Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico on Saturday accepted the resignation of his national security adviser, Miroslav Lajčák, following revelations that Lajčák exchanged messages with convicted sex offended Jeffrey Epstein. The messages were included in Friday’s release by the U.S. Justice Department of investigative materials related to Epstein.  Fico, announcing the decision in a video statement on Facebook, praised Lajčák as “a great diplomat” and said Slovakia was losing “an incredible source of experience in diplomacy and foreign policy.” Lajčák served as Slovak foreign minister in multiple Fico governments between 2009 and 2020. The U.S. Justice Department on Friday released more than three million pages of documents in the Epstein files. The documents, which reference several prominent figures, such as Steve Bannon, Elon Musk and world leaders, also include exchanges between Lajčák and Epstein. In the newly released files, Epstein bantered with Lajčák about women while discussing Lajčák’s meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Lajčák initially denied any wrongdoing, describing the communications as informal and light-hearted, and later offered his resignation to prevent political costs from falling on the prime minister, according to reports in Slovak media. “Not because I did anything criminal or unethical, but so that he does not bear political costs for something unrelated to his decisions,” Lajčák was quoted as saying. The opposition has united in calling for him to resign. The coalition Slovak National Party has also joined this stance, saying that Lajčák represents a security risk, according to local media. Lajčák did not immediately respond to a request for comment by POLITICO.  In his video address, the prime minister also criticized media coverage of the case, calling it “hypocritical” and overstated.

President Donald Trump rose to power on his immigration agenda. Now, it’s threatening to box him in. After months of aggressive enforcement actions meant to telegraph strength on one of the Republican Party’s signature issues, the White House has had to backtrack in the face of Americans’ backlash to its approach — particularly after two protesters were killed by federal law enforcement agents in Minneapolis. But the calculus that forced the Trump administration to change course is a double-edged sword: If the administration appears to ease up on its maximalist stance against illegal immigration, it risks leaving its hardcore MAGA base disenchanted at a moment when Republicans can’t afford to lose support. And if it doesn’t, it risks alienating moderate Republicans, independents, young voters and Latinos who support the administration’s immigration enforcement in theory but dislike how it’s being executed. “I worry because if we lose the agenda, we’re done — and people don’t fully appreciate how big of an issue this is,” said Sean Spicer, Trump’s former press secretary. “When you have a two-seat majority in the House or a two- or three-seat majority in the Senate, you’re on a razor’s edge. To not acknowledge that is ridiculous.” For Trump, a midterms rout means the last two years of his administration will be eaten up by Democratic stonewalling, investigations and likely impeachment inquiries, rather than his own agenda — a situation the administration desperately wants to avoid. The result is a rare moment of vulnerability on Trump’s strongest issue, one that has exposed fault lines inside the Republican Party, sharpened Democratic attacks, and forced the White House into a defensive crouch it never expected to take. Some Trump allies insist the GOP shouldn’t be scared of their best issue, blaming Democrats for putting them on the back foot. “This has been President Trump’s area of greatest success,” said Trump pollster John McLaughlin. “You’re looking at the Republicans be defensive on something they shouldn’t be defensive about.” A recent POLITICO poll underscores the administration’s delicate balancing act: 1 in 5 voters who backed the president in 2024 say Trump’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive, and more than 1 in 3 Trump voters say that while they support the goals of his mass deportation campaign, they disapprove of the way he is implementing it. The administration this week struggled to manage the political fallout from demonstrator Alex Pretti’s killing, where even typically loyal Republicans criticized the president and others called for the ousting of his top officials, namely Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The White House softened its hardline rhetoric, and Trump shifted his personnel in charge of Minneapolis operations, sending border czar Tom Homan to the state to deescalate tensions on the ground. A subdued Homan told reporters Thursday that he had “productive” conversations with state and local Democrats and that federal agents’ operations would be more targeted moving forward. He vowed to stick by the administration’s mission, but said he hopes to reduce Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s presence in the city if federal officials get access to state jails. The president “doesn’t want to be dealing with clashes between protesters and federal agents on the ground in Minnesota,” said one person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If Trump was more invested in the outcome of this, he would have sent in the National Guard. He would declare martial law. He would be more aggressive.” