same pattern, though the mechanism differed. In the early months of the pandemic, Cuomo’s administration issued nursing home policies that resulted in significant loss of life. The DOJ declined to prosecute him at the time. Yet once Cuomo began to position himself as a potential rival to Biden for national leadership, a series of investigations, leaks, and coordinated public statements from federal and state officials shifted the political ground beneath him. The sexual misconduct allegations that ended his career were handled with unusual coordination across jurisdictions, and the timing aligned with White House concerns about an intra-party challenge. The episode was not a conventional federal prosecution, but it illustrated how investigative attention could be marshaled against a Democrat who became inconvenient to the administration.

Representative T.J. Cox faced an indictment in August 2022 on wire fraud and related charges tied to conduct that predated Biden’s presidency. The indictment came only after he broke with the administration on several votes involving energy and border security, and it landed at the height of an election cycle in which Democrats sought to purge internal dissenters. Likewise, Representative Matt Cartwright, a moderate Democrat with a history of disagreeing with party leadership on energy regulation, found himself under the cloud of a federal inquiry that never produced charges but succeeded in silencing his criticism of administration climate policies. These cases did not draw national headlines, yet within Democratic circles, they were understood as reminders that the DOJ could reach deep into the party when necessary.

These examples show a pattern, but the case of Representative Henry Cuellar shows it with extraordinary clarity. Between 2021 and 2024, Cuellar was perhaps the single most persistent Democratic critic of Biden’s immigration, energy, abortion, and gun control agendas. His district in South Texas bore the brunt of Biden’s border policies. In March 2021, he said the White House was in complete denial about the crisis and argued that the president had lost control of the southern border. A month later, he publicly demanded that DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas deploy more Border Patrol agents to Laredo. Over the next several years, Cuellar leaked damaging DHS documents showing overcrowded facilities, mass releases of migrants, and processing failures. These leaks contradicted the White House narrative and embarrassed the administration. He repeated the criticism through 2022 and 2023. In early 2024, he called for Mayorkas to be replaced outright. No other Democrat had mounted such a sustained public challenge to the administration’s signature policy.

Cuellar also defied Biden across a broad policy range. He opposed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. He resisted Biden’s plans to pause new oil and gas leases. He pushed for increased LNG exports. He rejected federal methane rules. He broke with the White House on abortion by voting against the Women’s Health Protection Act in September 2021. After Dobbs, he again rejected federal codification of Roe, and national Democrats backed a pro-choice primary challenger against him. On gun legislation, he opposed key provisions of Biden’s preferred bills and supported only the narrower Senate compromise. He also obstructed Democratic immigration proposals that expanded parole or asylum authority without enforcement measures. By mid-2023, Cuellar had become the administration’s most significant internal obstacle on immigration and energy, and he had shown that he would not bend to pressure.

When informal pressure failed, the investigation began. Cuellar’s wife had business interests that had been previously disclosed and reviewed without finding misconduct. The DOJ tried to reframe these interests as a bribery scheme. When investigators could not establish a quid pro quo, they attempted a sting operation. The FBI created a dummy corporation, funded it with taxpayer resources, and attempted to route money through Cuellar’s campaign, his staff, and even his family. None of the targets accepted the bait. Despite the failure of the sting, the DOJ proceeded with an indictment in May 2024, alleging bribery, conspiracy, wire fraud, extortion, obstruction, and acting as a foreign agent. The indictment appeared designed to make reelection impossible and to install a more obedient Democrat in his place for the 2026 cycle.

Events inside the DOJ reinforced this interpretation. The U.S. Attorney in Houston, Alamdar S. Hamdani, reportedly refused to prosecute the case due to lack of evidence. He recognized that the case amounted to a political strike against a member of Biden’s own party for failing to fall in line. When the local office declined, Attorney General Merrick Garland reassigned the case to Main Justice in Washington. Prosecutors from the Public Integrity Section and the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, including Marco Palmieri, Rosaleen O’Gara, Celia Choy, and Garrett Coyle, took over the matter. The relocation of a domestic public corruption case to national security prosecutors in Washington was highly unusual. It suggested that the administration sought maximum control over the case rather than a neutral assessment of the evidence.

What unifies these episodes is not a partisan motive but an institutional one. The DOJ and FBI became instruments for disciplining internal dissent. This mechanism can operate without explicit orders. Bureaucracies internalize the preferences of leadership. They respond to political incentives. Under Biden, the incentive structure rewarded actions that neutralized Democrats who threatened the administration’s legislative strategy or public messaging. Investigations were opened, leaks were issued, and prosecutors generated novel theories of liability when traditional theories lacked support. Most of these actions never produced convictions, yet they did not need to. The point was deterrence.

These internal enforcement actions also explain why complaints about weaponization against Republicans often fall on deaf ears. Many Democrats assume that any Republican under investigation is presumptively guilty. Yet when the same tactics fall on Democrats who hold mainstream policy views within the party, the abuses become harder to ignore. It is no answer to say that prosecutors occasionally bring corruption cases against Democrats. The question is why these cases surged at moments when the targets obstructed Biden’s agenda and why many were built on theories that would not have survived scrutiny in earlier administrations.

The deeper issue is structural. We do not know how many Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, were quietly investigated, pressured, or coerced into conformity. The number is likely much larger than the public record shows. Once a pattern of selective enforcement takes hold, it spreads. Officials receive the message that their careers depend on cooperation with the preferences of executive leadership. Federal law enforcement becomes a tool for shaping party discipline. The public sees only the completed prosecutions. The real work of coercion happens in the shadows.

This is why congressional oversight is essential. Representative Jim Jordan should investigate the pattern of investigations directed at Democrats during the Biden years. The goal is not partisan advantage. It is to restore the norm that law enforcement must not become an instrument of political conformity. Understanding what happened to Menendez, Adams, Cuellar, Cox, Cuomo, and Cartwright is essential for preventing future misuse of federal power. Once a party learns it can enforce loyalty through federal investigations, the temptation to repeat the practice grows. A republic cannot function if elected officials fear that policy disagreements will be met with federal scrutiny.

If you enjoy my work, please subscribe: https://x.com/amuse.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: Dem Firebrand Makes Bold Move To Leave Congress