The news these days is rife with stories about officials being accused of “weaponizing” the federal government for political purposes. Ironically, most of these stories have their genesis in hyper-partisan politics.

For example, here is what House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had to say about the Department of Justice (DOJ):

“If you are the president’s leading political opponent, the DOJ tries to literally put you in jail and give you prison time. If you are the president’s son, you get a sweetheart deal.”

Elsewhere, here’s what House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) had to say about Trump’s arrest in connection with mishandling of classified documents:

“The American people are smart and understand this is the epitome of the illegal and unprecedented weaponization of the federal government against Joe Biden’s leading opponent, President Donald J. Trump.”

And here is how Fox News depicted Trump’s arrest:

Democrats have also jumped on the weaponization bandwagon.  The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee recently met to consider Special Council John Durham’s 4-year investigation into the origins of the Mueller Investigation.  His report finds the FBI acted prematurely in launching a full-scale investigation. It also finds a double standard compared with how the FBI handled its investigation of Hillary Clinton. 

Jerry Nadler, the committee’s ranking Democrat, accused Republicans of weaponizing the process.   He said they planned the hearing and dramatized Durham’s report in an attempt to distract from Trump’s four pending criminal probes. 

“Mr. Durham constructed a flimsy story built on shaky inferences and dog whistles to far-right conspiracy theorists . . . By prolonging his investigation, Durham was able to keep Donald Trump’s talking points in the news, long after Trump left office.”

The weaponization furor is highly partisan in nature.

The FBI’s search of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022 helped set off the weaponization mania.  Republicans criticized both the search and the investigation, vowing immediate oversight when they took back the House.  In January 2023, Speaker McCarthy proposed a subcommittee to investigate actions taken by federal agencies and the Biden Administration.  The Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government was approved by a strictly partisan vote of 221-211.  It is chaired by Jim Jordan (Ohio), a founding member of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus. 

Democrats are responding in an equally partisan manner.  They argue that it is the congressional Republicans, not the federal government, who are weaponizing oversight and investigative powers.  Republicans are using conspiracy theories to cast doubt on civil servants, federal agencies, and the Biden Administration. 

 Says Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md):

“Millions of Americans already fear that weaponization is the right name for this special subcommittee — not because weaponization of the government is its target but because weaponization of the government is its purpose.”

As I dug deeper into the weaponization furor I came to see how insidious and destructive it is. Let me share what I found. 

The weaponization narratives are presented as fact, rather than as allegations or opinions.

The narratives cited above, and most of the others I identified, are stated without qualification. For instance, Speaker McCarthy didn’t simply allege or opine that the DOJ was out to prosecute Trump and give Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal.  Instead, McCarthy declares that the DOJ took these actions, and clearly implies Biden gave the orders. Similarly, the chyron on the Fox News report declares that Biden is a “wannabe dictator” who directed Trump’s arrest.  It presents as a statement of fact—that Biden actually ordered Trump’s arrest. 

People reading these narratives accordingly view them as established fact.  Biden actually weaponized a federal agency to damage a political rival.  The narrative is destructive because it preemptively declares Biden to be “guilty” when he has not even been formally charged or accused. Guilt has been declared without an investigation or due process. The narrative deceives and manipulates the reader into believing that guilt has already been established.

The narratives are rarely accompanied by evidence.

Speaker McCarthy did not provide any evidence to support his statement that the DOJ was out to put Trump in jail and give him prison time. How did he know that DOJ was doing this, and that Biden was behind it all? Were there emails? Texts? Witnesses?  Recordings?

In researching these narratives, I found most are not accompanied by evidence.  Sometimes accusers insist that proof exists but fail to deliver the goods.  Trump, several Republican allies, and conservative media outlets recently declared that Biden accepted a $5 million bribe while Vice President. They insisted there were audio tapes proving the bribe from Ukrainian energy company Burisma.  Within a few weeks, most of those making this claim admitted that they don’t know if there is such evidence. 

