Despite significant gains under Trump's presidency, including numerous conservative judicial appointments, the Federalist Society expressed considerable ambivalence at a recent conference. While few directly criticized Trump's policies, concerns were raised about his chaotic approach, potentially squandering opportunities for deregulation. Speakers warned that bureaucratic hurdles and legal challenges could severely limit the impact of Trump's second term, even predicting minimal success in deregulatory efforts.
The article highlights the Society's implicit belief in maintaining procedural barriers to rapid policy changes. This critique suggests a desire to limit executive power, even by a president who appointed many of their members to high positions. This desire is further underscored by criticisms of Trump's tariffs and the emphasis on the 'nondelegation doctrine' in court challenges. The Society's pursuit of judicial supremacy is highlighted here.
The Society also criticized the 'DOGE' initiative (Musk's efforts to improve government efficiency), viewing it as worsening the federal workforce. This aspect underscores the Society's concern that Trump's actions are hindering their broader conservative goals. They were critical of DOGE's impact on experienced workers, and the administration's apparent goal of moving workers into the private sector.
Specific points of critique included:
These actions, the Society argues, undermine Trump's ability to implement conservative policy changes. They highlighted that even civil servants with left-leaning views can be more productive than no workers at all.
Despite these criticisms, the article acknowledges the continued partnership between the Federalist Society and Trump. This is evidenced by Trump's appointment of Harmeet Dhillon to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, reflecting the Society's ongoing influence on the administration. However, the article notes the Society's apparent preference for a more methodical Republican president, and their desire for greater judicial power even if it means weakening the Trump presidency. The emphasis on the non-delegation doctrine shows a clear power play by the Society to consolidate judicial authority.