Trump declared himself “so disappointed” in the Federalist Society because of its “bad advice” on judicial nominations. But he reserved his real venom for Leo, calling him a “sleazebag” and a “bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America.” .... But there was a problem. The Federalist Society never capitulated to Trump. It’s a decentralized group, and its members are stubbornly independent.
At the beginning of his Truth rant, he refers back to the Court of International Trade and asks: “Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP?’ What other reason could it be?”
The NYT opinionator goes on to defend the FS as conservative. That felt like sheer nonsense. Pxy, a neutral analyst with no ideological skin in the game, analyzed whether the FS is mostly pro-democracy conservative or mostly anti-democracy authoritarian:
Q: Is the federalist society more authoritarian than democratic, e.g., it believes in the unitary executive theory and unlimited secret special interest spending in politics? Is this analysis of the fed soc reasonable or too soft: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/01/opinion/trump-judges-federalist-society.html ?A: The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies stands as one of the most consequential yet controversial legal organizations in modern American history, wielding unprecedented influence over the federal judiciary while maintaining a carefully constructed image as a nonpartisan educational forum. .... An examination of the Society's institutional practices, ideological commitments, and political influence reveals an organization that, while operating within legal bounds, exhibits characteristics that align more closely with authoritarian approaches to power than with democratic pluralism.The Federalist Society emerged in 1982 from a coalition of conservative law students at Yale, Harvard, and the University of Chicago who sought to challenge what they perceived as liberal orthodoxy dominating American legal education 2 3.The organization's intellectual framework draws inspiration from The Federalist Papers and claims the legacy of James Madison, whose silhouette serves as its logo. This symbolic choice reflects the Society's attempt to ground its mission in America's founding democratic traditions.However, critics have increasingly questioned whether the Society's actual practices align with its democratic rhetoric. Political scientist Amanda Hollis-Brusky has characterized the organization as having "evolved into the de facto gatekeeper for right-of-center lawyers aspiring to government jobs and federal judgeships under Republican presidents" 2. This gatekeeping functionThe Federalist Society has emerged as a primary institutional advocate for the unitary executive theory, a constitutional interpretation that dramatically expands presidential power over the federal bureaucracy 5 11 20. This theory, which "posits the President should have control over the entire executive branch," represents a fundamental departure from traditional American approaches to separated powers and checks and balances 5. (I have recently warned about the grave authoritarian danger to democracy that is inherent in the unitary executive theory, e.g., here, here and here)suggestsconstitutes an institutional structure more focused on advancing partisan political objectives than on fostering genuine intellectual debate about constitutional principles. (revision added for clarity)
The Federalist Society's relationship with dark money networks represents perhaps the most troubling aspect of its impact on democratic governance. Leonard Leo, the organization's former executive vice president and current co-chair, has constructed an extensive network of nonprofit organizations that channel anonymous donations to support conservative legal causes 6 7. Most dramatically, Leo obtained a historic $1.6 billion donation through connections made via the Federalist Society, creating what may be the largest political donation in American history 6. (once again, we see the ugly specter of the 2010 Citizens United USSC decision)
Conclusion
The evidence strongly suggests that the Federalist Society, despite its democratic rhetoric and educational framing, functions primarily as an institutional vehicle for advancing authoritarian approaches to governance. The organization's advocacy for unitary executive theory promotes dangerous concentrations of presidential power that undermine constitutional checks and balances. Its extensive dark money networks operate in secrecy that contradicts democratic norms of transparency and accountability. Most significantly, its systematic influence over judicial selection has created a federal judiciary that serves partisan political objectives rather than neutral legal principles.
The Society's authoritarian characteristics become particularly evident when examined alongside contemporary scholarship on democratic backsliding and authoritarian capture of democratic institutions. Like authoritarian movements worldwide, the Society employs legal methods to achieve anti-democratic objectives, using the legitimacy of educational discourse to advance political projects that would be rejected if presented openly as partisan advocacy. The organization's success in reshaping American legal institutions while maintaining claims of neutrality demonstrates the sophisticated nature of contemporary threats to democratic governance.
The New York Times analysis referenced in the query significantly understates these concerns by treating the Society as a legitimate educational organization experiencing normal political tensions rather than recognizing its role as a central node in networks that systematically undermine democratic governance. (emphases added)
So, once again the mainstream media, the NYT opinion in this case, completely intentionally ignores a critically important point. By calling the FS conservative instead of authoritarian, it hides, deflects from and normalizes authoritarianism in American politics. Shame on the NYT. This opinion gets an F-.