On other occasions evidence is cherry picked. For instance, Gary Shapley, a whistleblower working with the IRS, contends that Hunter Biden got special treatment from the Department of Justice. He maintains that the DOJ “slow walked” the case and should have charged Biden with felonies. Republicans and the conservative media have singled out and hammered Shapley’s statements as proof of special treatment. This strategy serves to suppress several other pieces of evidence indicating the DOJ did not give Biden special treatment. All the evidence, including Shapley’s account, should be impartially considered before conclusions are drawn.

Again, the harm comes when people are deceived into believing that weaponization occurred without seeing any evidence, or with just seeing cherry picked evidence.

The narratives are carefully constructed sound bites designed to be made in settings where the presenter is not under oath.

Politicians are adept at feeding sound bites to reporters. They also repeat such carefully crafted talking points at speaking engagements and public appearances. These occasions are ideal for spreading weaponization narratives because the authors are not under oath.  The sound bite is optimal because it can be presented as fact. Authors can avoid answering questions or providing any evidence. They know statements will be picked up and disseminated verbatim.  They know scant attention will be paid to evidence.  And, they can scoop sympathetic media outlets to secure favorable opinion and bias reporting. Again, the harm comes when these strategies are applied to manipulate people into believing a false or unproven narrative.

If and when the narratives are investigated via hearings or other processes, those in power control the deliberations and still are not under oath.

We might assume that a special subcommittee—the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization—could thoroughly and even-handedly investigate charges of weaponization.  Unfortunately, this is not the way Congressional committees work.  The subcommittee is chaired by the majority party, and Republicans comprise 12 of the 21 members (57%).  As chair, Republican Jim Jordan has great leeway in controlling the agenda and proceedings.  Subcommittee members are not under oath (except if they are called to testify as a witness). They are free to make false statements and offer partisan views as they frame questions and respond to witnesses.  The rules of evidence are very different than in court proceedings.  In short, it’s easy for the party in control to use a congressional investigation and hearing process to pursue partisan narratives and objectives.

Americans appear to recognize that the Subcommittee on Weaponization is more of a partisan tool than a credible investigative body.  A Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that by a margin of 56% to 36%, Americans don’t think the subcommittee’s purpose is legitimate.   Rather, they see it as, “just an attempt to score political points.”

Those who author and spread untrue narratives rarely face any consequences.

Politicians and others are free to make false or unproven statements as long as they aren’t under oath.  It happens all the time. Former President Trump and many Republicans maintain that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, and that Trump won.  Yet every legal challenge and appeal has rejected such claims.  Speaker McCarthy can declare that the DOJ is out to prosecute Trump while giving Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal.  Since McCarthy was not under oath when he made the statement, it didn’t matter if it is false or unproven.  He can’t be charged with perjury. Nor is he subject to censure or other punishment for making the statement.  In fact, McCarthy is under pressure as majority leader to reinforce Republican talking points on weaponization.  There are more incentives and rewards for spreading unproven narratives than there are disincentives or consequences.

The weaponization narratives undermine trust in government and further divide Americans.

This is the most insidious and destructive aspect of the current weaponization furor.  If we accept unproven narratives at face value—and tens of millions of Americas do—think what this says about the country. President Biden is using federal agencies and processes to suit his own needs and to punish or eliminate political opponents. This is not a sign of a strong and vibrant democracy.  Rather, it’s a country that has lost its way. Those who believe the narratives cannot help but lose faith in the government. The President is an enemy of democracy.  Without seeing evidence or waiting for the results of an objective hearing, a huge number of Americans are convinced the President is guilty and America has lost its way. On the other side of the equation, there are probably tens of millions of other Americans who are appalled by this rush to judgment. It’s a travesty to condemn individuals and agencies for weaponization when they haven’t even been charged or afforded due process.

The harm is especially great if the narratives turn out to be false.  For instance, let’s assume that Biden did not actually attempt to control the actions of the DOJ regarding Trump and his son.  Now Biden is innocent and weaponization didn’t occur.  However, it’s too late because great damage has already been done. Vital American institutions have suffered and trust in government has declined because tens of millions of Americans were deceived into believing a false narrative.  If you need convincing that trust in government isn’t seriously eroding, just check out this graphic from the Pew Research Center.