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, in a statement, said that the administration is always looking for “the most effective way” to implement what it sees as a mandate from voters to carry out mass deportations. “Our focus remains the same: prioritizing violent criminal illegal aliens while also enforcing the law — anyone who is in the country illegally is eligible to be deported,” she said, adding that includes “the President’s continued calls for local Democrat leaders to work with the Administration to remove illegal murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from their communities.” Some Trump allies, fearful the aggressive tactics will isolate crucial swing voters in November, have argued that Republicans have to keep the focus on criminal arrests, public safety and the Trump administration’s success in securing the southern border, which are more popular with voters across the board. But immigration hawks in the Republican Party have grown increasingly apoplectic over the administration’s moves this week, including an apparent openness to compromise with Democrats on policies to boost the oversight of federal immigration officers. They argue the administration is paying too much attention to cable news coverage and donor anxiety and not enough to the voters who propelled Trump back into office. “The upshot of the lame duck second Trump term was supposed to be that he was going to get things done regardless of the pressure from consultants, pollsters and left-wing Republicans. That doesn’t seem to be happening and it’s disappointing,” said Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, a conservative group. “I’m dumbfounded that CNN coverage seems to have more influence over the White House’s immigration enforcement agenda than the base that stood by Trump through everything over the last decade.” Even so, some of the more hardline elements of the president’s base acknowledge that the splashy optics of the administration’s immigration enforcement actions have introduced a vulnerability. “The big muscular show of force — you invite too much confrontation,” said a second person close to the White House, also granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Let’s try to be quieter about it but deport just as many people. Be a little sneakier. Don’t have the flexing and the machismo part of it. There’s a certain element of that that’s cool but as much as we can, why can’t we be stealthy and pop up all over Minnesota?” “We were almost provoking the reaction,” the person added. “I’m all for the smartest tactics as long as the end result is as many deportations as possible.” But the person warned that any perception of backtracking could depress a base already uneasy about the economy. “Our base is generally not wealthy and they’re not doing well,” the person said. “They’re struggling. If you take away immigration — if they don’t believe he means it — holy cow, that’s not good.”

The Justice Department’s long-awaited release Friday of documents related to the federal government’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein was perhaps most notable for what it lacked. Financial records, internal memos from prosecutors who investigated Epstein’s alleged sex-trafficking ring, key material obtained from the searches of Epstein’s palatial homes — none of it figured prominently in the documents released Friday. Interested in records that would help explain how Epstein grew so wealthy? None to be found. Want to read emails from federal prosecutors deciding who to charge — and, equally importantly, who not to charge — during their 2019 investigation? You’re out of luck. Curious about the role of Maurene Comey, the prosecutor who co-led the probes into Epstein and his co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, before being fired without explanation in July? Nothing from her to see here. The department was obligated by law to release the entire universe of documents related to Epstein, the late convicted sex offender, and Maxwell, who was convicted of aiding and participating in his sex-trafficking ring, by Friday. The tranche made public represented only a fraction of the total material, which the government has said exceeds 300 gigabytes worth of data and physical evidence. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, estimated the production included only about 10 percent of the material in the department’s possession. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche promised Friday there’s more to come, saying “additional responsive materials will be produced as our review continues, consistent with the law and with protections for victims.” The department hasn’t provided guidance as to when it plans to release more documents, although Blanche indicated in a letter to Congress that production will be complete by the end of the year. There were some notable materials in Friday’s document dump, including a photograph of former President Bill Clinton in a pool with Maxwell and another woman, whose face was obscured as part of the redaction process. There were videos of police interviews from the 2005 investigation of Epstein in Florida, as well as what appeared to be notes for an Epstein attorney to prepare for a conversation with Alex Acosta, then the top federal prosecutor in Florida who cut a sweetheart plea deal with Epstein. But most of the material disclosed Friday had either already been made public, was heavily redacted or simply didn’t advance the public understanding of the many mysteries surrounding the Epstein saga. Many of those pushing for the release of the files expressed dismay and frustration with the outcome. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one of the sponsors of the bill ordering the department to make the documents public, told reporters he was disappointed in the quantity of files made public by the Justice Department and pushed for federal officials to set out a clear timeline for the release of all remaining documents. Khanna said lawmakers could eventually explore impeachment proceedings for Blanche and Attorney General Pam Bondi or even refer Justice Department officials for criminal prosecution if they’ve engaged in excessive redaction or tampering. A spokesperson for the department didn’t respond to a request for comment. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the bill’s lead GOP sponsor, backed him up, saying the disclosure “grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law that @realDonaldTrump signed just 30 days ago.” And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer slammed the disclosure. “Simply releasing a mountain of blacked out pages violates the spirit of transparency and the letter of the law,” he said in a statement. “For example, all 119 pages of one document were completely blacked out. We need answers as to why. Gregory Svirnovskiy contributed to this report.

