Jordan Plans Action Against Judges Blocking Trump’s Policies
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan is formulating a strategy to strip funding from what he calls “anti-MAGA” judges who are standing in the way of Donald Trump’s agenda.
The Ohio Republican, known for his strong support of Trump, has expressed growing frustration over “political” district judges halting executive orders focused on reducing government spending, deporting illegal immigrants, and restricting foreign aid.
Since the beginning of his term, 15 injunctions from lower courts have delayed White House policies—exceeding the total issued throughout Joe Biden’s presidency (14) and both of Barack Obama’s terms combined (12).
Nationwide, more than 50 judicial rulings have hindered key executive initiatives. Trump has condemned these judges as “radical” and labeled their decisions as “unlawful.” Meanwhile, an increasing number of legal experts from both ends of the political spectrum are criticizing what they see as judicial overreach into the Executive Branch’s authority.
“Everything’s on the table,” Jordan stated when asked about potential congressional action to push back against what he considers “ridiculous orders” from federal judges, most of whom were appointed by Democrats.
He revealed that lawmakers are already weighing legislation that would limit district court judges’ ability to use injunctions to block policy shifts. Jordan, 61, also emphasized that congressional hearings provide an avenue for questioning judges directly.
Since Congress has constitutional power over the structure and budget of lower federal courts, Jordan could propose measures to reduce funding or even eliminate certain courts. He noted that he has already spoken with Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., and other lawmakers about how Congress could reshape judicial funding.
“I briefly talked to them and said we want to look at this. So trying to give them a heads up, so we’ll look at, you know, any and all things. And, like I said, everything’s on the table,” Jordan told the outlet. “There may be some other areas where we can look at where the appropriations and the power of the purse and funding makes sense.”
However, he clarified that he does not intend to cut funding for court security, citing the harassment of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh following the Dobbs decision on abortion as a reason for maintaining those protections.
Jordan’s initiative aligns with Speaker Mike Johnson’s recent comments, in which he asserted that Congress holds the authority to “eliminate” entire district courts if necessary.
Beyond funding cuts, Jordan is also set to hold a hearing next week with U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has come under Republican scrutiny for issuing an injunction that blocked the administration from deporting Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act.
Boasberg’s ruling has sparked significant backlash, with some calling for his impeachment. Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett has criticized the decision, arguing that it directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent.
“What’s so troubling about Boasberg’s restraining order is that he is defying the Supreme Court, which reviewed Harry Truman’s use of the Alien Enemies Act after World War II ended,” Jarrett explained in a recent network segment. “The high court said that not only is the act constitutional under the law of the land, it is not subject to judicial review by any judge.”
He elaborated, stating, “So when a president invokes it, no judge, no court can ever intervene—not even the Supreme Court—because Congress gave the president the exclusive power that is purely political to make decisions on national security and foreign policy.”
Jarrett also pointed out in an online column last week that a prior Supreme Court ruling affirmed that the Act is constitutional and that federal courts lack the authority to interfere when a president enforces it.