Judge Judy Sheindlin blasts Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for wasting taxpayer money pursuing Donald Trump instead of addressing rampant crime affecting everyday New Yorkers. Sheindlin accused Bragg of “personal self-aggrandizement” and referred to the Trump-Stormy Daniels case as “nonsense.” The famous judge made the case that it would be more cost-effective for the government to deal with crimes that make it “impossible for citizens to walk in the streets.”
Sheindlin Condemns Bragg’s Prosecutorial Priorities
Television’s famous Judge Judy Sheindlin didn’t mince words when she targeted Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for what she considers misplaced priorities. During a CNN interview that gained significant attention, Sheindlin expressed her frustration with Bragg’s decision to focus substantial resources on prosecuting former President Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels case while crime continues to plague Manhattan streets. The popular TV judge, who has built her reputation on no-nonsense assessments, suggested Bragg’s focus reveals a troubling disconnect between his office and the immediate safety concerns of ordinary citizens.
Sheindlin, who owns property in Manhattan, positioned herself as a concerned taxpayer, watching resources being diverted from pressing public safety issues. Her critique comes at a politically sensitive time as Bragg looks toward re-election, potentially influencing voters who share similar concerns about crime in New York City. The timing of her comments reflects growing public discourse about prosecutorial discretion and whether high-profile, politically charged cases should take precedence over addressing everyday criminal activity that directly impacts community safety and quality of life.
Judge Judy goes off on DA Alvin Bragg for going after Trump for a non-crime while allowing criminals to run free in New York City. WATCH pic.twitter.com/jeBeA06oo5
— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) June 21, 2024
Taxpayer Money “Wasted” on Trump Case
Judge Judy’s criticism centered particularly on the financial aspect of Bragg’s prosecutorial decisions. She argued that the millions of taxpayer dollars spent pursuing the case against Trump represented misallocated resources that could have been directed toward more pressing public safety concerns. According to Sheindlin, the convoluted nature of the case against Trump suggested political motivation rather than substantive criminal wrongdoing. Her characterization of having to “twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out what the crime was” resonated with many who viewed the prosecution skeptically.
“I would be happier, as someone who owns property in Manhattan, if the district attorney of New York County would take care of criminals who were making it impossible for citizens to walk in the streets and use the subway, to use his efforts to keep those people off the street, than to spend $5 million or $10 million of taxpayers’ money trying Donald Trump on this nonsense,” Sheindlin said.
The prosecution of Trump was seen by critics as part of a broader Democratic strategy to prevent the former president from returning to the White House. Similar cases emerged in Georgia and at the federal level, creating what some viewed as a coordinated legal effort. Despite the successful conviction in January 2025, no punishment was imposed on Trump, further fueling questions about the ultimate purpose and utility of Bragg’s prosecution. This outcome has strengthened the position of those who, like Sheindlin, questioned whether the case represented a legitimate pursuit of justice or merely political theater.
Judge Judy eviscerates Alvin Bragg for bringing the cases against Donald Trump
Watch! pic.twitter.com/njTViZRvxc
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) June 21, 2024
Political Implications for Bragg’s Re-election
Judge Judy’s public criticism arrives at a crucial moment for Bragg as he prepares for re-election. Her comments highlight a potential vulnerability in his campaign narrative, particularly among constituents concerned about crime rates in Manhattan. Despite the criticism, reports indicate Bragg’s fundraising has actually increased since early 2025, suggesting that some voters may approve of his handling of high-profile cases. The contrasting perspectives underscore the polarized views on what constitutes appropriate prosecutorial priorities in a major metropolitan area facing complex crime challenges.
“That’s my view. But I, as a taxpayer in this country, resent using the system for your own personal self-aggrandizement.”
Sheindlin’s critique exposes deeper questions about the relationship between high-profile prosecutions and community confidence in the criminal justice system. For many New Yorkers struggling with concerns about public safety, the resources directed toward the Trump case may seem disconnected from their daily reality. As Manhattan voters prepare to evaluate Bragg’s performance at the ballot box, they will likely weigh whether his prosecutorial priorities reflect their own concerns about crime prevention and public safety. Judge Judy’s influential voice has added significant weight to this ongoing conversation about prosecutorial effectiveness and accountability.
Sources: