Two Democrats have said publicly that a future administration should pursue Trump officials in court: Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who floated a “Project 2029” in March 2026, and Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, who in October spoke of “signature cases.” Whether a Project 2029 prosecute agenda ever happens depends on elections and on what investigators find, and neither has named a specific person to be charged.
Where it stands: Slotkin’s October 13 remarks at the University of Chicago drew a sharp Republican response, including from Trump and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. Slotkin says she means only people who broke the law. Separately, NBC News reported on October 1 that Trump is weighing pre-emptive pardons for his own team.
What did Pritzker say about Project 2029?
Pritzker made the remarks in a New York Times interview, as reported by Fox News Digital. He proposed that Democrats write their own answer to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s policy blueprint, and called it “Project 2029.”
His framing was about the rule of law. “I don’t think you can speak of it in shorthand, but we’ve got to restore the rule of law, and that means holding people accountable who’ve broken the law,” he said.
Asked whether that meant criminal cases, he said: “I’m talking about the people in this administration who’ve broken the law and federal agents who’ve broken the law.” Then: “Criminally prosecuted, civilly prosecuted.”
He did not name anyone. Fox said it asked his office to clarify who he believes should face prosecution; the article reports no answer. Pritzker is seeking a third term as governor. He has not, in the sources we reviewed, declared a run for president.
What did Slotkin mean by “signature cases”?
At the October 13 University of Chicago event, Slotkin was asked about impeachment and pointed elsewhere. “I want to look at these signature cases and not just focus on the president, but on the people who enabled him,” she said.
She tied it to young job-seekers. Per Fox News Digital, she wants graduates weighing a Trump administration job to see legal risk, and she said: “I want that deterrence message.” The National News Desk described the broader shift: some Democrats would focus investigative and prosecutorial attention on the people around Trump rather than another impeachment.
Slotkin defended the remark days later, per the Deseret News: “If you have aided in the corrupt use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to benefit the President or his family, or you have violated the law in order to carry out guidance from the President, you should be held accountable.”
She also made a legal point. The Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity ruling protects a president’s official acts, but, as the Deseret News summarized her view, the justices did not extend the same shield to people working for him. Whether and how that ruling reaches subordinates is still argued by scholars; our explainer on immunity for Trump officials sets out the debate.
How did Republicans respond?
The pushback was fast and on the record.
- Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) told the Deseret News that, as he understood it, she was “not saying ‘prosecute crime,'” and added: “She’s saying weaponize the levers of government to deter people from even serving in the Trump administration. I think that is stunning.” In posts he also called it “a fascist move.”
- President Trump, per The National News Desk: “Slotkin said that there should be prosecutions in order to scare people from going into politics. That’s a Democrat and that’s what they do.”
- OPM Director Scott Kupor wrote that it was “incredibly disappointing and unprofessional coming from a U.S. senator – endorsing political prosecutions to dissuade patriotic Americans from serving their country.”
- Law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that Slotkin had “said the quiet part out loud.”
Slotkin answered directly. She said Lee was “lying” about her words, and added: “Spare me the pearl-clutching especially from Republican members of Congress who have cheered President Trump’s weaponization of the government against those he doesn’t like.” Lee’s and Trump’s arguments, along with other GOP voices, are collected in the weaponization charge.
Who else has talked about prosecuting Trump officials in 2029?
House Democrats have spoken mostly about investigating first. These lines come from a June 2026 Hill report reposted on Rep. Ted Lieu’s House website:
| Who | What they said | Kind of statement |
|---|---|---|
| Gov. JB Pritzker (D-Ill.) | “Criminally prosecuted, civilly prosecuted” | Call for future prosecutions; no names |
| Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) | “signature cases” against people who “enabled” Trump | Call for cases; says only lawbreakers |
| Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) | Five-year limitation period “will extend well beyond the end of the Trump administration” | Warning, December 2025 |
| Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) | Candidates should commit to a DOJ that “follows the law” | Standard for 2028 candidates |
| Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) | “we need to investigate” before using legal terms | Caution |
| Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) | Expects a court “test” of pre-emptive pardons | Legal prediction, his own |
Walkinshaw’s version was framed as neutral: “Anyone running for president – Democrat or Republican – should commit to having a Department of Justice that follows the law and prosecutes violations of the law.” Huffman warned against getting ahead of the evidence: “Before we start calling something a crime or making use of these legal terms that actually have very important meanings, we need to investigate.”
