Letitia James Moves to Dismiss Federal Charges, Claims Case Is Driven by Political Retaliation
New York Attorney General Letitia James has formally asked a federal court to dismiss the fraud charges recently brought against her by the Trump administration, arguing in a sharply worded filing that the prosecution is tainted by political animus. Her motion — spanning roughly 50 pages — asserts that the indictment is not the product of an impartial legal process but instead a targeted response to her years-long confrontations with Donald Trump, both before and during his presidency.
According to the filing, which was first highlighted by The Hill, James claims the charges represent “vindictive” and “selective” prosecution, allegedly in violation of her constitutional rights. The motion highlights years of public disputes between Trump and James, pointing to Trump’s repeated criticism of her as evidence of “improper motivation.”
The case centers on allegations that James misrepresented her plans for a Virginia property while seeking a mortgage loan — accusations that James denies and says were only pursued because of her political battles with Trump. The administration, however, contends the charges stem from clear evidence of wrongdoing, not politics.
As the legal clash intensifies, the situation has grown into yet another high-profile collision between Trump and a longtime adversary.
A Motion Built on Claims of Political Motivation
In her filing, James argues that the criminal case against her is unconstitutional because it is rooted in Trump’s personal dislike of her political speech and her role as New York’s chief prosecutor — particularly related to investigations she conducted involving Trump and his businesses.
According to her motion:
“The government targeted AG James for prosecution because of the President’s genuine animus toward her protected campaign speech and fulfillment of her statutory obligations.”
James’ lawyers claim that Trump’s frustration with her dates back to her first campaign for attorney general in 2018, during which she frequently criticized him and vowed to hold him accountable for alleged financial misconduct. They argue that this long-running hostility laid the foundation for the current indictment.
Critics, however, have pointed out that James ran for office on a platform that explicitly included investigating Trump — something she proudly repeated in interviews, speeches, and fundraising messages. To Trump supporters, her claim of “vindictive prosecution” now appears ironic.
The Background: A Years-Long Feud Between Trump and James
Letitia James and Donald Trump have been political adversaries for nearly a decade. Their legal battles escalated sharply in 2022 when James filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Trump and the Trump Organization, accusing them of inflating asset values to obtain favorable loan terms. A New York judge eventually ruled against Trump, imposing a massive financial penalty of more than $350 million — a number that grew to over $500 million with interest before being overturned on appeal in 2024.
Throughout that process, Trump accused James of conducting a politically motivated “witch hunt.” James, meanwhile, painted Trump as a chronic lawbreaker whose business practices required aggressive oversight.
James’ attorneys have now placed those disputes at the center of her defense, arguing that the federal charges brought against her are simply the culmination of Trump’s frustration.
What the Indictment Against James Alleges
Despite her claim of political targeting, the charges James faces are serious.
In October, the New York attorney general was indicted on:
-
Bank fraud
-
Making false statements to a financial institution
Prosecutors allege that James applied for a loan for a home in Norfolk, Virginia, claiming she intended to use the property as a secondary residence. Instead, prosecutors say, she rented the home to a family — a move that allegedly saved her nearly $19,000 in interest and fees.
James pleaded not guilty at her October 23 arraignment. Her attorneys insist she acted within the law and accuse the Department of Justice of distorting the facts for political reasons.
James’ Legal Strategy: Pointing to Trump’s Statements
James’ legal team cites a wide range of statements by Trump — many from social media posts, campaign speeches, and televised remarks — that they claim demonstrate an effort to pressure federal officials into bringing charges against her.
Among the examples referenced in the motion are Trump’s descriptions of James as:
-
“SCUM”
-
“A Complete and Total Disaster”
-
“A racist”
-
“A monster”
The filing also cites testimony from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who told a Senate panel that Trump had expressed negative opinions about James “for years,” suggesting longstanding tension.
James’ team argues that these public remarks played a direct role in pushing the Justice Department to investigate her mortgage paperwork — something they describe as a relatively minor matter that would not typically result in federal charges.
Critics Call Her Claims “Laughable” and Hypocritical
Political observers — particularly on the right — have dismissed James’ argument as disingenuous.
They point out that:
-
James ran for attorney general on a promise to aggressively target Trump.
-
She repeatedly used the phrase “I will get Trump” during campaign events.
-
Her office brought the major civil fraud case that resulted in the massive financial penalty against Trump and his company.
To her critics, James’ complaint that she is now the victim of political prosecution rings hollow.
Still, despite the heated rhetoric, no court has yet addressed whether her argument has merit — and the judge overseeing the case will make that determination in the coming months.
James Says the DOJ Cannot Fairly Prosecute Her
The attorney general’s filing goes beyond simply asserting improper motives. Her lawyers argue that the Department of Justice is so compromised by political influence that it should not be allowed to continue prosecuting the case.
Her motion claims the DOJ is:
-
“Tainted with unconstitutional motivation”
-
“Acting in bad faith”
-
“Engaging in invidious treatment”
James is effectively arguing that the prosecution should be thrown out entirely — not because the facts are incorrect, but because the motives behind the indictment were allegedly unconstitutional.
Whether the court agrees remains to be seen.
A Case That Is Becoming Bigger Than the Allegations Themselves
What began as a mortgage-related charge has ballooned into a significant political confrontation with national implications. It pits one of the most recognizable Democratic attorneys general in the country against a Republican-led federal government seeking to hold her accountable for alleged wrongdoing.
The stakes are high:
-
If James succeeds, she could frame herself as the target of political persecution — a narrative that may resonate with voters and allies.
-
If she fails, she may face a criminal trial while still serving as New York’s attorney general, a scenario that could reshape her political future.
The motion to dismiss is only the opening round. More filings and hearings are likely to follow as both sides prepare for what could become one of the most closely watched legal battles of 2026.
What Comes Next?
Federal prosecutors are expected to file a detailed response to James’ dismissal request in the coming weeks. After that, the judge will determine whether the case moves forward or whether James’ claims of improper motives warrant dropping the charges.
Whatever the outcome, the legal fight between James and Trump — once confined to courtroom exchanges in Manhattan — has now expanded onto the national stage, touching issues of political retaliation, prosecutorial ethics, and the boundaries of executive power.
For now, the attorney general remains defiant, insisting she will challenge what she describes as a “politically motivated attack” from the Trump administration.
The administration, meanwhile, maintains that the charges arise from evidence — not politics — and that no one, including James, is above the law.
James Jenkins is a celebrated Pulitzer Prize-winning author whose work has reshaped the way readers think about social justice and human rights in America. Raised in Atlanta, Georgia, James grew up in a community that instilled in him both resilience and a strong sense of responsibility toward others. After studying political science and creative writing at Howard University, he worked as a journalist covering civil rights issues before dedicating himself fully to fiction. His novels are known for their sharp, empathetic portraits of marginalized communities and for weaving personal stories with broader political realities. Jenkins’s breakout novel, Shadows of Freedom, won national acclaim for its unflinching look at systemic inequality, while his more recent works explore themes of identity, resilience, and the fight for dignity in the face of oppression. Beyond his novels, James is an active public speaker, lecturing at universities and participating in nonprofit initiatives that support literacy and community empowerment. He believes that storytelling is a way to preserve history and inspire change. When not writing, James enjoys jazz music, mentoring young writers, and traveling with his family to explore cultures and stories around the world.
