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
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stock market today: Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures rise as stocks set to end June with a bang
US stock futures edged higher Sunday evening, setting up the major indexes for more records to end one of the most volatile first halves of a year in recent memory. Futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average (YM=F) rose around 0.5%. Contracts on the S&P 500 (ES=F) gained 0.2%, and Nasdaq 100 (NQ=F) futures ticked up 0.3%. Several of Trump's economic agenda items are in focus this week. A July 9 deadline looms before the possible resumption of Trump's unilateral tariffs, which Trump on Sunday said he didn't think he'd "need to" extend. On the trade front, India has extended its Washington visit to finalize a deal. Administration officials last week confirmed a trade framework with China was in place, bolstering investor sentiment despite a late-Friday dip triggered by Trump's abrupt halt to talks with Canada, citing its digital tax policy. Meanwhile, market watchers are closely following Senate negotiations over Trump's proposed $4.5 trillion tax cut bill. The measure, which passed a procedural vote Saturday, could face a tough path in the House. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it would add $3.3 trillion to the deficit over a decade. For the market, June's gains have been substantial, fueled by optimism surrounding global trade and easing fears over tariffs. The S&P 500 (^GSPC) is up over 4%, the Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC) has surged over 5.5%, and the Dow (^DJI) has climbed 3.5%. On Friday, all three major indexes closed higher, with the S&P and Nasdaq reaching new record highs for the first time since February — the start of the year's tariff-fueled stock swings. All three major indexes are up at least 3% so far this year. Looking ahead, investors will monitor key Chinese PMI data due Monday to gauge how the ongoing trade war is affecting Asia's largest economy. Despite lingering uncertainties, the broader market remains upbeat heading into the new quarter and second half.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Zohran Mamdani knocks Donald Trump criticism, denies accusation he's a communist
Democratic candidate for New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani denied President Donald Trump's accusations that he supports communism, saying the president wants to "distract from what I'm fighting for" in a new interview. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state Assembly member, won the Democratic primary over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who was long considered the frontrunner and establishment candidate. Current New York City Mayor Eric Adams is running as an independent on the November ballot. When asked to respond to Trump's repeated assertions that he is a communist, Mamdani told "Meet the Press" on June 29 that he isn't, explaining that "I've already had to start to get used to the fact that the president will talk about how I look, how I sound, where I'm from, who I am." "He wants to distract from what I'm fighting for," Mamdani said. "I'm fighting for the the very working people he ran a campaign to empower that he has since then betrayed." Several leading Republicans have also called for Mamdani, who immigrated to the United States as a child, to be deported. Earlier in the day, Trump called Mamdani a communist and a "radical left lunatic" on Maria Bartiromo's "Sunday Morning Futures" on Fox News. "He's a communist. I think it is very bad for New York. I don't know that he's going to get in. It is inconceivable that he is," Trump said. Mamdani is not a communist. He is a democratic socialist. A communist believes in collective ownership of all property and the end of capitalism. A democratic socialist doesn't believe in ending capitalism, but aims to reform it through democracy Mamdani also said that he is committed to keeping New York a sanctuary city. "Ultimately, we've seen that this is a policy that has kept New Yorkers safe for decades. It's a policy that had previously been defended by Democrats and Republicans alike, until the fear mongering of this current mayor," he said. Adams called for changes to sanctuary city laws that advocates say protect migrants in New York. He has also pushed for more cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a move that requires a vote from the city council. The changes came shortly after the Department of Justice dropped federal corruption charges against Adams. Democrats accuse him of cozying up to Trump to avoid the legal challenges. Trump said Mamdani would be "very unsuccessful" if he tries to keep New York a sanctuary city. "If he does get in, I'm going to be president and he's going to have to do the right thing or they're not getting any money. He's got to do the right thing," Trump said. Trump said he would not publicly back a candidate in the race, which along with Mamdani, Cuomo and Adams includes a third independent candidate and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa. "Whoever is the mayor of New York is going to have to behave themselves or the federal government is coming down very tough on them financially," Trump said. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Mamdani knocks Trump criticism, hits back at communism accusation
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
IAEA chief says Iran could be enriching uranium within months
(Reuters) -Iran could be producing enriched uranium in a few months, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog Rafael Grossi was quoted as saying on Sunday, raising doubts about how effective U.S. strikes to destroy Tehran's nuclear programme have been. U.S. officials have stated that their strikes obliterated key nuclear sites in Iran, although U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels. "The capacities they have are there. They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that," Grossi told CBS News in an interview. "Frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there," he added, according to the transcript of an interview on "Face the Nation" with Margaret Brennan due to air on Sunday. Saying it wanted to remove any chance of Tehran developing nuclear weapons, Israel launched attacks on Iran earlier this month, igniting a 12-day air war that the U.S. eventually joined. Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only. Grossi, who heads the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, said the strikes on sites in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan had significantly set back Iran's ability to convert and enrich uranium. However, Western powers stress that Iran's nuclear advances provide it with an irreversible knowledge gain, suggesting that while losing experts or facilities may slow progress, the advances are permanent. "Iran is a very sophisticated country in terms of nuclear technology," Grossi said. "So you cannot disinvent this. You cannot undo the knowledge that you have or the capacities that you have." Grossi was also asked about reports of Iran moving its stock of highly enriched uranium in the run-up to the U.S. strikes and said it was not clear where that material was. "So some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved," he said.
