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
22 minutes ago
Marines temporarily detain man while guarding LA federal building
LOS ANGELES -- Shortly after they began guarding a Los Angeles federal building Friday, U.S. Marines detained a man who had walked onto the property and did not immediately hear their commands to stop. The brief detention marked the first time federal troops have detained a civilian since they were deployed to the nation's second-largest city by President Donald Trump in response to protests over the administration's immigration arrests. The Marines were activated earlier this week but began their duties Friday. The man, Marcos Leao, was later released without charges and said the Marines were just doing their jobs. A U.S. Army North spokesperson said the troops have the authority to temporarily detain people under specific circumstances. He said those detentions end when the person can be transferred to 'appropriate civilian law enforcement personnel.' Leao's detention shows how the troops' deployment is putting them closer to carrying out law enforcement actions. Already, National Guard soldiers have been providing security on raids as Trump has promised as part of his immigration crackdown. Leao, a former Army combat engineer, said he was rushing to get to a Veterans Affairs appointment when he stepped past a piece of caution tape outside the federal building. He looked up to find a Marine sprinting toward him. 'I had my headphones in, so I didn't hear them,' Leao said. 'They told me to get down on the ground. I basically complied with everything they were saying.' Leao was placed in zip ties and held for more than two hours by the Marines and members of the National Guard, he said. After Los Angeles police arrived, he was released without charges, he said. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles Police Department said they responded to a call at the scene but weren't needed, and no charges were filed. 'I didn't know it was going to be this intense here," he said later. A U.S. official told the AP that a civilian had stepped over the line. He was warned they would take him down and they did, according to the official, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. About 200 Marines out of the 700 deployed arrived in the city Friday, joining 2,000 members of the National Guard that have been stationed outside federal buildings this week in Los Angeles. Another 2,000 Guard members were notified of deployment earlier this week. Before the unusual deployment, the Pentagon scrambled to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil. The forces have been trained in de-escalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force, the military has said. But the use of the active-duty forces still raises difficult questions. 'I believe that this is an inevitable precursor of things yet to come when you put troops with guns right next to civilians who are doing whatever they do,' said Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps. prosecutor and military judge. He said it's an example of Trump's attempt to unravel the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars active-duty forces from conducting law enforcement.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'We are prepared': SPD ready for possible unrest in Springfield 'No Kings' protest
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — On June 14, there is scheduled to be 'No Kings' protests across every state in the nation. The rallies are to show opposition to President Trump's recent actions and policies. One in Springfield will begin at the Historic Courthouse on 940 N. Boonville Ave at 9:30 a.m. The 'No Kings' protests will eventually join with the Ozarks Pridefest, happening that same day, at 11:30 a.m. While most protests in Springfield have been peaceful in the past, the Springfield Police Department (SPD) ready to respond to any escalation. 'We are aware of the demonstrations in and around the downtown area,' says Cris Swaters, SPD Public Affairs Officer. 'We are prepared, and we are actively monitoring the situation.' SPD will have 'five to six' officers at both the protest and Pridefest to ensure the safety and security of attendees. According to Swaters, the police presence is necessary to keep violence from occurring. 'We are highly trained, and officers are highly capable of handling any incident that may arise with keeping both demonstrators safe and the extended community meetings,' she said. Swaters advises attendees that if they run into any conflict, feel unsafe or see any suspicious behavior to call the police and report the incident. Both 'No Kings' and Ozarks Pridefest have released statements telling people to not engage with any counter protesters or turn to violent behavior. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ICE detains Venezuelan ex-political prisoner after immigration case dismissal
A Venezuelan political prisoner who spent more than three years incarcerated under Nicolás Maduro's regime has been detained in the United States after an immigration judge dismissed his asylum claim. He now faces possible deportation to the same country he once fled, where he was tortured. Gregory Antonio Sanabria Tarazona, now in his early 30s, was just 20 and studying computer engineering when he was arrested on Oct. 7, 2014 in Táchira, a western state in Venezuela and then moved to a prison in Caracas. He had taken part in La Salida ('The Exit'), a nationwide civil disobedience movement led by opposition figures Leopoldo López, María Corina Machado, and Antonio Ledezma, aimed at removing Maduro from power. Sanabria Tarazona entered the United States via the southern border in early 2023 and passed a credible fear interview, according to Renzo Prieto, a former National Assembly member and fellow political prisoner in Venezuela. He settled in Dallas, where he worked in construction and air conditioning installation. According to Prieto he was also granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a deportation protection designation first granted to Venezuelans in 2021 under the Biden administration. He received protection in 2023 after the protection was expanded. However, the Trump administration recently rescinded it, placing him, and more than 350,000 Venezuelans, at risk of deportation. On Thursday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained Sanabria Tarazona in Texas. According to ICE records, he is currently being held at the Montgomery Processing Center in Conroe. La Salida in 2014, marked by widespread unrest and the construction of makeshift barricades known as guarimbas, was fueled by skyrocketing inflation, rampant shortages of food and medicine, insecurity, and political persecution. While the movement ultimately failed to unseat the regime, it left dozens dead and led to the imprisonment of numerous activists. Following Sanabria Tarazona's arrest, he was subjected to brutal treatment. According to Venezuelan media reports, he was physically and psychologically tortured: interrogated with a bag over his head, shocked with electricity, and beaten and bitten by Venezuelan security agents. He spent more than three years behind bars, including in El Helicoide, the notorious headquarters of Venezuela's political police, SEBIN. Upon his release on parole in 2018, he was hospitalized. Doctors confirmed moderate cerebral edema and injuries requiring surgery, including a broken nose. That same year, the United Nations Human Rights Office condemned the 'severe beating' he endured and called for an investigation into the use of torture and mistreatment of prisoners at El Helicoide. The Herald searched public records in Dallas and found no criminal history for Sanabria Tarazona. Although current policy generally protects individuals who have been in the country for more than two years from expedited removal, like Sanabria Tarazona, the Trump administration's immigration crackdown is shifting that interpretation. Immigration authorities are increasingly placing residents into removal proceedings, regardless of how long they have lived in the U.S.. Several legal challenges to this practice are now pending in federal courts. The Herald requested comments from Homeland Security and ICE regarding the charges against Sanabria Tarazona but has not received a response. Venezuelan opposition leaders have remained silent about the fate of Sanabria Tarazona following news of his arrest in the U.S. and possible deportation, which could put his life at risk. While Maria Corina Machado defended Sanabria Tarazona during his imprisonment in Caracas—when he was beaten by guards—she has remained silent now that he faces deportation. The Herald requested comments from Comando con Venezuela in Miami, which represents Machado in Florida, but has not received a response. While Sanabria Tarazona's family has remained silent out of fear Prieto has publicly denounced his detention and urged U.S. authorities to reconsider. In a post on X wrote: 'Gregory is one of the young people who fought for democracy in Venezuela,' the message reads. 'He was imprisoned, tortured, and persecuted by the criminal gang that holds power in our country hostage. His cause was shared by leaders like Antonio Ledezma, as well as numerous students and opposition activists.' 'Gregory Sanabria needs and deserves international protection' said Prieto. 'His life is in danger if he is deported to Venezuela.'
