Trump has said abortion is a state issue. His judicial picks could shape it nationally for decades
As President Donald Trump pushes the Senate to confirm his federal judicial nominees, a review by The Associated Press shows that roughly half of them have revealed anti-abortion views, been associated with anti-abortion groups or defended abortion restrictions.
Trump has offered shifting positions on the issue while indicating he wants to leave questions of abortion access to the states. But his court nominees will have lifetime appointments and be in position to roll back abortion access long after the Republican president leaves the White House.
Bernadette Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial nominations 'are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.'
'It's a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash,' she said.
Trump is having an enduring impact on the federal courts
Of the 17 judicial nominees so far in Trump's second term, at least eight have argued in favor of abortion restrictions or against expanded abortion access. No such records could be found for the other nine, nor did the AP review find evidence that any of Trump's judicial nominees support increased access to abortion.
'Every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling,' a White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, said in a statement that referenced the 2022 decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. 'The Democrats' extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favor of President Trump's commonsense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion.'
Trump's first term also had an enduring impact on the courts, appointing 234 judges. By the end of that term, more than one-quarter of active federal judges were nominated by Trump, including three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade.
Challenging abortion care, medication, Planned Parenthood
In his second term, all but five of his 17 nominees are from states that went for Trump in 2024 and where Republicans have pushed severe abortion restrictions. Among them, four nominees are from Missouri and five are from Florida.
Here is a look at the nominees who have tried to reduce abortion access or have advocated for restrictions. They did not respond to requests for comment:
— Whitney Hermandorfer, who has been confirmed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has built much of her relatively short career as a lawyer around challenging former President Joe Biden's policies related to abortion and transgender rights. She challenged a federal law requiring employers to provide workers with reasonable accommodations to get abortion care, as well as Title X regulations that required providers who receive funding through the program to give information about abortions to patients if asked.
Hermandorfer defended Tennessee's abortion ban, one of the strictest in the country, in court and tried to dismiss a lawsuit from doctors seeking clarification on exemptions to the ban. She said abortion deserves special scrutiny because 'this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.'
— Maria Lanahan, a district court nominee in Missouri, helped write the state's complaint in a lawsuit that had sweeping national implications for access to medication abortion. The case challenged the FDA approval of the abortion pill mifepristone despite decades of evidence showing the drug is safe and effective.
The lawyer supported Missouri's effort to strip Planned Parenthood of state Medicaid funding and defended the state's abortion ban after a group of clergy sued, arguing it violated the state constitution's protections for religious freedom.
— Jordan Pratt, a nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, called abortion a 'barbaric practice' and 'one of the most severe invasions of personal rights imaginable' in an amicus brief supporting Florida's 15-week abortion ban. The state now bans the procedure at six weeks.
In 2025, Pratt struck down a Florida law that created a judicial waiver program for minors seeking to have abortions without parental consent. The lawyer also worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that opposes abortion and has sued to reverse the FDA approval of mifepristone.
— John Guard, also nominated to fill for the same district, defended Florida's then-15-week abortion ban in court as the state's chief deputy attorney general.
— Joshua Divine, a deputy solicitor general of Missouri who is nominated to be a district judge in the state, is currently representing Missouri in a case challenging the FDA approval of mifepristone. Divine co-authored the lawsuit, which includes misinformation about medication abortion, including that it 'starves the baby to death in the womb.'
In his college newspaper, Divine described himself as a 'zealot' for the anti-abortion movement, referred to abortion as 'the killing of an innocent, genetically unique human being' and argued that life begins at fertilization.
He also stepped into a prominent role in the fight over abortion rights in the state after Missouri voters approved an abortion rights amendment in 2024. That amendment did not immediately override state laws. It left it up to abortion rights groups to ask courts to knock down abortion restrictions they believed were now unconstitutional. During the ensuing legal battles, Divine represented the state in defending a host of abortion restrictions.
— Chad Meredith, Trump's nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, defended the state's abortion ban and other restrictions while he was the state's chief deputy general counsel. That included a law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and describe images to abortion patients.
— Bill Mercer, a Republican state lawmaker in Montana who is nominated for a U.S. District Court judgeship in the state, has repeatedly supported anti-abortion bills. Those include ones that sought to ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy; require a 24-hour waiting period and mandatory ultrasounds for abortion patients; require parental notification for minors to get an abortion; prohibit the use of state funding for abortions; prohibit certain insurance policies from covering abortions; and restrict what types of medical professionals can dispense medication abortion.
