
Trump appellate court nominee defends comments on 'gender roles'
Eric Tung, a partner at the law firm Jones Day, was grilled by Democratic members of the Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee about those and other comments as the panel weighed his nomination to become a life-tenured judge on the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The panel also heard from three other judicial nominees, including Joshua Dunlap, a Maine litigator with a track record of pursuing Republican-backed court cases who is Trump's nominee to serve on the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
But the sharpest questions were directed at Tung, who Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California said was picked by Trump because of his "extreme conservative ideology and his associations with the conservative Federalist Society."
Tung, who is based in Los Angeles, is a former law clerk to both Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, and described himself as an avowed originalist and textualist, the favored legal doctrines of judicial conservatives.
Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, the panel's chair, called Tung "a stand out appellate lawyer" and "a great choice to serve on the 9th Circuit."
Padilla and Senator Dick Durbin, the panel's top Democrat, zeroed in on remarks attributed to Tung by Yale's student newspaper when he was an undergraduate student in 2004 criticizing a speech by the then head of the feminist organization the National Organization for Women.
'I believe in emphasizing family and what it means for a woman to be a good wife or partner," Tung was quoted as saying. 'I believe in gender roles and that women are simply better than men at some things. When these radical feminists try to blur gender roles, they undermine institutions like marriage — institutions which hold society together."
Padilla, who said the White House spurned his recommendation to nominate two other Republicans to a California-based seat on the 9th Circuit vacancy instead of Tung, called those comments "reprehensible" and pressed him on whether he believed men were better than women.
Tung responded that he made the comments "over 20 years ago when I was an undergraduate in college." He cited his wife's own professional and political career history as he said she "is better at many things and not just some things than I am."
He told Durbin he made those remarks because he found the speaker's views "extreme" and "because I believed at the time that the relationship between men and women was complementary and that the family should be strengthened."
Durbin said the quote "wasn't a youthful indiscretion." He pointed to remarks Tung drafted for a recent Federalist Society event where he said "whether there's a constitutional right to abortion, same-sex marriage, sodomy ... the answer for the originalist is simple: no."
"You seem to be questioning landmark Supreme Court decisions like Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell," Durbin said. "Let me ask you point blank. Do you believe there's a constitutional right to marriage for same-sex couples?"
Tung responded that the Supreme Court in its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges recognized a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples, "and as a circuit judge, if I were so lucky to be confirmed, I would be bound by that precedent."
He declined to address his current views on gender roles, saying it was an issue that could come before him as a judge.
Read more:
Republican US Senator Grassley clashes with Trump over nominations
Trump names two new nominees to serve as appeals court judges
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump donor swindled more than $30 million from people thinking they were getting access and visas
A Trump donor orchestrated a $30 million scheme that promised foreign investors permanent residency and access to U.S. politicians in exchange for their money. Sherry Xue Li, 53, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing the Federal Election Commission 's administration of campaign finance laws, the New York Times reports. In her decade-long scheme, Li and her co-defendant Lianbo Wang defrauded investors out of more than $30 million through a fictitious development project called the Thompson Education Center based in Sullivan County, New York, federal prosecutors said. The pair marketed the project as a 'Chinese Disneyland' that would include an amusement park, medical center, business center, a college, and homes, the federal complaint states. They told the investors, mainly foreign nationals from China, that if they contributed $500,000, they would be guaranteed lawful permanent residence in the United States through the EB-5 investment visa program. To make the fictitious project seem more real, the pair distributed promotional materials that contained photographs of Li with prominent U.S. politicians to falsely convey government support for the Thompson Education Center. In some cases, they also sold access to prominent politicians by collecting foreign investors' money and 'unlawfully contributing' it to U.S. political campaigns and committees, prosecutors said. For example, in June 2017, Li attended a fundraiser dinner to support the re-election of President Donald Trump. The cost of admission was $35,000 per person, the complaint states. Li planned to bring a dozen foreigners with her to the ritzy event. Li and Wang, however, then told the attendees they must each pay $93,000 — $80,000 to attend plus nearly $14,000 for food and travel expenses. They then sent instructions on how to wire transfer the money to bank accounts tied to Li, according to prosecutors. The pair then used the money they collected from the foreigners to contribute $600,000 in their own names. At the Washington, D.C. event, Li posed with the president and First Lady Melania Trump. They later used this photo to promote their development project. Federal law prohibits foreigners from making contributions in connections to U.S. elections. The president, his campaign and first lady have not been accused of wrongdoing in connection with this case. Throughout the years-long scheme, Li used the funds she collected to bankroll her own personal expenses, like casinos, jewelry, high-end retailers and upscale restaurants. Some of the money was used to 'create and perpetuate the fiction' of the Thompson Education Center's development, making it appear as though the project was actually underway, prosecutors said. In reality, Li and Wang hired contractors, engineers, and other workers to draw up architectural plans to keep up the illusion. Sometimes, when pressed about updates on the development, Li sent photos of a different construction site to investors. Wang pleaded guilty in 2024 to engaging in unlawful monetary transactions and conspiracy to defraud the United States. He was sentenced to five years behind bars. Li now faces up to 20 years in prison. As part of her plea agreement, Li agreed to forfeit $31.5 million, as well as property at three locations, prosecutors said. In total, more than 150 investors invested at least $31.5 million in the development project. Roughly half of that amount came from EB-5 investors who were promised green cards in return for their investments. None of them were granted green cards. 'Li defrauded more than 150 victims in the United States and abroad through years of lies and deception and sought to profit by selling access to the democratic process,' United States Attorney Nocella said in a statement. 'In doing so, she attempted to corrupt a fundamental institution in this country—fair and transparent elections free from unlawful foreign influence. Our Office is committed to investigating and prosecuting predatory fraudsters who steal victims' hard-earned money.'


