Trump now clashing with a Supreme Court that usually gives him what he wants

President Donald Trump keeps clashing with the Supreme Court, even though he repeatedly gives them exactly what they want.

“With the court preparing to issue major rulings in the coming weeks that will determine the fate of key aspects of the president’s agenda, Mr. Trump has vacillated between combative and conciliatory in his treatment of the justices,” The New York Times reported on Sunday. “He has seemed ever aware and at times resentful of the critical role the justices play in determining the lawfulness of his policies, with the court representing perhaps the one force in American government truly able to thwart his agenda. At the heart of the tension: a president who appears to believe that justices, especially those he appointed, should be loyalists rather than independent actors in a separate, equal branch of government.”

The Times added that Trump is “furious” with America’s most powerful bench because it invalidated the sweeping tariffs he passed without congressional approval earlier in his term. He has also attacked the court preemptively in recent weeks as he prepares for possible losses on issues like his crusade to get rid of birthright citizenship.

“It would be a disgrace if the Supreme Court of the United States allows that to happen,” Trump said last week. “It’s all up to a couple of people, and I hope they do what’s right.” He reinforced this desire to seemingly intimidate the justices by becoming the first sitting president to attend a Supreme Court oral argument in person, which he did in April for roughly an hour before abruptly leaving. He subsequently took to social media and complained that the Supreme Court had “not even recognized or acknowledged” that he was in the courtroom.

Despite Trump’s complaints, the Supreme Court has ruled in his favor far more often than not, from giving him unprecedented presidential powers in Trump v. United States (2024) to a ruling to make it easier for Republicans to gerrymander in Louisiana v. Callais (2026) while not hearing a case involving the Virginia Supreme Court striking down voter-approved new congressional maps when it would make it easier for Democrats to gerrymander.

“The president gave a surprisingly frank assessment of his view of the Supreme Court — and how he expects personal loyalty from the justices that he appoints to it,” The New Republic's Matt Ford wrote earlier this month. “In the lengthy post, Trump criticized two members of the High Court for voting in Trump v. Learning Resources, the case that nixed his purported ability to impose hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs under a Cold War-era emergency-powers law. The Supreme Court held 6-3 that Trump had exceeded the powers laid out in the statute…. It would be hard to find a better example than this of Trump's thinking that the justices that he nominated to the High Court should be personally loyal to him."

Ford added Trump believes he is entitled to total obedience from Supreme Court justices "simply because he appointed them,” which raises troubling questions about what he has demanded from appointees for lower court positions.

"If this is his public thinking about the justices," Ford argued, "it casts doubt on whether any second-term Trump appointee can be trusted to place the national interest or the law ahead of Trump's personal and political goals…. If Trump is willing to demand personal loyalty from Supreme Court justices, what about his lower-court nominees?"

He added, "The Supreme Court has given him nearly everything that he has wanted over the last two years — and he still isn't satisfied. This is the same Supreme Court that just boosted his party's midterm chances earlier this month by demolishing what's left of the Voting Rights Act."

• george conway
• noam chomsky
• civil war
• Kayleigh mcenany
• Melania trump
• drudge report
• paul krugman
• Lindsey graham
• Lincoln project
• al franken bill maher
• People of praise
• Ivanka trump
• eric trump