White House Blames Judges, Not Trump, for Constitutional Crisis
WASHINGTON — In response to growing concerns that President Donald Trump is creating a constitutional crisis, the White House has shifted the blame to the judiciary. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt argued that it’s not Trump’s actions but the judges who are blocking parts of his agenda, calling them "judicial activists" rather than fair arbiters of the law.
Leavitt’s comments reflect an ongoing critique from Trump and his supporters, who have increasingly targeted the courts for halting presidential actions. This rhetoric has sparked alarms among legal experts, who warn that undermining judicial review — the system in which courts check the power of the executive — threatens the rule of law.
Senator Mike Lee of Utah has even proposed legislation aimed at limiting the power of lower-ranking judges to issue nationwide blocks on presidential actions. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, a prominent ally of Trump, has used social media to call for the removal of judges who oppose the administration's policies.
While Trump has acknowledged the judicial process, saying his administration follows court orders and appeals when necessary, he has also expressed frustration over rulings that block his initiatives. In some cases, judges have temporarily stopped Trump’s efforts, such as attempts to end birthright citizenship and remove certain government workers. Notably, some of these judges were appointed by Republican presidents, including Trump himself during his first term.
Legal experts like Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, have voiced concern over the broader political narrative being shaped against the judiciary. "The idea that he can start removing judges is fanciful, but he can make their lives so difficult they maybe start resigning. I think that’s part of the attempt here," Finkelstein said.
Meanwhile, Trump’s allies in Congress, such as Vice President JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson, have echoed calls for the judiciary to allow the executive branch to function without interference. Vance stated that judges should not control the legitimate power of the executive, while Johnson supported the idea of the courts stepping back to let presidential processes unfold.
Despite the rhetoric, Leavitt assured that the administration would comply with court rulings, but she insisted that the White House would ultimately prevail. As of now, over 60 lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s actions since he returned to office, reflecting the intense legal challenges that often accompany presidential agendas.
The ongoing debate over judicial authority highlights the larger struggle between the executive branch and the courts, with the outcome shaping the future of U.S. governance.