Remigijus Žemaitaitis, leader of Lithuania’s populist Dawn of Nemunas ruling coalition party, has been found guilty of incitement to hatred against Jews and downplaying the Holocaust in a decision by the Vilnius Regional Court. In a Thursday ruling the court said his public statements had “mocked Jewish people, denigrated them, and encouraged hatred toward the Jewish community.” Žemaitaitis was fined €5,000 — a fraction of what the prosecutor had requested — and is at risk of being stripped of his seat in parliament. “This is a politicized decision,” Žemaitaitis said, while indicating he will appeal. The court considered several social media posts in which Žemaitaitis blamed Jews for the “destruction of our nation” and for “contributing to the torture, deportation, and killing of Lithuanians.” After Israeli authorities demolished a Palestinian school on May 7, 2023, Žemaitaitis wrote: “After such events, it is no wonder that statements like this emerge: ‘A Jew climbed the ladder and accidentally fell. Take, children, a stick and kill that little Jew.'” His lawyer, Egidija Belevičienė, told local media that while her client’s remarks “may have been inappropriate and may have shocked some people, they did not reach the level of danger for which a person is punished with a criminal penalty that necessarily results in a criminal record.” Lithuania’s ruling Social Democrats, who share a coalition with Žemaitaitis, have yet to respond to the ruling, noting that it “is not yet final.” In a Thursday social media post the party said any form of antisemitism, hate speech or Holocaust denial “is unacceptable to us and incompatible with our values.” Still, Žemaitaitis’ record of antisemitic comments was known to the Social Democrats when they formed a coalition with his party last November. He had resigned his seat in parliament the previous April after the country’s Constitutional Court ruled he had violated the constitution by making antisemitic statements on social media. “The Social Democrats were not bothered last year … nor are they bothered now,” said Simonas Kairys, deputy leader of the Liberal Movement opposition party. Laurynas Kasčiūnas, chair of the opposition Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democrats, accused the Social Democrats of suffering from Stockholm syndrome. “They have been taken hostage by Žemaitaitis, and they’re beginning to like it,” he said. The country’s political opposition is calling on the Social Democrats to sever ties with Žemaitaitis — and is threatening to kick him out of the country’s parliament if they won’t. “The Social Democrats could simply tell Žemaitaitis ‘goodbye,’” Kasčiūnas said. If they fail to cut ties after the court’s ruling becomes final, he added, “an impeachment initiative will emerge in the Seimas.” Žemaitaitis has made a name for himself recently for more than antisemitism. In November he tabled a draft law to simplify the process of firing the head of the country’s LRT public broadcaster, sparking public outrage that the government was preparing to install a political flunky in the post. A street protest is scheduled for Dec. 9; as of Thursday over 124,000 people had signed an online petition against the draft law in a country of 2.8 million.

