Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges
Late last month, approximately 1 billion news cycles ago, an obscure federal court made President Donald Trump very, very mad.
The US Court of International Trade ruled unanimously on May 28 that the massive tariffs Trump imposed after taking office again are illegal. That ruling was suspended the next day by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the tariffs will be allowed to remain in effect pending a ruling (arguments are scheduled for late July).
But the appellate court's decision didn't soothe Trump. He took to Truth Social on May 29 to post a 510-word screed attacking the judges on the Court of International Trade, before turning his ire toward a more surprising candidate — Leonard Leo, the most important person in the conservative legal movement.
'I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges,' Trump wrote, reminiscing about his first term. 'I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.'
This breakup surprised many commentators. But not David French.
'If you're familiar with how the conservative legal movement has interacted with MAGA, you have seen this coming for a while,' French, a New York Times columnist, lawyer, and onetime member of the Federalist Society, told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. 'You knew this was coming after 2020. Because in 2020, after Trump had really stocked the federal judiciary with an awful lot of FedSoc judges and justices…none of them, zero of them, helped him try to steal the election.'
French spoke with Today, Explained about the origins of the (other) big, beautiful breakup and what it means for the Trump administration and the future of the federal judiciary. Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society?
I am not now, but I have been a member of the Federalist Society. I was a member of the Federalist Society either all three years of law school or the first two years of law school. But it was also a very different time. I think the Federalist Society at the law school at that time, when we would have meetings, maybe 10 or 12 people would show up. Things have changed.
One of the most conspicuous changes is that FedSoc has become an enemy of the president of the United States.
From [2020] forward, you began to see this drifting apart between FedSoc and MAGA. When Trump comes back into office and he doubles down on being Donald Trump, all of this became very, very predictable. Because if the Trump administration's argument dovetailed with their originalist legal philosophy, they would rule for it. But if it was just simply Trump's lawless demands, they were going to reject it.
And Trump is baffled by this distinction. He's baffled by it because congressional Republicans haven't drawn this line at all. When Trump's demands conflict with conservative principles, they will yield to Trump's demands every time. And the judges and justices have taken the opposite tack to such an extent that Republican-nominated judges have ruled against Trump about 72 percent of the time, which is remarkably close to about the 80 percent or so of the time that Democratic-appointed judges have ruled against Trump.
You mentioned a whole host of issues where FedSoc judges have perhaps not given Trump what he wanted. Does the one that finally tips Trump off to go for it on Truth Social surprise you?
It doesn't, because what really set him off was striking down tariffs. To the extent that Trump loves a policy, he loves tariffs. The Court of International Trade struck it down, and it was pointed out to him that one of the judges on the Court of International Trade that struck down the tariffs was appointed by him. He had been ranting about judges in general. Now he got specific with Leonard Leo; he got specific with the FedSoc. People like me who'd been watching this for a very long time were not wondering if this was going to happen. We were just wondering what was going to be the tipping point: Was it going to be a Supreme Court case? Was it going to be an appellate court? It turns out it was the Court of International Trade that brought us to this moment.
Leonard Leo did not author a decision from this court. Why is he mad at Leonard Leo?
Leonard Leo has long been a key figure in the Federalist Society and was very much a part of the first Trump administration, working closely with the administration to put forward judges.
For a long time, Trump looked at his judicial nominations and waved them like a flag to the American conservative public saying, look what I did. But the more the American conservative public started loving Trump as Trump, versus Trump as what policy wins he could deliver, the less he started waving these other ideological flags, and the more it became all about him. And so this meant that this marriage was going to be temporary almost from the beginning, unless FedSoc capitulated. And if you know anything about FedSoc and the people who belong to it, and the people who've come up as judges, I knew they weren't going to capitulate. It's a very different culture from political conservatism.
Do you think Donald Trump didn't realize that?
I don't think he realized that at all. He's had this entire history politically of when Republicans disagree with him, they either fall in line or they're steamrolled. And so it's so interesting to me that he actually began that Truth Social rant that lacerated Leonard Leo and the FedSoc with this question: What's going on? Why is this happening?
And I totally understand his bafflement. Because all of the political people had surrendered, or almost all of them. And so when he turns around and these judges and justices just keep ruling against him, you can understand why he would take that as, 'What's going on here? I don't get this. I don't understand this. I've been assured that these were good judges.' And so that's where you get to that real tension.
Do you think this rift with the Federalist Society will affect how he appoints judges going forward?
