A scathing opinion piece highlighted the unraveling of President Donald Trump's judicial strategy — and how he fundamentally misunderstands how America's legal system works.
Writing for the Daily Beast, Paul Waldman claimed Trump's recent fury towards the Federalist Society, once Trump's ally in reshaping the courts, has shown that Trump, facing mounting legal challenges, is discovering the hard way that lifetime appointments don't guarantee unwavering loyalty.
The piece cites recent rulings, including a unanimous decision against Trump in a tariff case by judges he appointed, as evidence of this reality check. Trump's fury, expressed in a social media tirade late last month, is portrayed as a tantrum from a man accustomed to blind allegiance.
The opinion piece goes on to suggest that Trump's disappointment with the Federalist Society and specific Supreme Court judges like Amy Coney Barrett reveals his transactional view of the judiciary. The author argues that while Trump saw judicial appointments as a means to secure favorable rulings, the Federalist Society saw Trump as a vehicle for their long-term vision of a conservative judiciary.
In a particularly biting observation, the piece characterizes Trump as a "tool" of the Federalist Society, rather than the master strategist he imagined himself to be. The author credits the society's patience and long-term planning for its success in reshaping the American legal landscape, contrasting it with Trump's short-term, self-serving approach.
The piece concludes with a warning: while Trump may rage against decisions that don't go his way, the conservative legal movement he inadvertently strengthened will outlast his tantrums. In the author's view, Trump's legal legacy may not be the unwavering support he expected, but rather a judiciary that, while conservative, isn't beholden to any one individual — not even the man who appointed them.
Waldman concluded that the Federalist Society, and its conservative judges including Barrett, had played Trump "like a chump."
