This president asks, and he shall receive.

Less than a week after Donald Trump fired off a Truth Social post specifically calling for a handful of his critics to be prosecuted, one of those targeted – former FBI director James Comey – has been indicted.

The Department of Justice announced a criminal case against Comey late on Thursday, fulfilling the president’s desire to seek retribution and further raising concerns about whether US Attorney General Pam Bondi is weaponising the Justice Department to target Trump’s political rivals.

Comey has been indicted on charges of making false statements and obstruction of justice in relation to his testimony before a Senate panel in 2020. Prosecutors allege he lied to Congress about whether he authorised the leak of classified information to members of the media.

It doesn’t take much to connect the dots, even if Trump’s Justice Department insists there is a solid case against the former FBI director and that this is an example of the powerful being held to account.

“Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people,” Bondi posted on X as word of the indictment spread.

Her assertions aside, if there had been anything left of the once-strong firewall between the department and the White House – long considered sacrosanct by presidents of both parties – it is now gone.

Laurie Levinson, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at Loyola Marymount University told the BBC News channel that the firewall as “completely collapsed” with this case.

“This is unprecedented, to have the president basically direct his people to indict a specific individual because he’s angry at that person,” Ms Levinson said, referring to Comey.

Last week, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to urge Bondi to bring charges against his political foes. He complained the Justice Department was slow to charge Comey, Democrat and California Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James – vocal critics who have long been in Trump’s crosshairs.

Ms Levinson said Trump has gone further than former President Richard Nixon – who famously assembled an enemies list – by replacing prosecutors who have resisted his retribution agenda with ones who are willing to execute it.

Days after the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, resigned over fears he would be fired for failing to prosecute James for alleged mortgage fraud, Trump appointed a White House aide to the role.

Lindsey Halligan, one of Trump’s former personal lawyers who has no experience as a federal prosecutor, swiftly brought the Comey case to a grand jury, which agreed there was enough evidence to prosecute.

“Everything about this smacks of vindictive prosecution,” Ms Levinson said.

To secure an indictment, 12 members of a grand jury only need to vote for probable cause — not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the grand jury considers the case based solely on evidence by prosecutors, with no defence attorneys present.

Annemarie McAvoy, a legal expert and Columbia University professor, notes that prosecutors may have testimony and documentary evidence that supports their case against Comey – evidence that was presented to the grand jury and could be used to build the case against the former director during trial.

“There have been questions all along as to whether he was being honest when he said he didn’t leak information,” she said. “And you know if there are others who are willing to come forward and say, yes, I got the information from James Comey, then potentially they certainly have a case.”

In a short statement provided to the media, Comey’s attorney said that he denies the charges and that he looks forward to vindication in the courtroom.

If this case does, in fact, go to trial, it is poised to unearth long-buried drama from the Russian election-meddling investigation of Trump’s first term, even though the perjury and obstruction charges are quite tangential and small-bore.

Trump and his supporters are already treating the prosecution of Comey as an avenue to undermine the credibility of the entire Russia investigation. While that probe found ample evidence of attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, it produced no concrete evidence tying Trump directly to those efforts.

Kash Patel, Trump’s FBI director, called the investigation a “disgraceful chapter in history” in a post on X after the indictment was announced. He accused what he said was the “previous corrupt leadership” of weaponising the bureau’s investigatory power.

Those same accusations are now being directed at Patel, Bondi and the rest of the Trump team. And perhaps the biggest question hanging over all of this is whether the Comey indictment is just an individual event – a move that might placate a clearly angry president – or a sign of more prosecutions to come.

President Donald Trump announced a new wave of tariffs on Thursday, including a 100% levy on branded drug imports, unless a firm is building a manufacturing plant in the US.

Washington will also impose a 25% tariff on imports of all heavy-duty trucks and 50% levies on kitchen and bathroom cabinets, he said as he announced a slew of industry-focused duties on his Truth Social platform.

“The reason for this is the large scale “FLOODING” of these products into the United States by other outside Countries,” Trump wrote, citing the need to protect American manufacturers from foreign imports.

The announcements come despite calls from US businesses for the White House to not impose further tariffs.

Trump said the tariffs on heavy trucks were to protect US manufacturers from “unfair outside competition” and that the duties would help lift American companies such as Peterbilt and Mack Trucks.

These firms “will be protected from the onslaught of outside interruptions”, he wrote.

The new levies on kitchen and bathroom cabinets, as well as some other furniture, were in response to high levels of imports, which hurt local manufacturers, the president said.

He added that the US would start charging a 30% tariff on upholstered furniture from next week.

The new duties come as part of an expansion of Trump’s tariff policies, which have targeted both global trading partners and specific industries.

Trump’s sweeping new tariffs on more than 90 countries came into effect in early August, as part of his policies aimed at boosting jobs and manufacturing in the US, among other political goals.

Earlier this year, the US Chamber of Commerce urged the White House against introducing new tariffs, arguing that many parts used in truck production are sourced “overwhelmingly” from countries like Mexico, Canada, Germany, Finland and Japan.

The organisation added that these countries are “allies or close partners of the United States posing no threat to US national security.”

Mexico and Canada are among the biggest suppliers of parts for medium and heavy-duty trucks, accounting for more than half of total US imports in the sector last year, said the chamber.

It warned that it is “impractical” to expect many of these parts to be sourced domestically, resulting in higher costs for the industry.

The new tariffs favour domestic producers but are “terrible” for consumers as prices are likely to rise, said trade expert Deborah Elms from research firm Hinrich Foundation.

The levies would cover more products at higher rates than Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, which were aimed at correcting trade imbalances with other countries.

These industry-specific import taxes could serve as a back-up plan to secure revenues as Trump’s sweeping duties on global trading partners are being challenged in court, said Ms Elms.