The Way Forward

Weaponization of the federal government is a serious matter. Credible threats deserve thorough and even-handed investigations.  However, the current approach to weaponization appears to be nothing more than thinly veiled partisan politics.   Curated sound bites preemptively declaring that weaponization has occurred are illegitimate and destructive.  These statements are not even made under oath.  And, if and when they are investigated, the proceedings are controlled by the party in power and the investigations are not even-handed. The current approach is further eroding Americans’ trust in government and leaving us more and more divided. What can we do?

First, let’s adopt a legitimate process for investigating weaponization.

The ideal solution is to adopt a proper process for investigating weaponization.  Without getting too deep into the weeds, let’s focus on Congress and its role in investigating weaponization complaints against the President and executive branch. Here are some recommendations.

• A joint committee should be established to review complaints of weaponization.  Republicans and Democrats should be appointed in equal (or near equal) numbers, with the chair being chosen by the members.
• Complaints of weaponization could be filed by any member of Congress, or a whistleblower, and must be accompanied by evidence submitted under penalty of perjury. 
• The joint committee would have full authority to pursue or dismiss complaints, including subpoena power and contempt of Congress.   
• The joint committee could exercise its authority via open or closed meetings.  As to public hearings, proceedings and rules of evidence should be modeled after those of courts.
• The joint committee would have no authority to prosecute or punish, as Congress is not a law enforcement agency.  Rather, it would render its determinations, make them public, and recommend legislation as part of Congress’s oversight function. 

A legitimate process for investigating weaponization complaints will limit the impact of the current approach.  Politicians, media outlets and others will undoubtedly continue to use the partisan approach. However, they will be forced to reckon with the formal complaint process.  If they’re not using the process they’ll have to explain why. And if they do file a complaint, the investigation and decision is taken out of their hands.

Until then, here’s how we can fight back against destructive weaponization narratives.

Sadly, it’s unlikely that Congress will adopt anything like the process described above.  It’s far more likely that hyper-partisan weaponization narratives will continue to be the order of the day.  But this doesn’t mean we can’t fight back.  Here are some steps you can take to join the fray:

1. Be wary of statements declaring that weaponization occurred when it has not yet been charged or investigated. A sound bite that declares weaponization is most likely a partisan narrative that should be discounted.  Ask those making such statements whether they are saying weaponization has occurred or whether they are alleging that it has occurred.
2. Be wary of statements not made under oath.  If a statement is not made under oath or penalty of perjury, it should be flagged.  In your discussions with others, note whether or not statements have been made under oath.  
3. Be wary of statements made without supporting evidence or proof.  A statement made without accompanying evidence or proof should be discounted. Ask those repeating or relying on such statements whether they have evidence or proof. And, insist on considering all the evidence, and not just a proponent’s cherry picked evidence.
4. Always consider the reliability of the source of the statement. If it’s an elected official, what is their reputation for truthfulness and hyper-partisan behavior?  If it’s a media outlet or personality, check reliability and bias using media rating systems (I recommend Ad Fontes Media, rated sources).  Be prepared to discount statements made by those who tend to bend the truth or report with strong partisan bias.  
5. If and when accusations of weaponization are investigated by Congressional committees, be wary of partisan politics and stay focused on the evidence.  Expect the party in control to use the process to push its narratives.  Also, expect the minority party to try to disrupt and discredit the proceedings.  Be prepared to discount statements made by committee members as they frame questions and react to testimony.  But none of this means the investigation is thereby worthless.  Instead, the critical aspect is to stay focused on the evidence coming from witnesses and communications regarding the matter.  Is there hard evidence from those involved in the weaponization—in the form of testimony and communications—that the person or agency being charged directed the action?   It’s the evidence, and not the political posturing, that determines whether weaponization occurred.

It’s time to mobilize. Partisan narratives charging weaponization of the federal government are, in fact, a form of weaponization.  They do great harm to our country by eroding trust in our government and stoking anger and division.  Let’s call out this weaponization when we see it.  And let’s always insist on following the evidence and seeking the truth when any form of weaponization is charged.