Pritzker, Democrats Vow To Prosecute Trump Officials After 2028 Elections

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is drawing sharp criticism after openly floating a sweeping plan that critics say amounts to political retaliation against officials who served under President Donald J. Trump.

Pritzker, widely viewed as a potential 2028 presidential contender, outlined what he calls “Project 2029” in an interview with The New York Times—a proposal he framed as a roadmap for Democrats to reclaim power after the next presidential cycle. But the substance of the plan has raised serious concerns among conservatives, particularly its emphasis on targeting political opponents through legal action.

Positioning the initiative as a restoration of institutional norms, Pritzker claimed it would reinforce the “rule of law.” However, he did not cite any specific crimes committed by Trump administration officials.

“I don’t think you can speak of it in shorthand, but we’ve got to restore the rule of law, and that means holding people accountable who’ve broken the law,” Pritzker said. “I’m talking about the people in this administration who’ve broken the law and federal agents who’ve broken the law need to be held accountable.”

Pressed on whether that would include prosecutions, Pritzker made clear that all options are on the table.

“Criminally prosecuted, civilly prosecuted. Whatever it is that we can do,” he added, noting that civil action could be pursued even in the absence of criminal charges.

For many observers, the remarks signal a troubling shift toward weaponizing the justice system for partisan ends—something conservatives have long warned about in the wake of years of investigations targeting President Trump and his allies.

The rhetoric is not isolated. Leading Democrats have increasingly embraced similar messaging as they look ahead to the 2026 midterms and beyond, where regaining even partial control of Congress could open the door to aggressive investigations and regulatory crackdowns.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries escalated tensions with a direct attack on FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, writing on X: “Brendan Carr is a corrupt political hack and fake chair of the FCC. This guy (and the entities he promotes) will find himself on the wrong side of a congressional investigation in short order.”

Jeffries’ comments came in response to Carr’s suggestion that federal regulators may take a closer look at broadcast licenses tied to outlets accused of pushing “fake news”—a move that has sparked renewed debate over media accountability and free speech.

Meanwhile, some Democrats are signaling that corporate America could also be in their crosshairs. Lawmakers have reportedly been developing strategies to target companies and industries that aligned with President Trump’s policies, including revisiting major mergers approved during his administration.

Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona issued a stark warning to corporate leaders who benefited from those deals.

“Once we take power, whoever the president is, we’re going to break up your companies,” Gallego told Semafor.

“So, all the investment you did to create these mergers are going to be for naught. Your investors are going to be pissed at you, and you’re likely going to end up getting fired as the CEO because you wasted so much money and corrupted yourself in the process,” he added.

Among the high-profile deals finalized during the Trump administration were Paramount’s $82.7 billion acquisition of Warner Bros., Capital One’s $35 billion purchase of Discover, and Nippon Steel’s $14.9 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel—transactions that could face renewed scrutiny under a future Democrat-controlled government.

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut echoed those sentiments in a social media post, writing: “Paramount should enjoy its growing news monopoly while they have it, because when Democrats win back power we are going to break up these anti-democratic information conglomerates. All of them.”

Even former Obama and Biden official Susan Rice entered the fray during a recent interview with Vox, suggesting that political consequences for certain companies may be on the horizon if Democrats regain control in Washington.

Taken together, the statements paint a picture of a party increasingly willing to wield government power not just to govern, but to punish—raising serious constitutional questions about equal justice, due process, and the future of political dissent in America.

With the 2026 midterms approaching, the stakes are rising. For many voters, the debate may ultimately come down to a fundamental question: Should the machinery of government be used to settle political scores?