President Donald Trump's retribution campaign is being systematically derailed by federal judges who are striking down high-profile indictments and blocking grand jury subpoenas targeting political adversaries, the New York Times reported Monday. The cascade of judicial rejections signals that, despite Trump's control over the Justice Department, the courts remain a significant constraint on his ability to weaponize law enforcement.Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., quashed grand jury subpoenas targeting Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on Friday. The subpoenas sought information about renovations at the central bank's headquarters and Powell's congressional testimony. Boasberg ruled there was "essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime."The judge characterized the investigation as politically motivated, writing, "The subpoenas' dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the president, or to resign and make way for a Fed chair who will." Boasberg explicitly acknowledged Trump's revenge campaign, citing a Supreme Court case to note that "judges are not required to exhibit a naïveté from which ordinary citizens are free."U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, Trump's longtime ally, has vowed to appeal the decision.This ruling represents the latest setback in a broader pattern of judicial resistance, the Times reported. In November, a judge dismissed indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after determining that the prosecutor who brought charges, Lindsey Halligan, had been illegally appointed. Subsequently, two grand juries refused to bring fresh indictments against James.In February, a Washington grand jury rejected efforts to indict six Democratic lawmakers whom Trump wanted prosecuted for sedition after they released a video reminding military personnel of their obligation to refuse illegal orders."Officials at the Justice Department have encountered an even more profound problem," the Times reported. "Prosecutors are floundering in the most basic steps of criminal investigations into those President Trump wants scrutinized."The pattern reflects eroding trust between federal courts and Justice Department lawyers. Traditionally enjoying presumption of regularity — a legal concept granting prosecutors deference — DOJ attorneys have lost this credibility through repeated violations of court orders, contempt findings, and vindictive prosecutions, the Times wrote. Several prosecutors have resigned in protest.Facing repeated grand jury rejections, prosecutors in Pirro's office have begun shelving weak investigations rather than present them to courts. An inquiry into whether former President Biden violated laws using an autopen for document signatures was quietly abandoned after Trump pressured prosecutors to pursue charges. Despite Trump's demands, prosecutors could not identify what laws had been broken.Judge Lorna Schofield in New York similarly blocked subpoenas targeting Attorney General James, ruling the U.S. attorney who issued them held his position unlawfully.A Minnesota judge is currently considering whether to quash subpoenas issued as part of an investigation into whether Democratic officials—including Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey—conspired to impede federal immigration enforcement agents.When Trump began his second term, he sought indictments, trials, convictions, and imprisonment for his rivals.