— Jennifer Mascott, a lawyer in the White House Counsel's Office and a Trump nominee to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has spoken repeatedly about abortion law in panels and interviews.
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Mascott in an interview on 'Fox News Live' disagreed with the argument that the decision undermined the court's legitimacy. She said abortion issues are 'more appropriately decided' by the states, elected officials in Congress and people in their local communities.
Anti-abortion groups are optimistic based on Trump's early nominees
Anti-abortion groups said it is premature to make broad conclusions about whether the nominees would help carry out their policy goals but that they were optimistic based on the names they have seen so far.
'We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,' said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national anti-abortion organization SBA Pro-Life America.
Kristi Hamrick, spokesperson for Students for Life, said she was hopeful the administration will continue nominating those 'who will respect the rule of law.'
Abortion rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time.
Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organization Reproductive Freedom for All, said the courts, until now, have largely been an effective option for advocates to challenge state abortion bans and restrictions.
'This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion — saying he's going to leave it to the states while simultaneously appointing anti-abortion extremists at all levels of government,' she said.
___
Associated Press writer Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After D.C., Trump says he might use the National Guard to ‘take back' other cities. Can he actually do that?
When President Trump announced his plan Monday to send 800 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., to crack down on what he described as 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor' in the nation's capital, he also issued a warning to other cities around the country. "We're going to take back our capital," Trump said. "And then we'll look at other cities also.' But can Trump actually send federal forces elsewhere? And what cities might he target? Here's everything you need to know about the president's warning. What did Trump say about sending the National Guard into other cities? During his news conference on Monday, Trump singled out Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore and Oakland, Calif. as 'other cities also that are bad, very bad.' 'They're so far gone,' he continued. 'We're not going to let it happen. We're not going to lose our cities over this. And this will go further. We're starting very strongly with D.C. and we're going to clean it up real quick, very quickly, as they say.' Beyond that, the president didn't elaborate on his plans. But he did issue what amounted to an ultimatum: 'self-clean up' or else. 'Other cities are hopefully watching this,' Trump said. 'Maybe they'll self-clean up, and maybe they'll self-do this.' But 'if they don't learn their lesson, if they haven't studied us properly,' he continued, 'then I'm going to look at New York in a little while. … And if we need to, we're going to do the same thing in Chicago, which is a disaster.' Later Monday, Trump issued an executive order directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to coordinate with state governors and "authorize the orders of any additional members of the National Guard to active service, as he deems necessary and appropriate, to augment this mission." What does the law say about Trump's plans? Trump's actions in Washington, D.C., are legal. As you may remember from elementary school, D.C. isn't a state. It isn't part of any other state either. It doesn't have a constitution of its own. Instead, D.C. is what's known as a 'federal district,' and it's been mostly under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress since its founding in 1791. In 1973, Congress passed the Home Rule Act, which allowed D.C. residents to elect their own mayor and council members. But the law doesn't give D.C. complete autonomy. Even now Congress controls its budget. Congress also has the power to review and block local legislation. The president, meanwhile, still appoints D.C.'s judges — and he still leads its National Guard. He can also take control of the District's police force by invoking Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, which is precisely what he did Monday. But Trump doesn't have the same powers across the rest of the country. Under current law, governors are in charge of each state's National Guard and the police are largely controlled locally. Trump has already challenged some of these rules. Over the objections of state and local officials, he deployed nearly 5,000 National Guard members and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in June after a new round of ICE workplace raids sparked protests marred by sporadic violence. California Gov. Gavin Newsom swiftly sued the administration to end the mobilization, claiming that Trump was violating the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the president from deploying the armed forces to participate in domestic law enforcement operations unless he declares that an insurrection is underway. A federal judge agreed with Newsom, but an appeals court blocked that ruling. Now Trump and Newsom are facing off in a three-day trial that began on Monday in San Francisco to determine whether Trump has the authority to do what he did in L.A. in other cities such as Chicago and New York. A verdict is expected Wednesday. What does Trump hope to accomplish by mentioning other cities? Whether the president sends federal forces into other cities remains to be seen; much depends on the outcome of the current trial in California (and any subsequent appeals). In the meantime, Trump was clear on Monday: He wants to pressure Democratic-run cities to change certain policies he disagrees with. One policy he mentioned was cashless bail, which eliminates the requirement for defendants to pay money to be released from jail before their trial. Supporters say the policy addresses disparities in the justice system, where those who can afford bail are released while those who cannot remain incarcerated; critics (like Trump) say that it puts the public at risk by releasing potentially dangerous individuals back into the community. Maybe other cities will 'get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem,' Trump said Monday. 'I mean, if you go back, this whole thing with cashless bail is a disaster. So many problems came that we never had before.' Have local officials pushed back? Yes. As Yahoo News reported Monday, 'the president's description of crime in Washington, D.C., is not reflected in official statistics, which show that the city had its lowest violent crime rate in over 30 years in 2024. The rates of homicide, sexual abuse, assault with a dangerous weapon and robbery all fell by at least 25% compared to 2023, according to statistics from the U.S. attorney's office for the district.' On Sunday, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, cited similar statistics to claim that Trump is prioritizing politics over policy. 'If the priority is to show force in an American city, we know he can do that here,' Bowser told MSNBC. 'But it won't be because there's a spike in crime.' Officials elsewhere have repeated that message. On Monday, the U.S. Conference of Mayors responded to Trump's actions and statements by touting a "nationwide success story" of plummeting crime rates. An FBI report released Aug. 5 found that between 2023 and 2024, violent crime nationwide dropped by 4.5%, with murder and non-negligent manslaughter falling by nearly 15%. "Ultimately, the best public safety outcomes are delivered by local police departments and local officials, who know the communities," Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt, president of the mayors' conference, said in a statement. "America's mayors never see takeovers by other levels of government as a tactic that has any track record of producing results."
