Justice in the Open

The people's government should answer to the people.

I've been thinking a great deal about what comes next for this country. Not simply what happens in the next election, but what happens when political power eventually changes hands. How do we begin repairing the damage to our institutions, our international relationships, and the public's trust in government? And what do we do about the people responsible for that damage?

I want accountability. I want investigations, and if the evidence establishes that laws have been broken, I want prosecutions. I make no secret of that. But I also recognize that a government focused entirely on punishing its predecessors could neglect the very people who elected it to improve their lives. Americans need relief from the cost of living, an end to the war with Iran, meaningful action to address abuses associated with immigration enforcement, and an effort to restore our country's standing in the world. Those responsibilities cannot be postponed while Congress spends years holding hearings.

Neither, however, should accountability be postponed until everything else has been accomplished.

I don't see why these priorities must be mutually exclusive. We have different branches of government, congressional committees, federal agencies, investigators, prosecutors, and courts, each with distinct responsibilities. A new administration and Congress should be capable of addressing immediate public needs while independent investigations and appropriate oversight proceed simultaneously. The question shouldn't be whether we pursue accountability or improve people's lives. It should be how we accomplish both responsibly.

And there may be legitimate reasons for urgency.

If credible evidence suggests that public officials have stolen money, concealed financial dealings, abused their offices, or engaged in criminal conduct, investigators should act. If there is a legally supported concern that assets connected to crimes are being transferred or hidden, authorities should pursue the measures available to preserve them, with appropriate judicial oversight. Evidence can disappear, witnesses can be pressured, and financial records can become harder to trace. Delaying an investigation simply because the accused is politically influential or because the optics might be uncomfortable would be a failure of responsibility.

But suspicion isn't proof, and an investigation isn't a conviction. I find myself asking difficult questions about arrest warrants, bail, pretrial detention, and the rights of the accused. As much as I want those responsible for wrongdoing held accountable, I don't want the next administration to disregard the Constitution in pursuit of that objective. That would reproduce the very abuse of power we're supposed to be correcting.

If there is sufficient evidence to charge someone, follow the law. If there are grounds to detain someone before trial, establish those grounds before a judge. If there are grounds to restrain assets, seek the proper legal authorization. And if the evidence doesn't support prosecution, acknowledge that rather than manufacturing a case to satisfy public outrage.

I want Donald Trump and members of his administration subjected to the same standards of accountability as anyone else. No immunity from scrutiny because of their positions, but no special criminal procedures invented because of their political affiliations, either. Due process is not a favor we extend to people we like. It is a protection we are all supposed to possess.

My concerns extend beyond domestic politics. I served in military intelligence during the Iraq War, and I cannot look at the conflicts involving Israel, Gaza, Iran, and the United States without thinking about the responsibilities of military and political leadership. What are service members being ordered to do? Are those orders lawful? What happens when a government invokes national security or military necessity to justify conduct that may violate international law?

After World War II, the Nuremberg trials helped establish principles of individual responsibility for international crimes. Following orders was not an automatic defense. Political and military leaders could not simply place themselves beyond accountability by invoking their offices.

That history makes our current relationship with international justice particularly troubling.

On October 9, the Nobel Committee awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to Navanethem "Navi" Pillay, a former judge of the International Criminal Court and a longtime advocate for international human rights law. Pillay also led a United Nations commission that concluded Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. The Nobel Committee recognized her work advancing a legal order in which war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide can be prosecuted.

The Trump administration responded that same day by imposing sweeping sanctions on the International Criminal Court.

Consider the contradiction. One of the world's most prestigious peace awards recognizes a jurist for advancing international accountability, while the United States moves to undermine the institution where she once served.

The history of our relationship with the ICC makes this even more frustrating. The United States participated in the negotiations that produced the Rome Statute, signed it in 2000, but never ratified it. We aren't a member of the court. That much is true. But the court can exercise jurisdiction over certain crimes committed on the territory of member states, even when the accused comes from a nonmember country.

I understand the argument that countries should be cautious about surrendering sovereignty to international institutions. Courts, including international courts, should be subject to criticism and scrutiny. But I reject the idea that a country's leadership should be able to avoid examination simply by declaring that it doesn't recognize the institution conducting it.

What kind of international legal order are we advocating if the rules are important only when they apply to our enemies?

The United States cannot credibly demand accountability for atrocities committed by other nations while treating scrutiny of itself and its allies as an intolerable affront. Whether we're talking about Russia, Israel, Iran, or our own military, allegations of serious violations of international law deserve investigation. The evidence, the applicable law, and the jurisdiction of the appropriate court should determine what happens next, not the political convenience of the accused government.

Which brings me back to how we conduct accountability here at home.

I want the process to be public. Really public. Not simply a press conference announcing that an investigation has concluded, followed by competing television commentators telling Americans what they're supposed to think. I want a government that makes transparency part of how it operates from the beginning.

We have tools available today that previous generations could scarcely have imagined. Why can't congressional investigations have accessible public records, searchable testimony, clearly organized evidence, and regular explanations of what investigators have established? Why can't officials speak directly to the public through modern communication platforms, answering questions and explaining their decisions in language ordinary people can understand?

I'm not suggesting we turn congressional hearings or judicial proceedings into professional wrestling. We've seen enough of politics treated as entertainment. Nor do I want social media users deciding whether someone is guilty. Courts must remain independent, juries must be protected, and some information must remain confidential to preserve fair trials, protect witnesses, and prevent interference with investigations.

But those protections should not become a general excuse for secrecy.

The people's government should be accessible to the people. If a committee is investigating possible corruption, show us what has been established. Explain what remains uncertain. Make the released documents available. Give independent journalists the opportunity to question officials and examine the evidence themselves. Let the public understand the distinction between an allegation, a finding, and a conviction.

Of course, transparency presents another problem. What happens when people dismiss the evidence as fake news? What happens when the truth is publicly available but millions of Americans have been conditioned to distrust the institutions presenting it?

I don't know how to make someone listen who has decided in advance that anything contradicting their beliefs must be false. We cannot legislate intellectual honesty or force people to acknowledge evidence. And I certainly don't want government becoming the sole authority responsible for deciding what constitutes truth.

But I think we can do better than communicating almost exclusively through political messaging and carefully managed appearances. We can put primary documents in front of people, explain the evidence repeatedly, welcome scrutiny from an independent press, and correct mistakes publicly. Officials should be willing to say what they know, what they don't know, and what they have not yet been able to prove. The process itself should be open to examination.

Maybe some people still won't listen. That doesn't mean the effort is wasted. Public trust is not something a government can demand. It has to be earned, and that requires giving people opportunities to verify what they're being told.

What concerns me most is the possibility that, when this period of American politics finally ends, we will be so eager to return to normal that we fail to confront what happened. Or worse, that the next government will repeat the same abuses under the justification that its predecessors did worse.

Neither outcome is acceptable to me.

We need to improve people's lives, repair damaged institutions, reestablish our commitments to human rights and international law, and pursue accountability wherever the evidence leads. Those efforts should reinforce one another. A government that delivers tangible improvements while demonstrating that the law applies equally to everyone would do far more to restore public confidence than years of political spectacle.

I don't know exactly what a more participatory and transparent system of government should look like. Some of what I'm imagining would require changes in law, procedure, or institutional practice. But I believe the technology already exists to make public accountability far more accessible than it is today, and I think we should be asking why we haven't done more with it.

The next chapter of American democracy cannot simply be about replacing one group of politicians with another. It has to be about restoring standards that no administration, regardless of political affiliation, should be permitted to disregard.

I want justice, but I want it done properly. I want the law followed, the evidence examined, and the rights of the accused protected. I want the people responsible for making decisions to explain them, openly and consistently, to the public they serve.

Above all, I want us to remember whose government this is.

It's the people's house. We should be allowed to see what's going on inside.