The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The LA Times's owner wants to take the struggling paper public. Will it work?
When the legendary journalist David Halberstam wrote his landmark 1979 book about American journalism, The Powers That Be, he focused on four media organizations: the Washington Post, Time magazine, CBS and the Los Angeles Times. His choice of the LA newspaper made perfect sense. Influential and successful, it was owned by a prominent California family, the Chandlers. The paper had high standards, a raft of Pulitzer Prizes, and a hard-charging Washington DC bureau that competed successfully with its east coast rivals. For reporters and editors, the LA Times was a prestigious career destination; if you got there, you probably stayed. Nearly 50 years later, the Los Angeles Times is much smaller in staff size and circulation size and is losing tens of millions of dollars a year. The beleaguered staff was rocked – again – in recent weeks with the news that the owner, the billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, wants to take the newspaper public in the next year. This would, he said, 'democratize' it. He offered few details, though, as he made the announcement on a late-night talk show during an interview with host Jon Stewart, who was roundly criticized for his softball approach. Certainly, the paper has been through hell over the decades. It endured many years of owners far more focused on profits than on the best interests of the reading public. Roughly a decade ago – long after the Chandlers had sold the paper – the Times was part of the laughably named and poorly run 'Tronc' chain that was busy diminishing the Chicago Tribune and other journalistic institutions. The staff was shrinking, the hope for profits disappearing and the newsroom's morale low. Then, salvation seemed to arrive. Soon-Shiong, a former surgeon who made his fortune in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, bought the paper in 2018, coming in hot with promises of restoring the paper's greatness and public mission. Champagne corks popped as the new owner's view of newspapers as a public trust seemed to offer relief from all the drama of recent years. But – ever so sadly – those promises have turned out to be mostly hollow, though the paper remains the largest news organization in the American west and has a respected editor in Terry Tang, formerly of the New York Times. Though it has many talented journalists who still churn out important investigations, break news and win major awards, it is drowning in red ink and laid off 20% of its staff last year. Paid subscriptions are fewer than 300,000, compared to 11m at the New York Times and (as of 2023) more than 2m at the Washington Post. The billionaire doctor has become closer to Donald Trump and may have allowed that relationship to affect the paper's editorial integrity. Last year, he blocked a planned presidential endorsement of then vice-president Kamala Harris, causing a cascade of subscribers to cancel and the top opinion editor to resign. (Some reports suggested the decision was related to Gaza.) Many a journalist, especially on the opinion side, has walked out the door, and a celebrated top editor, Kevin Merida, departed last year after disagreements with the Soon-Shiong family. Can Soon-Shiong's latest notion of taking the paper public improve this sorry situation? The plan seems far from ideal. After all, the large regional newspapers that have thrived in the US are those with local ownership committed to the best journalistic practices – including editorial independence. The best owners have protected that while working toward financial success in this challenging new digital environment. Consider: the Philadelphia Inquirer is owned by a local non-profit. The Boston Globe is owned by Boston-based John W Henry, whose portfolio includes the Boston Red Sox. And the Minnesota Star Tribune is owned by Glen Taylor, a Minnesota-based businessperson and former state senator. The worst owners, by contrast, are predatory chains such as Alden Global Capital, a Manhattan-based hedge fund intent on wringing the last profits from waning newspapers. They don't seem to care about the public mission or about building a sustainable future for their papers. Granted, we're a long way since 'the powers that be' and from the rich heyday of newspapers when 30 percent profit margins were nothing to marvel at, and when regional papers like the Baltimore Sun and the Chicago Tribune boasted foreign bureaus and newsrooms of 400 or more. The industry is in sharp decline. No local newspaper has had an easy time since the business model changed so radically 20 years ago with the precipitous loss of print advertising. But those with reasonably enlightened local ownership have fared the best. The LA Times, under Patrick Soon-Shiong, could have been in that enviable category – but it didn't go that way. The chances of restoring the gleam to this journalistic jewel can only be described as uncertain. And, for many reasons, that's a shame. Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture


The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The LA Times's owner wants to take the struggling paper public. Will it work?
