DOJ's "Weaponization Working Group" Is An Orwellian Exercise in Doublethink

When De-Weaponization is Actually Weaponization, We Know We've Entered Orwellian Territory

Having served as a CIA officer in the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, I’m no stranger to watching Orwellian contradictions play out in front of me. However, it was one thing to see it happening in Moscow in the 1980s — it’s entirely another to see it happening in the United States in 2025. And yes — it seems we are indeed in Orwellian territory with the newly announced “Weaponization Working Group” at the Department of Justice. It’s worth taking a Deeper Look at what’s going on there. What concerns me about this is not that it’s just another example of the erosion of democratic institutions—there’s plenty of that to go around these days. Rather, it’s the transparent application of Orwellian doublethink principles that makes this unique and noteworthy. It’s worth a Deeper Look. Here goes.

May 13: A Curious Announcement

On May 13, 2025, Ed Martin — the former interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia who was yanked by Trump due to bipartisan opposition — held a press conference at DOJ headquarters in Washington. The topic wasn’t his resignation as interim US Attorney, nor the circumstances surrounding it. It was something else entirely.

Martin announced that he had been appointed chairman of a previously unknown entity inside the Department of Justice: the Weaponization Working Group. According to Martin, the group’s mandate is to investigate and expose individuals within the federal government who had “used the powers of prosecution, regulation, or surveillance for political ends” — particularly during the Biden administration.

He singled out by name several prominent figures involved in prior investigations of Donald Trump and his associates, including former Special Counsel Jack Smith, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. Then he went further:

“There will be no limit to the targets,” Martin said.
“We don’t need a grand jury to know someone has violated public trust.”

He added that the group would soon begin publicly releasing the names of FBI agents and DOJ officials who were involved in the January 6 investigations — essentially launching a formal “name and shame” campaign.

Within 24 hours, a group of former DOJ employees filed a motion for emergency relief in federal court. The filing, which cited threats to safety and reputational harm, sought a restraining order to prevent Martin from releasing the names.

That legal filing is what drew my attention. And when I started digging, it quickly became clear that the Weaponization Working Group — and the broader authority it claims — is something that has been hiding in plain sight for months.

How Did We Get Here? A Blueprint for Retribution

To contextualize Martin’s announcement, it helps to go back to January 20, 2025 — Inauguration Day. On that day, among the 20 executive orders President Trump signed was Executive Order 14147, titled “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government.” The name, like so much else in this story, is deceptively benign. But the actual content of the order, lost in the “flood the zone” approach employed by the Trump administration, is in fact disturbing. Let’s break it down.

The order's stated purpose is to investigate how federal agencies may have been “weaponized” under the previous administration. But rather than proposing to institute safeguards, reforms, oversight procedures, or guardrails for future conduct, the order instead directs the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to:

“review the activities of all departments and agencies… over the past four years, identify any conduct contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States, and prepare recommendations for appropriate remedial actions.”

“Remedial actions” could be interpreted as “reforms” — but a clear reading of the EO makes clear that the order doesn’t seek to reform institutions. It seeks to identify and hold accountable individuals — by name — from the previous administration. It’s a directive aimed backward, not forward. And it’s strikingly personal.

In that sense, the Weaponization Working Group isn’t a distortion of the order’s intent. It’s a fulfillment of it. It’s supposed to be doing De-Weaponization, but in fact it’s doing the opposite — it’s weaponizing the justice department against Trump’s political foes.

The Group Was Formed in February — But Not Disclosed Until May

According to court filings and internal DOJ memos, the Weaponization Working Group was formally created on February 5, 2025, by Attorney General Pam Bondi. The group was set up to carry out the mandate of EO 14147 — but no public announcement was made at the time. No organizational structure was published. There was no press release.

For more than three months, the group operated quietly inside DOJ. Its existence was first made public only at Martin’s May 13 press conference — meaning that its early activities, structure, and internal decision-making remain almost entirely opaque.

That three-month gap — between creation and disclosure — raises its own questions. It suggests a coordinated strategy of institutional ambiguity: develop the machinery in private, then unveil it after it has already begun to operate.

Who Is Ed Martin? Why His Appointment Matters

Ed Martin is not a neutral figure. His appointment at the center of this effort is a signal in itself.

Earlier this year, Martin briefly served as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. In that role, he quickly drew attention — and controversy — for actions that mirrored the spirit of the executive order he would later enforce:

• He demoted prosecutors involved in January 6 cases.

• He opened inquiries into officials connected to the Mueller investigation.

• He sent letters threatening legal consequences to university researchers and journalists critical of Trump-era policies.

• And, in a striking breach of prosecutorial norms, he publicly described himself as “President Trump’s lawyer.”

Following a flurry of ethics complaints and growing bipartisan criticism, Martin’s nomination to remain in the post permanently was withdrawn. But rather than being sidelined, he was repositioned — placed in charge of the Weaponization Working Group, and simultaneously appointed U.S. Pardon Attorney, where he has already announced plans to scrutinize Biden-era symbolic pardons.

What the WWG Is Doing — and Why It’s Different

Unlike past DOJ internal reviews — which typically focus on procedural reform or systemic improvements — the Weaponization Working Group is focused squarely on individuals. In his public remarks, Martin emphasized the group’s intention to expose those who “abused their positions” during the Biden administration.

The most immediate targets appear to be:

• FBI agents and prosecutors involved in the January 6 investigations;

• Justice Department attorneys who worked on election-related prosecutions;

• And other officials who, according to Martin, acted “politically” in their official roles.

Martin has stated that the group will release names, open internal inquiries, and may recommend disciplinary or legal action. No charges are pending. No indictments have been announced. The group’s authority appears to rest not on legal process, but on public attribution of blame — a reversal of presumption that accountability must follow due process.

Weaponization Rebranded as De-Weaponization

There is an unavoidable irony here: the very term “weaponization,” once used to critique the politicization of the justice system, is now being used as justification for a campaign of politically motivated exposure — i.e. weaponization.

This is what Orwell warned us about: not only the abuse of power, but the reversal of meaning.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.
It was their final, most essential command.”
— George Orwell, 1984

So — the group charged with ending weaponization is naming enemies and promising consequences without trial or process — and has been in doing so secret for months. This is not actual, bonafide reform. Rather, it’s the codification of retribution under the banner of reform.

A Final Thought

In the Soviet Union, the law was not abolished — it was hollowed out. The forms remained: the institutions, the procedures, the titles. But the content shifted. Prosecution became a tool of control. Oversight became a performance of loyalty. Words meant their opposites.

Thos of us trying to rationally track the progress of the Trump administration have a bandwidth challenge that makes it difficult to know what to focus on. But I would argue that this situation does warrant serious attention for it’s Orwellian way of inverting it’s overt purpose to covertly carry out the opposite. The WWG is not ending the weaponization of the Justice System — it’s perpetuating and amplifying it, all the while claiming to be ending it.

This one goes on the board as one to watch.