BRUSSELS — Intelligence agencies across Europe are burying decades of distrust and starting to build a shared intelligence operation to counter Russian aggression — a move accelerated by the new American capriciousness in supporting its traditional allies. In the past year, many national capitals have embedded intelligence officials in their Brussels representation offices. The European Union’s in-house intelligence unit has started briefing top-level officials. And the bloc is toying with the idea to build up stronger, CIA-style powers — long considered unthinkable. The push for deeper intelligence cooperation accelerated sharply after the Trump administration abruptly halted the sharing of battlefield intelligence with Kyiv last March. Donald Trump “deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing the services of Europe together,” said one Western intelligence official, who was granted anonymity to disclose details of how they cooperated with American counterparts. POLITICO spoke with seven intelligence and security officials who described how the rupture in transatlantic trust is driving Europe’s spy agencies to move faster — and closer — than ever before. It’s all part of a bigger reconsideration of practices. European intelligence services have also started reviewing more closely how they share information with U.S. counterparts. The Dutch military and civil intelligence services told local paper De Volkskrant on Saturday they’d stopped sharing certain information with their U.S. counterparts, citing political interference and human rights concerns. Officials fear that transatlantic forums, including the defense alliance NATO, will become less reliable platforms to share intelligence. “There is a sense that there could be less commitment on the part of the United States in the months to come in sharing the intelligence they have — both inside NATO and at large,” said Antonio Missiroli, the former Assistant-Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges at NATO. Security services are still overcoming decades-old trust issues. New revelations that Hungarian intelligence officials disguised as diplomats tried to infiltrate the EU institutions show how governments within the EU still keep close watch over each other. To cope with the distrust, some leading spy agencies are pushing to set up groups of trusted countries instead of running things through Brussels. CLUB DE BERNE Unlike tight-knit spy alliances like the Five Eyes, European Union member countries have long struggled to forge strong partnerships on intelligence sharing. National security remains firmly in the hands of national capitals, with Brussels playing only a coordinating role. One way European services have communicated traditionally is through a secretive network known as the Club de Berne, created nearly 50 years ago in the Swiss city it is named after. The club has no headquarters, no secretariat and meets only twice a year. In recent years, the group has coordinated its meetings to roughly align with the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union. But the Club is hardly a mirror image of the EU. Malta has never joined, Bulgaria only recently signed on, and Austria was suspended for a time over concerns it was too soft on Moscow before being readmitted in 2022. Non-EU countries such as Switzerland, Norway and the U.K. are also members. Donald Trump “deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing the services of Europe together,” said one Western intelligence official, who was granted anonymity to disclose details of how they cooperated with American counterparts. | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images “Club de Berne is an information sharing architecture a bit like Europol. It’s designed to share a certain kind of information for a particular function,” said Philip Davies, director of the Brunel Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies in London. “But it’s fairly bounded and the information that’s being shared is potentially quite anodyne because you’re not plugging into secure systems and [there are] national caveats.” Major European Union intelligence players — France, the Netherlands, Germany, and until 2019, the U.K. — saw little value in sharing sensitive information with all EU countries, fearing it could fall into the wrong hands. Eastern European services, like Bulgaria’s, were believed to be filled with Russian moles, said Missiroli. One Bulgarian security official argued that was no longer the case, with the old guard largely retired. But while it offered some mode of collaboration, the Club de Berne also left Brussels’ EU-level officials largely in the dark. “The problem with talking about European intelligence sharing is that European intelligence sharing is not the same thing as EU intelligence sharing,” said Davies. CALLING ON THE EU Recent geopolitical shifts have forced the European Union to rethink its approach. Former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö called last year for the EU to create a CIA-style agency, coordinated from Brussels, in a landmark preparedness report at the request of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Niinistö laid out the idea of a “fully fledged intelligence cooperation service at the EU level that can serve both the strategic and operational needs,” while adding that “an anti-sabotage network” is needed to protect infrastructure. If there is such a thing as a collective EU intelligence agency, the European Union’s in-house Intelligence and Situation Centre (INTCEN) at the European External Action Service (EEAS) is the closest to it. The center conducts analysis based on the voluntary contributions by EU countries. Spies from national agencies do secondments at the center, which helps building up ties with national intelligence. Croatian intelligence chief Daniel Markić took over the helm of INTCEN in September 2024 on a mission to beef up information-sharing with the agency and get direct intelligence to EU leaders like von der Leyen and foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. Together with its military counterpart — the EU Military Staff Intelligence Directorate — the two services form the Single Intelligence Analysis Capacity (SIAC), which produces shared intelligence assessments for EU decision-makers. In April, SIAC held its annual meeting in Brussels, this time drawing top officials of the European agencies to attend, along with Kallas.  Spy chiefs at that meeting underlined a growing push for Europe to build its own independent intelligence capabilities. But some also worried that overemphasizing the need for autonomy could further weaken ties with the U.S., creating the very gaps Europe is trying to avoid. TRUST ISSUES Slowly but surely, Brussels is building up its own intelligence community. For instance, intelligence liaison officers now exist in most permanent representations of EU member countries in Brussels. The Belgian Security Services (VSSE), which are officially tasked with overseeing spying activities around the EU institutions in Brussels, have also briefed members of the European Parliament on tactics used to coerce lawmakers into foreign espionage. Still, one European intelligence source told POLITICO that while cooperation between EU countries was now “at its best in modern history,” agencies still work first and foremost for their own national governments. That is a key stumbling block. According to Robert Gorelick, the retired head of mission of the U.S. CIA in Italy, “The reason that an EU-wide intelligence service couldn’t exist is that there is too much variety in how national agencies work.” What’s worse, he added: “There are too many countries — 27 — for there to be such trust in sharing.” Some countries have leaned toward setting up smaller ad hoc groups. After the U.S. paused its intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March, a Coalition of the Willing led by France and the United Kingdom met in Paris and agreed to expand Kyiv’s access to European-operated intelligence, surveillance technology and satellite data. The Netherlands is looking at beefing up cooperation with other European services, like the United Kingdom, Poland, France, Germany and the Nordics — including sharing raw data. “That has been scaled up enormously,” Erik Akerboom, the head of the Dutch civil intelligence service, told De Volkskrant. Yet there is still a long way to go to build enough trust between 27 EU members with differing national priorities. In October, it was revealed that Hungarian intelligence officials disguised as diplomats tried to infiltrate EU institutions while Olivér Várhelyi (now a European commissioner) was Hungary’s ambassador to the bloc, and place Orbán cronies in key positions. Niinistö, who wrote the EU’s preparedness report last year, told POLITICO in an interview this month that a full-fledged EU intelligence agency was still “a question of the future.” He added: “It comes to the word trust when we talk about preparedness, because without trusting we can’t cooperate very much.”