When the legendary journalist David Halberstam wrote his landmark 1979 book about American journalism, The Powers That Be, he focused on four media organizations: the Washington Post, Time magazine, CBS and the Los Angeles Times. His choice of the LA newspaper made perfect sense. Influential and successful, it was owned by a prominent California family, the Chandlers. The paper had high standards, a raft of Pulitzer Prizes, and a hard-charging Washington DC bureau that competed successfully with its east coast rivals. For reporters and editors, the LA Times was a prestigious career destination; if you got there, you probably stayed. Nearly 50 years later, the Los Angeles Times is much smaller in staff size and circulation size and is losing tens of millions of dollars a year. The beleaguered staff was rocked – again – in recent weeks with the news that the owner, the billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, wants to take the newspaper public in the next year. This would, he said, 'democratize' it. He offered few details, though, as he made the announcement on a late-night talk show during an interview with host Jon Stewart, who was roundly criticized for his softball approach. Certainly, the paper has been through hell over the decades. It endured many years of owners far more focused on profits than on the best interests of the reading public. Roughly a decade ago – long after the Chandlers had sold the paper – the Times was part of the laughably named and poorly run 'Tronc' chain that was busy diminishing the Chicago Tribune and other journalistic institutions. The staff was shrinking, the hope for profits disappearing and the newsroom's morale low. Then, salvation seemed to arrive. Soon-Shiong, a former surgeon who made his fortune in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, bought the paper in 2018, coming in hot with promises of restoring the paper's greatness and public mission. Champagne corks popped as the new owner's view of newspapers as a public trust seemed to offer relief from all the drama of recent years. But – ever so sadly – those promises have turned out to be mostly hollow, though the paper remains the largest news organization in the American west and has a respected editor in Terry Tang, formerly of the New York Times. Though it has many talented journalists who still churn out important investigations, break news and win major awards, it is drowning in red ink and laid off 20% of its staff last year. Paid subscriptions are fewer than 300,000, compared to 11m at the New York Times and (as of 2023) more than 2m at the Washington Post. The billionaire doctor has become closer to Donald Trump and may have allowed that relationship to affect the paper's editorial integrity. Last year, he blocked a planned presidential endorsement of then vice-president Kamala Harris, causing a cascade of subscribers to cancel and the top opinion editor to resign. (Some reports suggested the decision was related to Gaza.) Many a journalist, especially on the opinion side, has walked out the door, and a celebrated top editor, Kevin Merida, departed last year after disagreements with the Soon-Shiong family. Can Soon-Shiong's latest notion of taking the paper public improve this sorry situation? The plan seems far from ideal. After all, the large regional newspapers that have thrived in the US are those with local ownership committed to the best journalistic practices – including editorial independence. The best owners have protected that while working toward financial success in this challenging new digital environment. Consider: the Philadelphia Inquirer is owned by a local non-profit. The Boston Globe is owned by Boston-based John W Henry, whose portfolio includes the Boston Red Sox. And the Minnesota Star Tribune is owned by Glen Taylor, a Minnesota-based businessperson and former state senator. The worst owners, by contrast, are predatory chains such as Alden Global Capital, a Manhattan-based hedge fund intent on wringing the last profits from waning newspapers. They don't seem to care about the public mission or about building a sustainable future for their papers. Granted, we're a long way since 'the powers that be' and from the rich heyday of newspapers when 30 percent profit margins were nothing to marvel at, and when regional papers like the Baltimore Sun and the Chicago Tribune boasted foreign bureaus and newsrooms of 400 or more. The industry is in sharp decline. No local newspaper has had an easy time since the business model changed so radically 20 years ago with the precipitous loss of print advertising. But those with reasonably enlightened local ownership have fared the best. The LA Times, under Patrick Soon-Shiong, could have been in that enviable category – but it didn't go that way. The chances of restoring the gleam to this journalistic jewel can only be described as uncertain. And, for many reasons, that's a shame. Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture