In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), under the Trump administration, initiated a controversial intervention in the case of Tina Peters, the former Mesa County, Colorado, clerk convicted of election-related crimes. Peters was sentenced to nine years in prison in October 2024 for her role in a 2021 voting system data breach, where she facilitated unauthorized access to Dominion voting machines in an attempt to prove baseless claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election. The DOJ filed a “statement of interest” in a federal court, urging “prompt and careful consideration” of Peters’ request for release while she appeals her state conviction. The filing, signed by Acting Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth, cited concerns about the “exceptionally lengthy sentence” and potential First Amendment implications of the trial judge’s remarks, which labeled Peters a “charlatan.” The DOJ’s move was framed as part of a broader review of cases for “abuses of the criminal justice process,” aligning with an executive order from Trump aimed at ending the “weaponization of the federal government.”
 

Colorado officials, including Attorney General Phil Weiser and Secretary of State Jena Griswold, sharply criticized the DOJ’s involvement, calling it an unprecedented and politically motivated attempt to undermine the state’s judicial process. Weiser’s office filed a motion to reject the DOJ’s statement, arguing it lacked evidence and represented a “grotesque attempt to weaponize the rule of law.” The state emphasized that Peters was convicted by a jury of her peers in a conservative jurisdiction, with no evidence of political bias in her prosecution. Mesa County District Attorney Daniel Rubinstein, a Republican, reiterated that the case was driven by evidence, not politics, noting that Peters’ actions compromised election security by exposing sensitive voting system information online. Critics, including legal experts, argued that the DOJ’s intervention was less about legal merit and more about signaling federal support for Trump allies, with little chance of overturning a state conviction due to jurisdictional limits.
 

The DOJ’s efforts escalated in April 2025 when it reaffirmed its interest in Peters’ case, responding to Colorado’s challenge by defending its right to file statements of interest in habeas corpus proceedings. However, during a federal hearing, the DOJ’s attorney failed to provide specific evidence of wrongdoing in Peters’ prosecution, drawing skepticism from Magistrate Judge Scott Varholak, who questioned the agency’s authority to intervene. Meanwhile, Trump publicly amplified the cause, posting “FREE TINA PETERS, NOW!” on social media in May 2025, galvanizing supporters like MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and conservative activists who view Peters as a victim of political persecution. Despite this pressure, legal analysts suggest the DOJ’s actions are unlikely to succeed, as federal courts typically defer to state convictions, and Peters’ appeal faces significant hurdles. The case has become a flashpoint, highlighting tensions between state and federal authority and raising concerns about the politicization of the DOJ.