This policy will make any government employee, DA, congress persons responsible to pay out
Of pocket any expenses if a lawsuit(s) are deemed frivolous, wasteful, and without merit and used as a weapon against a sitting president or other government employee.
The American people should not be a pocket book for those employees including congress because they do not like the policies or person that the American people chose to represent the people.
This will prevent lawsuits that have no standing and are not constitutionally sound.
This would be specific to unwarranted attacks on a person and not challenges to constitutional rights
That addresses some of the issues of ‘lawfare’ but needs more development. Consider this for a new policy (law).
Trial law is divided, principally, into 2 parts: criminal and civil. Lawfare has caused abuses in both areas. The reason that lawfare is so commonly used - even Trump has used it against business adversaries - is that there are no meaningful consequences. What’s needed are consequences under both criminal and tort law. Lawyers are essentially agents for others, not themselves; but they are sometimes actively complicit in lawfare abuses and at the very least compliant agents in that abuse; so it makes sense that they should have have consequential skin in the game of lawfare.
What if, whenever a DA (criminal law) brings a case and loses it, the state had to pay all the direct and indirect expenses of the defendant to include attorneys’ fees, court costs and loss of or forfeited income AND the DAs who lose had to pay very large fines or step down from office? For tort law (civil cases), what if parties bringing suit who lose them had to pay all the direct and indirect expenses of the defendant to include attorneys’ fees, court costs and loss of or forfeited income AND the attorneys abetting those failed suits had to pay very large fines or lose their licenses to practice?
Admittedly these are draconian steps. It is quite possible that, if put into place, they would have the effect to allow guilty criminals to go unpunished (but if there is insufficient evidence to convict, that’s the case anyway) and the effect to limit people truly harmed from being compensated (which happens far too often anyway). For certain, it would put a huge damper on the ‘litigation happy’ complainants if they had consequences for losing.
That leaves at least 2 other areas that lead to lawfare that should be addressed. There are few, if any, consequences for law enforcement when it pursues charges that are not upheld at trial. Some means to discourage frivolous or tenuous police practices. Holding the heads of departments liable to fines might work. The other area that must be addressed is runaway juries. Personally, I think that Trump’s convictions under Bragg and the NY juries exemplifies both polticially motivated prosecution and runaway juries. If those cases are reversed on appeal, shouldn’t the jurors who made the convicting decisions and Bragg have some liabilities? This area is fraught with peril and must be very carefully considered before making laws that could ruin honest jurors. Perhaps, the right to change venues in politically charged cases should be easier. Suppose Bragg had been required to try Trump before a Virginia judge and jury; would that have brought a different outcome?
The justice system will never initiate reforms and will resist them in every case. The system and its actors have much to lose while honest citizens have much to gain. Something as simple as making defamation of character a result for those wrongfully tried who are not held liable while making suits far easier to prosecute for that defamation would go a long way toward balances a system that is out of kilter.
At its core, this proposal reflects a common-sense demand for fairness, accountability, and respect for the democratic process. The American people should not be forced to bankroll politically motivated legal warfare — especially when such actions are clearly frivolous, lack legal merit, and are driven by personal or partisan animus rather than public interest or constitutional duty.
Why this matters:
Frivolous lawsuits cost real money — not just for the individuals targeted, but for taxpayers. Every politically driven investigation, baseless legal filing, or attention-seeking lawsuit drains public resources, clogs our legal system, and diverts attention from actual governance.
Weaponized litigation has become a political tool, used not to seek justice, but to harass, stall, or publicly discredit officials who were duly elected by the American people. This isn’t oversight — it’s sabotage disguised as legal process.
When prosecutors, members of Congress, or other officials file lawsuits or open investigations without constitutional standing, evidentiary basis, or jurisdictional relevance, they should not enjoy immunity from consequences. If their actions are judged to be wasteful, meritless, or abusive, they should be held financially responsible — just like private citizens would be if they abused the courts for personal gain.
This is not about silencing legitimate oversight.
There’s a clear distinction between:
Good-faith constitutional challenges or checks on government overreach,
vs.
Personal vendettas, headline-grabbing stunts, or ideologically driven attempts to cripple political opponents.
This policy would not restrict the First Amendment or stop Congress or prosecutors from doing their jobs — it would simply require that those jobs be done responsibly, in accordance with law and constitutional standards, not driven by ego or partisan loyalty.
Historical context:
We’ve seen how unchecked legal harassment has become a tactic of disruption, not resolution. It breeds public cynicism, degrades trust in our institutions, and distracts from real issues affecting real Americans. Worse, it creates a system where only the wealthy and well-connected can survive politically — because only they can afford the legal gauntlet.
Meanwhile, the people pay the price — literally and figuratively. They pay in tax dollars. They pay in dysfunction. And they pay in the erosion of trust in fair process.
The bottom line:
This policy says no more free ride for political malpractice. If you misuse the courts to attack someone because you dislike their policies, their popularity, or the outcome of a legitimate election — you should not expect the American taxpayer to pick up the tab.
It’s not about protecting any one politician. It’s about protecting the public trust, the integrity of the justice system, and the right of the people to choose their leaders without interference from unelected or unaccountable insiders who abuse their authority.
Accountability must go both ways. Public service is not a shield for misconduct — and neither should it be a license to persecute without consequence.