Donald Trump's administration has unleashed a political and judicial firestorm in his first month back in the White House. The Justice Department has directly intervened in high-profile cases, ordered the dismissal of key prosecutors and promoted decisions favoring political allies of the president.

The most emblematic case is that of New York Mayor Eric Adams, accused of corruption and illegal campaign financing, whose charges were abruptly dropped after pressure from the Trump administration. This generated an unprecedented crisis in the Manhattan district attorney's office, leading to the resignation of acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, along with other prosecutors in the anti-corruption division.

The episode recalls the "Saturday Night Massacre" of 1973, when high-ranking officials resigned in protest against Richard Nixon's intervention in the Watergate investigation. Now, the situation is similar: the departure of career prosecutors threatens judicial independence and reveals a pattern of government meddling in judicial proceedings.

But the purge in the New York prosecutor's office was not an isolated event. The Trump administration also ordered the dismissal of all prosecutors appointed during the Biden era, affecting ongoing investigations into corruption, civil rights and political finance issues. In Washington, D.C., the firing of prosecutors who worked on the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill assault cases and the investigation into Trump's mishandling of classified documents has raised accusations of political retaliation.

A strategy to shield itself?

The blow to the judicial system is no coincidence. Since his first term in office, Trump has faced countless investigations and legal proceedings that have called his conduct into question. His administration's strategy to dismantle judicial independence is directly related to the numerous cases in which he has been involved.

One of the most recent cases is the investigation into the attempt to manipulate the 2020 election results in Georgia. Despite the evidence presented by the prosecution, the Trump administration has maneuvered to weaken the prosecution, removing key prosecutors and making it difficult to move the case forward.

Another episode that marked Trump's judicial history was his conviction on 34 counts, handed down by a Colombian-born judge Juan Merchán. Although Trump was found guilty, no effective sentence was imposed due to his status as president-elect. This decision generated controversy over the special treatment the president receives compared to other citizens.

The list of cases in which Trump has been under judicial scrutiny is extensive. From the sexual abuse claims to the investigation for obstruction of justice in the case of the Russian plot, the former president has managed to evade serious sanctions.

Judges as a retaining wall

Despite the fact that the measures adopted by the Trump Administration weaken judicial independence, the courts have managed to restrain some of its most radical decisions. A clear example is the recent ruling against his intention to eliminate birthright nationality, a measure that was blocked by a Court of Appeals and the issue could end up in the Supreme Court of Judiciary.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, without mentioning the President, but concerned about the evident interference of the Government in the judicial system, said in a recent interview that "the President of the United States is not an emperor" and that his powers have limits defined by the Constitution.

The clash between Trump and the judiciary raises serious questions about the future of democracy in the United States. If the president succeeds in consolidating absolute control over the Justice Department and the federal courts, the separation of powers would be severely compromised.

Historically, judicial independence has been one of the fundamental guarantees of American democracy. The ability of judges to act without political pressure is crucial to maintaining the balance of power and avoiding abuse of authority.

However, Trump's offensive against prosecutors and judges suggests that his administration is unwilling to respect the limits of good form. The dismissal of prosecutors, pressure to close cases against him or his allies, and attempts to intervene in judicial decisions show a troubling pattern that could undermine confidence in the judicial system.

The challenge now is how judges and prosecutors will respond to this new landscape. Resistance from some judicial sectors suggests that not all are willing to give in to pressure from the Executive. The mass resignation of prosecutors in New York, as well as the rulings against arbitrary measures, indicate that there are still actors within the system who defend judicial independence.

The road to the preservation of democracy passes, in large part, through guaranteeing the integrity of judges and prosecutors. As long as there is a real separation of powers, the rule of law will be able to resist the onslaught of political power. However, if the Trump administration succeeds in consolidating its influence over the judiciary, the United States could be on the verge of an unprecedented institutional crisis.