There is a tendency, even now, to talk about lawfare as though it were primarily a legal problem. We argue about prosecutorial discretion, bar rules, judicial ethics, Justice Department policies and whether some particular norm was violated.
I think that badly understates what we are dealing with. I have been inside these institutions. I have sat with the judges. I have seen the emails. I have looked at what the people running these operations were actually doing. And the conclusion I have come to is much less comfortable than another debate about norms or professional standards.
You better get clarity on what is at stake.
Because if we stay on the same trend line, the logical progression of what we are watching is not another ethics complaint. It is not another disbarment proceeding. It is not another prosecution.
They will kill you.
I do not mean that metaphorically. That is where the progression ends if nobody stops it.
This is not about marginal tax rates. It is not about whether some provision of the ABA code ought to read one way or another. It is not even ultimately about the Justice Department’s own rules. The Justice Department has something called the Justice Manual. I barely bother with it anymore.
A few weeks ago, Leslie Stahl was sitting a block away from here telling me that the “norms” of the Justice Department had been violated.
I said: What norm? Which norm? Whose norm?
The norm?
That language does not begin to describe what has happened. Look around at the people who have already been through this. Spend ten minutes with John Eastman. Talk to Jim Troupis in Wisconsin. He came to my office. I will never forget it. People have mortgaged their homes. Sold property. Burned through savings. Watched careers they spent decades building get ripped apart.
Look at Cleta Mitchell. Everybody who knows anything about the legal profession knows that Cleta is a great lawyer. They pushed her out because she acted like a lawyer. And they would have done a lot worse if she had not had a family and people around her who could support her.
That is the reality. We should stop sugarcoating it.
I can look out from where I am speaking and see John Eastman. I can go about a mile in another direction and get to the jail where January 6 defendants were held. The day before these remarks, I walked into a podcast studio and saw a picture of Charlie Kirk on the wall. I did not ask about it. I did not want to ask about it. I did not want to think about it.
But we have to think about it. We have to think about the progression.
First, people are investigated because of their politics. Then they are prosecuted. Then their professional licenses are taken away. Then they are imprisoned. Then their reputations are destroyed. Then they are bankrupted. Then the public is conditioned to regard them as something less than fellow citizens.
At some point, if that process continues unchecked, destroying people legally, professionally and financially is no longer enough. That is why I say the endpoint is killing people.
It is not pleasant to say. It is much easier to talk about violated norms. But pretending not to see the trajectory does not change the trajectory.
And yet I do not believe that is where this is going to end. People are finally beginning to fight back. You see it with Jeff Clark. You see it with Mike Howell. You see it with Cleta Mitchell. You see it with John Eastman. You see it with people around the country who have decided they are not going to disappear simply because powerful institutions have decided they should.
We are going to be outnumbered. We are going to be outgunned. We are going to be outstaffed.
But you better not be out-cleared. That is not a word, but you know exactly what I mean. You better have clarity about what is at stake.
I once sat in a meeting with judges of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. When you are a law student, you look at federal district judges and think that maybe someday you could be one of them. These are supposed to be the crème de la crème of the legal profession, people entrusted with enormous power because they are supposed to possess unusual judgment, discipline and restraint.
Then you sit in the room with them.
Judge Chutkan would barely make eye contact with me because I was the U.S. attorney appointed by Donald Trump.
That experience tells you something. People can dress all of this up in the language of institutions, norms and professional responsibility. Spend enough time inside the system and you begin to see what is actually happening.
This is no longer a disagreement between lawyers.
That is why our response cannot be unilateral disarmament. We are not going to keep playing a game in which we voluntarily trap ourselves inside systems that other people have built, staffed and weaponized against us. We are not going to do that anymore.
Where those systems can be reformed, reform them. Where they have to be wrecked, wreck them.
And that includes judges. We are going to have to impeach judges. If members of the House will not impeach judges who refuse to abide by the law, then those members should get the hell out and voters should replace them with people who will.
Because these judges are not sitting there thoughtfully considering our arguments and concluding, “Well, those conservatives have made an interesting point, but I disagree.” They are ignoring us.
Look at what happened to Eastman. Look at what happened to Troupis. Look at the January 6 cases. Read the transcripts. Read what some of these judges said to American citizens they had decided were scum. Look at the way they lectured them. Look at the contempt.
If somebody talked to somebody else that way in a schoolyard, there would probably be a fistfight. Except in the courtroom, if you react, they arrest you again.
That is the asymmetry of the system. And I have seen more of that system than most people have. I went inside. I saw the emails. I looked at ’s emails. I looked at Jack Smith’s inbox. I looked at what these people were doing.
They are not playing around. Guys, gals, they are not playing around. So neither can we.
You better get clarity about what is at stake because this is not going to become simpler. It is not going to become easier. It is going to get harder and harder and harder.
That is why all of these efforts beginning around the country are so important.
Every politician says, “Have courage.” Fine. You are going to need courage. But courage is easier when you have people standing next to you. You have to find your band of brothers and sisters.
You need people who will stand beside you when the bar association comes after you. When the prosecutors come after you. When the press comes after you. When your colleagues suddenly stop returning your calls. When institutions you spent your life respecting decide you are disposable.
I don’t want to gut these institutions. Our crown jewels are the Constitution and the rule of law. You go to London and visit the Crown Jewels. Here, you come and look at the Constitution, the rule of law. But they are under assault, and everything is so off balance that it’s unbelievable. The way prosecutors operated after January 6 should have set off a wholesale reexamination by lawyers and judges. You guys can’t go that far. You’re off balance. The judges didn’t stop it. The bar didn’t stop it, and they went forward.
We keep thinking we can win if we have really good arguments. You can win sometimes. They let you win little things along the way. But look at what happens to people like Jeff Clark. He has suffered like hell. John Eastman should not have spent years thinking about this. He’s actually smart. He should be teaching people and doing other things. These cases take our people off the battlefield.
That is why I believe in narrative advocacy. We have to constantly reframe the narrative. The cost of creating a narrative is lower than it’s ever been, and its distribution is more extensive than it’s ever been. The mainstream media is deteriorating. It is fading and distrusted. It’s still hard because big money is still over here competing and trying to change the narrative. But that’s where we have to fight.
This is probably the greatest set of moments since the Revolutionary War. That much is at stake for the future of the world.
Editor’s note: This op-ed by Ed Martin is adapted from remarks he delivered on September 30, 2026, at “Barfare: Stopping Bar Discipline as Political Warfare,” hosted by the Conservative Partnership Institute, the Claremont Institute, the Oversight Project, and American Ascent. The transcript was kindly provided by Rachel Alexander.