Credit...Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times
Trump’s retribution campaigns have been more sophisticated and more wide-ranging in his second term.
By Michael S. Schmidt
July 11, 2025
This week, my colleague Eileen Sullivan and I reported that the Secret Service took the extraordinary step in May of surveilling the former F.B.I. director James Comey, a day after he posted a photo that President Trump’s allies claimed contained an assassination threat.
The story raised questions about whether Comey was tailed not because he was a legitimate threat but as part of a retribution campaign Trump has promised to wage against those he sees as his enemies.
To nail down the story, we had to do one of the most challenging tasks we face as reporters: pry loose details from the inside of a federal investigation.
But there was also something unexpectedly difficult about that story, compared with similar stories I’ve reported over 20 years at The New York Times. Some of the people we’ve previously called on to provide outside expertise refused to speak with us this time.
Tonight, I’m going to take you behind the scenes of our reporting, and explain why the speed bump we hit may be a sign of something more significant.
A chill in Washington
When we write a story like this, we reach out to experts who can put what we are writing about in context. Drawing on their work experience or academic expertise, they can help us — and our readers — understand whether and why an incident we are covering is unusual, or which laws might apply to it.
These individuals are often more than willing to share what they know. Being publicly identified as an expert can bolster someone’s professional standing.
But in this case, people we had quoted previously about important matters related to Trump, refused to speak with me about Comey.
This appeared to be the latest development in what my colleague Elisabeth Bumiller described in March as “a chill spreading over political debate in Washington and beyond.” It reflects a growing reluctance to speak publicly that my colleagues and I have noticed this year from voters, federal employees and many others.
Editors’ Picks
Move Over, Mario. This Cow Is Nintendo’s New Star.
On Colorado’s Wild Prairies, the Rest of the World Disappears
Parents and Graduate Students Have New Loan Limits. Who Will Fill the Gap?
It’s not the kind of thing that would usually make headlines because, after all, we’re talking about people not talking. But it’s worth remarking upon as we watch the culture in Washington change before our eyes.
An escalating campaign of retribution
I’ve spent much of the past eight and a half years covering Trump’s retribution campaigns. During his first term, he tried, both privately and publicly, to pressure the Justice Department, the F.B.I. and the I.R.S. to investigate his enemies. He sometimes succeeded.
In Trump’s second term, those efforts have been more sophisticated and more wide-ranging. He has pulled security details from or opened investigations into former officials he does not like, while turning the powers of the federal government against institutions that were once seen as above the fray, like universities and law firms.
The administration’s attacks on Harvard University and the law firm Paul, Weiss have sent a lasting message to professors and lawyers wanting to criticize the administration: Your school could be stripped of critical federal funding or your firm could be hit with a potentially crippling executive order that would make it really difficult to represent your clients. On top of that, Trump’s supporters have trolled and, at times, harassed or even swatted those who have opposed the president.
The reluctance that we’ve seen suggests that even people not yet within the administration’s direct sightlines are becoming worried about speaking freely.
New fears
One of my first calls was to a well-respected former federal prosecutor who works at a large law firm and has been quoted about matters related to Trump before. I hoped he would be able to tell me whether or not it was unusual for the Secret Service to deploy invasive surveillance tactics on someone like Comey. He told me that he was interested in commenting for our article. But shortly thereafter, he called to say that his firm did not want him to be quoted on the sensitive topic of Comey.
Speaking to me later on the condition of anonymity, he said that it was not worth the potential hassle to his law firm for him to opine on something related to Trump. The climate now, he said, is very different from what it was during Trump’s first term, or when Trump was out of office and facing four indictments.
The next legal expert I consulted ultimately refused to be quoted, too.
Finally, I reached Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, who argued that the surveillance of Comey was deeply unusual.
Today, she told me that she thought it was worth saying so.
“As a former U.S. attorney, I feel a duty to speak out about violations of D.O.J. norms. As a professor, I have the freedom to speak candidly in a way that perhaps lawyers in law firms or private companies cannot,” McQuade said.
It can be hard to show the tangible effects of a vengeful government, particularly because concerns about retribution often spur people not to do something they normally would. But the quiet in Washington is noticeable, and meaningful. Silence, particularly around something fairly innocuous like explaining the law, reflects a level of fear that feels new.
This is not something that I saw during the first Trump administration, when much of the country seemed to be lining up to take on Trump or opine about what he was doing.
In a small way, the entire experience showed how things have changed.