The short answer to that question is yes. The longer answer to that question is heck yes. A lot of people were worried about this because they were thinking, Okay, Trump 1.0: He has General Mattis as his secretary of defense. Trump 2.0: He has Pete Hegseth. You can do this all day long. The Trump 1.0 early nominations — sound, serious, establishment conservatives. Trump 2.0 — often MAGA crazies. The question was, 'Is this same pattern going to establish itself in Trump 2.0 on judges?'
And then he appointed to the Third Circuit Emil Bove, this DOJ enforcer of his who was responsible for the effort to dismiss the Eric Adams case. He's nominated him for the Third Circuit, and a lot of people are now saying, 'Oh, now that's your harbinger right there.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
30 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Public Rebuke of Tulsi Gabbard's Statement on Iran
President Donald Trump has said that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was "wrong" to say that Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon. When asked about the claims made by his intelligence community, specifically Gabbard, Trump was clear, telling reporters on Friday: 'She's wrong.' In March, Gabbard testified in front of Congress that the intelligence community [IC] 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor, closely, if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program." The testimony has resurfaced as Trump weighs his options regarding a potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, as the Middle Eastern countries trade deadly missiles after Israel launched an operation against Iranian military targets and nuclear facilities on June 13. Read More: Iran Issues New Grave Warning, Says U.S. Involvement in Israel Conflict Would Be 'Very Dangerous for Everybody' Trump's latest comments echo those he made to reporters on Air Force One on June 17, when he said he did not 'care' about what Gabbard had testified earlier in the year. 'I don't care what she said, I think they were very close to having one,' Trump said of his belief that Iran was inching towards having a nuclear weapon. Central to Trump's stance regarding Israel's initial assault on Iran is his belief that Iran has been moving closer to nuclear capability. He has plainly said that 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' Trump's stance, bolstered by a May 31 International Atomic Energy Agency report (that stated Iran had accumulated roughly 120 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, dangerously close to weapons-grade levels of 90%), undermines previous reports by U.S. intelligence, including that of Gabbard, a former Democrat. Read More: How Netanyahu Pushed Trump Toward War In response to Trump's new assertion that she was 'wrong' in her previous testimony, Gabbard took to social media on Friday, stating that her words had been taken out of context by "dishonest media." Gabbard maintains that she and Trump are on the same page. "The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division," Gabbard said. "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." Attached to the post was a longer video of her testimony, which also included her claims that 'Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.' Read More: The 5 Groups Hoping to Sway Trump on Iran Trump reportedly still has 'full confidence' in his intelligence team, according to White House communications director Steven Cheung, but the open disagreements between Trump and members of his Administration signal splinters over the Israel-Iran conflict. The President is facing questions from both within and outside the Republican party, as he weighs up his options during a self-imposed two-week deadline about whether the U.S. will intervene, despite him campaigning on staying out of wars overseas. Republican lawmakers Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky have both openly disapproved of any potential U.S. military intervention. Read More: Breaking Down the Feud Between Trump and Tucker Carlson Amid Divide Over Israel-Iran Conflict Meanwhile, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson—a long-time ally of Trump, who even hit the campaign trail with him in 2024—has also spoken out against any U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. Carlson's initial comments prompted a blistering response from Trump, and their disagreement soon took a personal turn as the feud escalated. While the situation appears to have since settled—Trump said Carlson called and apologized for his 'strong' words—it's clear that the subject of the Israel-Iran conflict and how the U.S. should move forward is proving to be a divisive one.
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
US moving B-2 bombers as Trump weighs Iran response: Reports
Department of Defense (DOD) officials are moving B-2 bombers across the Pacific as President Trump weighs intervening in Israel's war on Iran. Reports from Reuters say the 30,000-pound 'bunker buster bombs' will be stored on the island of Guam while Trump considers the possibility of striking Iran. The DOD referred The Hill's request for comment to the White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Flight tracking data shows several aircraft leaving Travis Air Force Base with B-2s following the president's statement allotting a two-week deadline for a decision on U.S. intervention in Iran. The bombers were originally being held in Missouri and would likely be used to damage the Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant in Iran. Fordo is Iran's second nuclear enrichment facility after Natanz, which was hit by Israeli forces on Friday. The attacks damaged the facility and furthered the Israeli objective to obliterate Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons of war. Israel on Saturday said it struck an Iranian nuclear facility in Isfahan and killed two additional top commanders as the clash between the two Middle Eastern countries expands. Israeli Air Force fighter jets later in the day also moved to strike military infrastructure in southwestern Iran, according to an Israeli military statement. Ahead of Saturday's strikes, Iran fired 40 drones overnight on Friday that were intercepted by Israel, according to the IDF. 'We've been able to take out a large amount of their launchers, creating a bottleneck — we're making it harder for them to fire toward Israel,' an Israeli military official told AP on the condition of anonymity. 'Having said all that, I want to say the Iranian regime obviously still has capabilities.' Earlier this week, Israel Defense Forces said they'd killed multiple top commanders and nine engineers working on Iran's nuclear projects. Trump said the conflict would continue until an 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' was supported by Iran. However, the Iranian Supreme Leader said they would continue to defend themselves amidst the rubble. 'I would like to tell our dear nation that if the enemy senses that you fear them, they won't let go of you. Continue the very behavior that you have had up to this day; continue this behavior with strength,' Ali Khamenei wrote in a post on X.