Federal prosecutors in Virginia have charged former FBI Director James Comey with obstruction and making a false statement to Congress, just days after President Donald Trump publicly implored his Justice Department to quickly seek indictments of his perceived foes and ousted a U.S. attorney who resisted. A grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted Comey on Thursday on two felony charges stemming from Comey’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020 about the FBI’s investigation into links between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. The obstruction of Congress charge accuses Comey of making “false statements” at that hearing, but is silent about what they were. The false statement charge relates to Comey’s denial at the hearing that he authorized anyone at the FBI to speak to the media anonymously about FBI investigations related to Trump or his 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton. Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told investigators with DOJ’s inspector general that Comey authorized him to talk to a reporter about an aspect of an investigation the FBI conducted into the Clinton Foundation. In a video posted online Thursday night, the former FBI chief and onetime deputy attorney general proclaimed his innocence — and hinted at a strategy for challenging the case against him as an act of political vengeance by Trump himself. “My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either,” Comey said. “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent, so, let’s have a trial.” Comey appeared to allude to the July firing of his daughter, Maurene Comey, who had been a federal prosecutor in Manhattan for nearly a decade. The indictment also prompted the resignation Thursday of Troy Edwards, a senior federal prosecutor in Alexandria who is married to another of James Comey’s daughters, three people familiar with the development said. Edwards, deputy chief of the office’s national security section, said in a one-line resignation letter that he was quitting “to uphold my oath to the Constitution and country.” Trump quickly reveled in the indictment of his longtime foe, declaring “Justice in America!” and calling Comey “One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to.” He closed the post with his campaign slogan: “Make America Great Again.” Prosecutors sought the indictment of the former FBI director just before a Sept. 30 legal deadline that would have put criminal charges out of reach because the statute of limitations would have expired. Notably, a court document released Thursday night showed the same grand jury refused to indict Comey on a second charge of making a false statement to Congress. The charge jurors balked at pertained to a statement Comey made during the hearing where he appeared to deny having read a report sent to top FBI officials in September 2016 about the Clinton campaign’s interest in using Trump’s alleged Russia ties to distract from her own legal woes. Justice Department officials did not address the failed charge, but declared that the two felonies leveled at Comey showed justice being done. Each of the two felony charges Comey faces carries a maximum possible penalty of five years in prison. “No one is above the law,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on X shortly after word of the charges against Comey emerged. “Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.” Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia the Trump administration installed Monday, signed the indictment and was the only prosecutor listed on the docket as of Thursday evening. The case was assigned Thursday to U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, a Biden appointee who is set to arraign Comey on Oct. 9. “The charges as alleged in this case represent a breach of the public trust at an extraordinary level,” Halligan said. “The balance of power is a bedrock principal [sic] of our democracy, and it relies upon accountability and a forthright presentation of facts from executive leadership to congressional oversight. Any intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance is a violation of professional responsibility and, most importantly, the law.” Comey has selected as his defense attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, a longtime friend, former U.S. Attorney in Chicago and former DOJ special counsel. “Jim Comey denies the charges filed today in their entirety. We look forward to vindicating him in the courtroom,” Fitzgerald said in a statement. Comey’s indictment immediately triggered alarm — inside and outside the Justice Department — that Trump had effectively ordered the prosecution of a political adversary, exacting retribution against a longtime foe he blames for his own years of criminal prosecution and impeachment. For a half century or more, presidents of both parties have worked to insulate the Justice Department from political influence in prosecutorial decisions, particularly in high-profile and politically sensitive matters. Though prior administrations have faced allegations of politicizing and weaponizing federal