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DC Residents Are Saying The Same Thing About This Clip Of DEA Officers Patrolling The National Mall
On Monday, Donald Trump announced he would be taking over the Washington DC police department and deploying National Guard troops there. One day before that, on Sunday, DC news anchor Lorenzo Hall took this video of DEA police officers patrolling the National Mall: LorenzoHall/Twitter: @LorenzoHall Related: There were a bunch of *viral* responses to the clip. DC political analyst and journalist Tom Sherwood called it "Basically [a] meaningless stroll." Related: @johnmconnollyjr said, "I've lived in DC for 10 years. The only crime I've ever seen on the National Mall was when a mob ransacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021 at the direction of the man who lost the 2020 presidential election." And Aaron Fritschner the Deputy Chief of Staff for Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, pointed out, "The Metropolitan Police Department tracks and publishes the location of all crimes committed in the DC; the map grid section where this video was shot on the National Mall near the Lincoln Memorial has recorded zero (0) crimes so far in 2025: Related: The responses get pretty funny from there: One person said, "6 guys in full uniform on a stretch of the mall where the biggest threat is the mama ducks defending their ducklings from my dog." Another person joked, "You know what screams 'high crime area'? White women jogging." Related: And this person said, "This is cosplay. this is drag. this is banned from entering Florida public schools." Basically, everyone is like: "If you know DC you understand how tremendously goofy this is." Also in BuzzFeed: Also in BuzzFeed: Also in BuzzFeed:
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Price Trumps 'Made In USA' Labels As Tariffs Affect Consumer Choice
Key Takeaways A new survey showed that consumers are less likely to emphasize where a product is made. U.S. consumers are 18% less likely to prioritize buying American-made products than they were three years ago. Consumer loyalty to products made in other countries also declined. The survey showed that price-conscious consumers are more likely to look for value than focus on where the product is made.'Made in the U.S.A.' labels may appeal less to consumers as rising tariff costs are changing people's attitudes about where products are made. A new study by The Conference Board found consumers are now less likely to purchase a product based on where it's made, even if it's in the U.S. The June survey of 3,000 U.S. adults found that 50% said they were more likely to buy American-made products, down from 60% in a similar survey from 2022. It's not just American-made products, either. Consumer loyalty was lower for products made in every country included in the survey. The sentiment shift comes as President Donald Trump instituted a series of tariffs that he said would help boost American manufacturing, potentially enabling businesses to offer more products made domestically. However, price-conscious buyers are more focused on a product's price than where it's made, the report found. 'As price concerns intensify, many U.S. consumers appear to associate 'made in' labels with elevated prices due to generally higher domestic production costs as well as tariffs on foreign-made goods,' said Denise Dahlhoff, director of marketing and communications research at The Conference Board. 'Increasingly, consumers prioritize value and affordability over emotional affinity for certain countries, including their own.' Support for American-Made Products Drops for Older Buyers Support for American-made products dropped across almost every age group and demographic category, with those younger than 35 being the only group more likely to buy American-made products than they were three years ago. Notably, customers older than 55 were among the most likely to lose support for buying products with the 'Made in the U.S.A.' label, dropping 22 percentage points from three years ago. American-made products were most popular with middle-income consumers; those making between $50,000 and $125,000 a year were most likely to purchase domestically produced goods. Read the original article on Investopedia Sign in to access your portfolio
