The U.S. Department of Justice is reportedly reviving a decades-old investigation into allegations of cocaine use by Maine Governor Janet Mills, a high-profile Democrat who has recently drawn national attention for her confrontations with former President Donald Trump.
The move has sparked a flurry of political commentary, renewed scrutiny of Mills' past as a prosecutor, and serious questions about the integrity of criminal convictions she secured in the 1990s.
While the governor has dismissed the allegations as politically motivated, the case appears far from over, and its implications could be far-reaching for both Maine’s legal system and the national political landscape.
At the heart of the controversy is the allegation that Mills, while serving as a district attorney in Maine during the early 1990s, was a frequent user of cocaine—a claim originally brought forward by a drug suspect and pursued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Maine’s Bureau of Intergovernmental Drug Enforcement (BIDE).
The initial probe did not result in charges, but it left behind a trail of unanswered questions, internal memos, and bitter political fallout. Now, nearly three decades later, the DOJ appears poised to take a fresh look, and observers are questioning whether this probe could upend hundreds, or even thousands, of cases linked to Mills’ tenure as prosecutor.
The renewed interest in Mills' past has been fueled, in part, by her rising national profile and open criticism of Donald Trump. Earlier this year, she made headlines by daring the former president to sue her over her state’s progressive transgender athlete policies.
Her remarks at the National Governors Association meeting reportedly caused tension during a face-to-face exchange with Trump. Some now speculate that the DOJ’s renewed focus on her past may be retribution, though officials have not confirmed whether the investigation is politically driven or prompted by new information.
During a recent campaign stop at Brodis Blueberries in Union, Maine, Mills was heckled by an attendee who shouted, “Janet Mills, did cocaine give you the courage to stand up to President Trump at the governor’s breakfast?”
The question appeared to reference her combative stance toward Trump during their public encounter. Mills laughed and walked past the questioner without a response.
When pressed further with, “Have you ever been under the influence while making critical decisions for the state of Maine?” the governor again declined to answer, drawing criticism from some who believe her silence reflects guilt or evasion.
According to Fox News, which first reported on the renewed investigation last month, DOJ officials have begun reviewing internal files, surviving reports, and related records that could shed light on Mills’ behavior during her time as a prosecutor.
While most documents related to the original case were destroyed in 2015 under routine court policy, a 1995 memorandum from the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility—addressed to then-principal associate deputy U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland—survives as a critical artifact.
That memo reportedly found no wrongdoing by BIDE agents during their probe of Mills, contradicting her long-held claim that the original investigation was a politically motivated smear campaign.
The roots of the controversy trace back to 1991, when a Maine drug suspect allegedly implicated Mills in cocaine use. The claim led to a full-scale investigation, one that Mills characterized as a political witch hunt driven by her vocal criticism of inflated drug arrest statistics and what she perceived as heavy-handed enforcement tactics.
“It’s scary,” Mills told the Portland Press Herald at the time. “Maine apparently has a secret police force at work that can ruin the reputation of any who opposes it.”
She later sued a local television station that reported she was under grand jury investigation, accusing law enforcement officials of leaking sensitive information to the press.
Despite her defense, Mills remained under a cloud of suspicion for years, with political opponents frequently citing the case as evidence of her unfitness for public office.
Though she eventually ascended to the governorship in 2019 and has since been re-elected, the specter of that investigation has never fully disappeared. Now, with the DOJ once again probing the matter, questions are being raised about the legal consequences of her alleged conduct—particularly the potential impact on convictions she may have secured while under the influence of illegal drugs.
Legal experts warn that if evidence emerges showing Mills was regularly impaired while serving as a district attorney, it could open the door to appeals or dismissal motions in cases she prosecuted.
“This could potentially impact a large number of past convictions,” said one former federal prosecutor. “Any indication that a prosecutor was under the influence of narcotics at the time critical decisions were made could be grounds for legal challenges based on due process violations or prosecutorial misconduct.”
The implications are serious not just for Mills but for Maine’s judicial system. An extensive review of old case files could become necessary, burdening the state’s courts and raising concerns among victims and families about the potential re-opening of painful cases.
Defense attorneys in Maine are already reportedly preparing to file information requests and motions in anticipation of a DOJ announcement. If the investigation moves forward and uncovers substantial evidence, the fallout could extend to local law enforcement agencies, public defenders, and the broader legal community in the state.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, Mills has publicly attempted to downplay the controversy. When approached by a reporter last month with a question about whether “sniffing cocaine at work” constituted a human right—a biting reference to her support for various progressive causes—Mills reportedly exclaimed, “What the f**k?” in a moment of visible frustration. Her reaction, though perhaps understandable, was widely shared online and further fueled speculation.
Mills continues to insist the original investigation was baseless and fueled by political motives. However, critics argue that the lack of a definitive resolution to the original case—combined with the destruction of critical records in 2015—has left the door open for renewed scrutiny.
The political landscape in which this is happening only heightens tensions, as Democrats claim selective enforcement while Republicans view it as long-overdue accountability.
For now, the DOJ has not officially announced new charges or a formal reopening of the case, but the signs are clear that the department is actively revisiting the matter. Whether this leads to formal proceedings, a congressional inquiry, or new political battles remains to be seen.
In the meantime, the Mills administration faces the uncomfortable prospect of public and media attention on a period of the governor’s life she would clearly prefer to leave behind.
As the story unfolds, the political stakes will only grow higher. With Mills already a polarizing figure in national debates—especially over transgender policy, criminal justice reform, and healthcare—any new revelations could impact her legacy and future political ambitions.
The controversy also raises broader questions about the nature of political accountability, the long memory of law enforcement institutions, and the blurred lines between justice and politics in modern America.
In an era where public trust in institutions is fragile and where partisan warfare defines so much of the public discourse, the revival of a decades-old drug allegation against a sitting governor carries explosive potential. Whether it ends in vindication or consequences, one thing is certain: the past isn’t done with Janet Mills yet.