CNBC
30 minutes ago
- CNBC
Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil returns home to New York area
NEWARK, N.J. —After more than three months in ICE detention, Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil returned to the New York area where his harrowing ordeal first began. Immigration authorities had arrested Khalil, 30, in March at the university housing complex where he lived in New York City. He was quickly transported thousands of miles away to a detention center in Louisiana, where he spent the last few months. Khalil remained defiant as he spoke to reporters and supporters on Saturday afternoon upon his arrival at Newark International Airport. "Your messages have kept me going. Still the fight is far from over, the genocide is still happening in Gaza, Israel is still waging a full war against Palestine," said Khalil, who was flanked by his wife Dr. Noor Abdalla and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. "The U.S. government is funding this genocide and Columbia University is investing in this genocide. This is why I was protesting, this is why I will continue protesting with every one of you, not only if they threaten me with detention. Even if they would kill me, I would still speak up for Gaza." When asked what his message would be to the Trump administration, Khalil said, "Just the fact that I'm here sends a message." "The fact that all of these attempts to suppress pro-Palestine voices have failed now," he said. "This is the message. My existence is a message." Ocasio-Cortez said Khalil's imprisonment for politically motivated. "Everybody agrees that persecution based on political speech is wrong and is a violation of all of our First Amendment rights, not just Mahmoud's," she said. His unprecedented detention has sparked national outrage. Further fueling the controversy, Abdalla, an American, gave birth to the couple's first son in April while he remained behind bars. Upon his release in Louisiana on Friday, Khalil addressed reporters briefly, saying he was excited to return to New York City and see his family. "Although justice prevailed," he said upon his release, "it's long, very long overdue. And this shouldn't have taken three months." "Trump and his administration, they chose the wrong person for this," he added. "That doesn't mean that there is a right person for this. There's no right person who should be detained for actually protesting a genocide, for protesting their university, Columbia University." Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin on Friday denounced the judicial order freeing Khalil and the judge who issued it. "This is yet another example of how out of control members of the judicial branch are undermining national security," McLaughlin said in a statement. "Their conduct not only denies the result of the 2024 election, it also does great harm to our constitutional system by undermining public confidence in the courts." The Trump administration claimed it had the authority to detain and deport the pro-Palestinian student activist, arguing that his presence in the U.S. threatened national security. Another charge against Khalil alleges that he omitted details about his work history and membership in organizations on his permanent residency application. The government cited an obscure provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that gives Secretary of State Marco Rubio authority to "personally determine" whether a foreign national can remain in the U.S. on national security grounds. An NBC News review of more than 100 pages of court filings found that prosecutors relied on unverified tabloid reports and anecdotal claims, raising doubts about the strength of their case for deporting Khalil. Less than 10 minutes after Khalil, who has no criminal history, was released from the detention center in Jena, Louisiana, the Trump administration filed a notice of appeal. A lawyer representing Khalil vowed to fight the appeal. Khalil helped lead student protests over the war in Gaza, where more than 55,000 people have been killed since Israel launched its war against Hamas. He also participated in negotiations with university officials at Columbia last year, when protests at the Ivy League school gripped national headlines for weeks and inspired similar demonstrations at universities around the world. Some Jewish students at universities across the U.S. reported antisemitic incidents as the protest movement gained traction. Khalil was the first of several foreign academics apprehended by immigration authorities in the first months of Trump's second term. Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, a doctoral candidate from Turkey, was arrested outside her home in Somerville, Massachusetts, by immigration authorities on March 25. Viral street footage of her arrest showed Department of Homeland Security officials dressed in plain clothes surrounding Öztürk, grabbing her by the wrists and escorting her into an unmarked vehicle. Mohsen Mahdawi, a 34-year-old graduate student at Columbia who was born in the West Bank, was apprehended by immigration authorities during his naturalization interview in Vermont. Federal judges also ordered the release of both Öztürk and Mahdawi in recent weeks. Other notable cases include a Georgetown University professor who was detained by ICE and later released after a judicial order, and a Brown University professor who was deported to Lebanon.