prosecutors, no president has so overtly pressured his attorney general to cross that rubicon — and gotten immediate results. Trump’s intense desire to see Comey face criminal charges prompted unusual turmoil in recent days among federal prosecutors involved in the investigation. And that turmoil could make the actual case against Comey difficult to prosecute, as the former FBI director is all but certain to challenge the indictment as a selective and vindictive prosecution that a judge must throw out. Last week, the top federal prosecutor in Virginia’s Eastern District, Erik Siebert, resigned following reports he had cast doubt on prosecuting Trump’s adversaries. The following day, Bondi appointed a local prosecutor active in Republican politics, Mary Cleary, to run the office on an acting basis. But hours later, Trump publicly warned Bondi she was not acting quickly enough to punish his political rivals — naming Comey, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and New York Attorney General Letitia James. And Trump urged Bondi to give his former personal lawyer Halligan, a White House aide with no prosecutorial experience, the job instead. “What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” Within two days, Bondi complied and Halligan was sworn in. Comey appeared remotely for his 2020 Senate testimony, testifying from his home in McLean, Virginia.

President Donald Trump publicly vented at Attorney General Pam Bondi on Saturday, saying the lack of criminal charges against top adversaries was “killing our reputation and credibility.” “We can’t delay any longer,” Trump posted on Truth Social in a message directed to “Pam.” “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” He specifically lamented the lack of criminal charges against Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, three of his most prominent political antagonists. Trump spent much of the post venting about Erik Siebert, the former U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia, who he forced out Friday amid reports that Siebert did not believe there was enough evidence to charge James with mortgage fraud. Trump appeared to confirm those reports, accusing Siebert of saying “that we had no case.” “There is a GREAT CASE,” Trump said. Trump also appeared to float his onetime personal attorney Lindsey Halligan — now a White House aide who has been reviewing materials in the Smithsonian museums to ensure they align with Trump’s agenda — to take on a role in the probes of his adversaries. “Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot,” Trump wrote. He later posted that he intended to nominate Halligan to the post, though it’s still unclear if he wants Bondi to immediately install her in the job on an interim basis. It was a remarkable public message to the nation’s top law enforcement officer, linking his personal grievances over his own criminal prosecutions and congressional impeachments to a potential decision by federal prosecutors to level criminal charges against his adversaries. Trump’s frustration stemmed in part, he said, from “30 statements and posts” from allies that complained “nothing is being done” to punish his longtime rivals. Trump amplified his post in a brief gaggle with reporters on Saturday night, saying the post was not meant as a criticism of Bondi but that “we have to act fast.” “One way or the other. They’re guilty, they’re not guilty. We have to act fast,” Trump said. “If they’re not guilty, that’s fine. If they are guilty, or if they should be judged, they should be judged. And we have to do it now.” Trump has long accused Comey, Schiff and James, without evidence, of criminal conduct. Trump fired Comey as FBI director in 2017 amid frustrations over the investigation of his campaign’s contacts with Russia. Schiff led Trump’s first impeachment trial over his decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine over a demand that the Ukrainian government investigate his political rivals. And Trump has railed against James for her sprawling lawsuit against his business empire that led to a massive civil judgment against him. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The message came after POLITICO reported that Bondi had elevated little-known prosecutor Mary “Maggie” Cleary to succeed Siebert, taking on the job as acting U.S. attorney amid questions about the investigation into James. Trump capped his message to Bondi by accusing Democrats of impeaching him twice and indicting him five times “over nothing.” In 2023, Trump was charged in criminal cases that accused him of seeking to subvert the 2020 presidential election, corrupt Georgia’s election process, hoard classified information at Mar-a-Lago after his first term and cover up a hush money payment scheme. Only the hush money case, brought by Manhattan prosecutors, reached a jury, which found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts. Two of the cases, brought by special counsel Jack Smith, were dropped after Trump won the 2024 election. And the Georgia case remains mired in pretrial dysfunction, with lead prosecutor Fani Willis recently disqualified over a conflict of interest.