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
Jeffries’ point rests on the general federal rule that most non-capital crimes must be charged within five years. He said the clock for anything happening now “will extend well beyond the end of the Trump administration.” That is a general rule; exceptions and start dates vary, and nobody has been charged.
Which 2028 contenders have not said anything on record?
We looked for statements from other Democrats frequently discussed for 2028, including Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer, Cory Booker, Andy Beshear and Wes Moore, on prosecuting Trump officials or on a “truth commission.” We did not find any that we could verify in a cached, readable source. That is a gap in what we could confirm, not proof that none of them has spoken.
We also did not find any Democrat, in a verifiable source, using a “this is not retribution” formula, so we do not attribute one.
Could pardons get in the way of a Project 2029 prosecute plan?
Possibly, in part. On October 1, NBC reported that Trump told an interviewer he was “considering pre-emptively pardoning members of his administration before the end of his second term.” In the same report Trump said: “They’ll probably go after me and I’ll go after them.”
A federal pardon covers only federal offenses, so state cases would be outside it. How far a broad pre-emptive pardon for uncharged conduct reaches has never been tested at the Supreme Court. Lieu said: “There will be a test to see if pre-emptive pardons are actually constitutional.” We track each grant on the Trump pardon tracker, and the legal limits are laid out in whether a 2029 DOJ can prosecute despite pardons.
Huffman’s own timeline did not wait for 2029. “We’re not going to wait for a new administration. We’re going to kick right into oversight and investigation mode. It’s urgent,” he said in June, referring to a possible House majority in January 2027.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Project 2029?
It is the name Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker gave, in a March 2026 New York Times interview, to a proposed Democratic answer to Project 2025. He said officials who broke the law should be criminally or civilly prosecuted. It is a proposal, not a published plan, and he named no one.
Did Elissa Slotkin say Trump officials should be prosecuted?
Speaking in Chicago on October 13, she said she wanted cases aimed at the people around Trump, not only the president, so that job-seekers would get a deterrence message. She later said she meant people who violated the law or aided corrupt use of taxpayer money.
What did Republicans say about Slotkin?
Sen. Mike Lee said she was urging Democrats to weaponize government and called it a fascist move. Trump said Democrats want prosecutions to scare people from politics. OPM Director Scott Kupor called the remarks disappointing and unprofessional.
Has any Democrat named a Trump official who should be charged?
Neither Pritzker nor Slotkin named anyone in the remarks we reviewed. Some House Democrats have named officials they want to investigate, which is different from a criminal charge. Only prosecutors can bring charges.
Can a future president prosecute Trump officials?
A future Justice Department could open cases where the evidence and the five-year limitation period allow. Presidential immunity covers the president, and pardons can cover federal offenses. How far pre-emptive pardons reach has not been tested.
Sources
- Pritzker pushes prosecutions of Trump officials as part of Dem ‘Project 2029’ agenda — Fox News Digital via AOL (quoting a New York Times interview), March 20, 2026
- Slotkin wants GOP prosecutions to deter young people from Trump administration jobs — Fox News Digital, October 18, 2026
- Democrats face pushback over plan to target those who work for the Trump administration — The National News Desk via WKRC Local 12, October 19, 2026
- Sen. Lee attacks Democrat pushing prosecution to deter young GOP — Deseret News, October 19, 2026
- Democrats eyeing investigations, and perhaps prosecutions, of Trump officials — The Hill, reposted by Rep. Ted Lieu (lieu.house.gov), June 7, 2026
- Trump considering pre-emptive pardons for administration officials — NBC News, October 1, 2026
This article is news reporting and analysis based on the public sources listed above, as they stood on the dates shown. Where officials, lawmakers or analysts disagree, including on whether an action is lawful, their positions are attributed to them; Donald Trump Class Action is not a court and nothing here is legal advice. Facts in a developing story can change.