Trump: The Art of the Deal (Defamation) Of America’s Judiciary
By Joe Mahoney
While Trump has become infamous for his proclivity to sue, his impact on the independence of the American Judicial branch is yet to be fully realised.
After six years of the Trump administration in the past decade, it is clear that Trump has left his mark on American and wider international society; he has brandished a rather aggressive form of foreign policy and arguably caused a shift in what is acceptable conduct for public officials, which can be seen in other prominent Right-Wing figures such as Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson.
However, perhaps more quietly, his terms as President have left a gaping, more sinister wound in the judicial branch of the American government, one which will continue to fester long after his time in the White House has ended.
Benefiting from the timing of his first term, Trump appointed 3 justices, establishing his influence on the US judicial branch early, deliberately aiding the controversial overturning of Roe v. Wade, in which all 3 appointed justices voted with the 5-4 majority in favour of overturning the ruling.
Trump’s appointments have seen a more conservative Supreme Court that is unaccountable to the American population and aligns itself more closely with the increasingly maddening Republican Party. Their impact on Trump’s second-term policy is yet to be clear; however, over the coming months, the damage done will become more evident. [1]
More recently, Article III judge nominees have made headlines due to their inability to truthfully and clearly answer questioning by the Senate regarding the 2020 presidential election. Demand Justice found that all 65 of the nominees were able to provide clear answers about the legality of the January 6th storming of the Capitol or Biden’s election to the presidency.
Demand Justice also found that their responses “appear nearly identical…using verbatim phrasing, repeating key words… using unusual and evasive language that’s… outside the… common lexicon used to describe such events” [2]. This revelation begs questions as to how independent and impartial these judges are, and what this means for the future of the US legal system considering these judges serve for life.
Trump’s crusade against the law doesn’t end in the US. Following the ICC’s arrest warrant for Netanyahu, the US announced sanctions against the ICC targeting individual prosecutors and the court itself. These sanctions would prevent any financial transaction or interaction between US citizens and the court, effectively halting its day-to-day viability [3]. Are these actions indicative of the actions of someone who respects the rule of law?
Whether intended or not, the recent controversy over broadcasting the live execution of Nidal Hasan put the US into the same conversations as Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea. While Trump eventually decided against livestreaming this event [4], the fact that this was even an option in the first place, and the continual erosion between Law and governance, to my mind, merits the comparison.
References:
[1] Baio, Ariana. 2026. “Immigration, Climate, Guns: Key Trump Policies to Be Tested at Supreme Court.” The Guardian. The Guardian. October 14, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/14/trump-supreme-court-explainer.
[2] (“A Pattern of Evasion: How President Trump’s Judicial Nominees Avoid the Truth to Secure Lifetime Appointments – Demand Justice” 2026)
[3] Evenson, Liz. 2026. “Trump’s New Sanctions Could Dismantle the International Criminal Court.” The Hill. October 15, 2026. https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/6148562-trump-administration-icc-sanctions-lawsuit/.
[4] Saad, Nardine, Madeline Halpert, and Ione Wells. 2026. “Trump Calls off Livestream of Fort Hood Attacker’s Execution by Firing Squad.” BBC News, October 15, 2026. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crx23qlnj27qo.
