President Donald Trump, a man who’s never shy about speaking his mind, is reportedly fuming behind closed doors over the Supreme Court justices he handpicked, especially Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
According to sources speaking to ABC News, the frustration isn’t just a passing grumble—it’s a deep-seated disappointment over a perceived lack of loyalty to his agenda. And frankly, when you’ve staked so much on reshaping the judiciary, that’s a bitter pill to swallow.
Reports indicate Trump has privately voiced concerns that his appointed justices, with Barrett in the spotlight, aren’t doing enough to advance his policy goals.
Let’s rewind to September 26, 2020, when Trump proudly introduced Barrett as his Supreme Court nominee in the White House Rose Garden, with Maureen Scalia in the audience as a nod to Barrett’s ties to the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Barrett herself highlighted this connection, saying, “Particularly poignant to me was her long and deep friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia, my own mentor.” Warm words, but apparently, they haven’t translated into the unwavering support Trump expected.
Fast forward to today, and sources—three of them, to be precise—confirm to ABC News that Trump’s frustration is real and focused squarely on Barrett.
He’s reportedly grumbled that his justices could be more aggressive in backing his vision for America. It’s not hard to see why he’d feel let down when you’ve pinned your legacy on a conservative court.
Several of Trump’s allies aren’t holding back either, directly complaining to the president about Barrett, with some even calling her “weak.” Others have taken their critiques public, though specifics on who and where remain murky. If you’re in Trump’s circle, it seems Barrett’s become the lightning rod for discontent.
Then there’s the conservative lawyer Mike Davis, who didn’t mince words on Steve Bannon’s podcast, saying, “She's a rattled law professor.” Ouch—that’s the kind of jab that cuts deep, especially for a justice who’s supposed to be a rock-solid conservative. But let’s be fair: personal barbs don’t substitute for substantive critique, and Barrett’s record deserves a closer look over cheap shots.
One sticking point appears to be Barrett’s judicial decisions, like when she sided with the court’s liberal justices to rule that the Trump administration had to unfreeze foreign aid payments.
For a president who thrives on loyalty, that vote likely felt like a betrayal. Turns out, even handpicked justices have minds of their own.
Yet, Trump has kept his public comments measured, telling reporters, “She's a very good woman.” That restraint is notable for a man known for his unfiltered style—perhaps a sign he still values the court’s role, even if he’s privately steamed. It’s a rare moment of diplomacy in a political arena often devoid of it.
Barrett, for her part, has stayed silent on the right-wing criticism of her votes, and sources suggest she’s unlikely to engage with political attacks.
That’s probably wise—Supreme Court justices aren’t elected officials, and wading into partisan mudslinging isn’t their job. Still, the silence leaves room for speculation about where she truly stands.
Amid this tension, Trump’s also made it clear he’s looking for judges cut from a different cloth—think Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the late Antonin Scalia.
A senior administration official and other sources note this is the mold he wants for future picks. Given Barrett’s past as Scalia’s law clerk, you’d think she’d fit the bill, but apparently not in Trump’s eyes.
Adding fuel to the fire, Trump recently took aim at Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society leader who advised him on judicial nominations during his first term, calling him a “sleazebag.”
He even doubled down in a written statement, saying, “I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous judicial nominations.” That’s a sharp turn from the camaraderie of 2020—turns out, even trusted allies aren’t safe from Trump’s ire.
Meanwhile, Principal Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields offered a more diplomatic take to ABC News, stating, “President Trump will always stand with the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the Democrat Party, which, if given the opportunity, would pack the court, ultimately undermining its integrity.”
He added that while Trump may disagree with some rulings, he respects the court’s foundational role. It’s a nice sentiment, but the private grumbling tells a different story. Publicly, Trump’s frustration with Barrett hasn’t surfaced in direct attacks, which might be a calculated move to avoid alienating his base or the court itself.
But with allies echoing his discontent, the pressure on Barrett isn’t likely to fade anytime soon. It’s a classic case of expecting absolute allegiance in a system built on independent thought.