One group of people is hearing a different message from the Trump administration than most Americans: the nation’s judges. The disparities have emerged across a range of lawsuits and issues amid President Donald Trump’s aggressive political agenda.
“You’re saying one thing in public. You’re saying a different thing in court,” Judge Ana Reyes, a Joe Biden appointee, told Justice Department lawyers last month in a case over the administration’s policy aiming to bar transgender members from the military. She added: “The court is not going to be gaslit.”
In court, lawyers and administration officials often try to minimize the impact of the administration’s most controversial actions and paint them as firmly within legal bounds. Their careful, sworn statements are a sharp contrast with Trump’s unfettered public messaging as he pushes the limits of executive power.
But those measured court statements aren’t what most people see. Trump has the mouthpiece of the presidency and millions of followers online, and his top aides routinely tout his policies on television. And Trump has publicly bashed judges who have ruled against him and suggested the judiciary should not have authority over a range of policy issues.
The White House defended its approach.
“The president and his administration are united in delivering on the promises he made on the campaign trail,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. “From deporting illegal criminal migrants at record speed to working toward world peace, protecting American sovereignty through bold tariff moves, and more, every member of the administration is committed to achieving these historic accomplishments despite lawsuits and rulings from activist judges.”
Here’s a look at how the Trump administration’s rhetoric has contrasted with its court arguments.
Does Elon Musk run DOGE?
Director of the White House Office of Administration
“Mr. Musk is an employee in the White House Office. He is not an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service or U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. Mr. Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service administrator.”
Feb. 17
President Donald Trump
“I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Perhaps. Which is headed by Elon Musk.”
March 4
Musk’s role in the DOGE has been central to dozens of lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s abrupt cuts to personnel and government contracts. Several have argued that Musk does not have legal authority to make agency budget decisions, a task typically reserved for Senate-confirmed appointees, such as Cabinet secretaries. If judges determine that Musk was unlawfully in charge of DOGE, that could undermine its aggressive attempts at cost-cutting.
Has the Pentagon banned transgender service members?
Justice Department lawyers
“[T]he DoD Policy presumptively barring individuals from serving in the military turns on gender dysphoria — a medical condition — and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class.”
March 21
@PeteHegseth
“Pentagon says transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption”
Feb. 27
Trump signed an executive order in January aiming to bar transgender troops from serving in the military. While administration officials touted the ban, lawyers argued in court that transgender service members were not technically being banned — the policy was addressing gender dysphoria, a medical condition. That prompted a rebuke from Judge Ana Reyes: “The idea that you all can just come in here and pretend that what’s happening isn’t actually happening is totally unacceptable.”
Are DEI programs outlawed?
Justice Department lawyers
“There is nothing unlawful about requiring recipients of federal contracts or grants to affirm that any DEI programs they operate comply with antidiscrimination laws.”
March 4
Several Trump administration Cabinet secretaries
“DEI is dead.”
Feb. 20
Trump has broadly sought to crack down on DEI — an acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion that has become a frequent target for conservatives. Publicly, the Trump administration has claimed victory against DEI policies, celebrating their end as a win in the culture wars that animate his MAGA base. But in court they have walked a finer line, suggesting Trump’s executive orders only require agencies to enforce existing laws, rather than amounting to a bigger crackdown that would be more likely to face First Amendment challenges. DEI programs can continue, they say, they just have to follow the law.
Are the people being deported dangerous criminals?
Acting ICE Field Director
“While it is true that many of the [Tren de Aragua] members removed under the [Alien Enemies Act] do not have criminal records in the United States, that is because they have only been in the United States for a short period of time.”
March 17
@JDVance
“There were violent criminals and rapists in our country. Democrats fought to keep them here. President Trump deported them.”
March 16
The Trump administration has sought to aggressively ramp up deportations while leaning into anti-immigrant rhetoric that has long fueled his political rise. As part of that, Trump and his allies often describe immigrants as dangerous criminals. The rhetoric appeals to his political base that wants to see deportations, and is also a way of selling the policy to more moderate voters. Polling has found broad support for deporting immigrants convicted of crimes, but far less support for deporting those with no criminal records or who have family members in the U.S.
Do President Trump’s “alien enemies” get due process?
Acting Solicitor General
“The [Alien Enemies Act] does not foreclose all opportunity to test the legality of alien-enemy detention. Individuals may bring habeas claims.”
March 28
Deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller
“If you illegally invaded our country the only ‘process’ you are entitled to is deportation.”
April 1
Trump White House officials have been clear: If the president calls you a terrorist, you don’t get due process in court to challenge that designation. That appeared to be the position when the administration shipped hundreds of Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador, despite protests that some of them were misidentified as members of a terrorist gang. In court, however, the Justice Department agreed that the courts do have a role in deciding whether Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was appropriate.
Why was a Columbia graduate student detained?
Notice to Appear for Mahmoud Khalil
“The Secretary of State has determined that your presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences … You failed to disclose that you were a member of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees … you failed to disclose your continuing employment as a Program Manager by the Syria Office in the British Embassy in Beirut … you failed to disclose that you were a member of the Columbia University Apartheid Divest.”
March 9
@DHSgov
“Khalil led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”
March 9
Mahmoud Khalil was among the first people detained under a Trump administration effort to revoke visas from immigrant students who participated in protests against Israel’s war in Gaza. Publicly, the administration has highlighted Khalil’s role in the campus protests that were politically unpopular, and sought to tie him to Hamas. But in court, they have not cited his speech or presented any argument of criminal or terrorist activity, instead saying it was a determination by the Secretary of State and accusing Khalil of withholding information on a prior immigration application.
Why end TPS for Venezuelans?
Justice Department lawyers
“Secretary Noem, after consulting with other government agencies, determined that the conditions for the 2023 Designation of Venezuela for TPS no longer continue to be met.”
March 3
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem
“They were going to be able to stay here and violate our laws for another 18 months. And we stopped that. … Listen, I was in New York City yesterday, and the people of this country want these dirtbags out.”
April 8
Temporary Protected Status allowed Venezuelans to live and work legally in the U.S. on the basis that it was unsafe for them to return to their home country. The Trump administration has sought to halt the program, which would cause hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans to lose their legal status. The administration has publicly framed it as part of its anti-immigrant messaging, vilifying Venezuelan immigrants as criminals. But that argument would not be effective in court — instead, the government says it is simply responding to a change in the conditions that made Venezuelans eligible for TPS.
Would officials defy the courts?
Justice Department lawyers
“[T]here is no basis for the suggestion of noncompliance with any binding order.”
March 24
Border czar Tom Homan
“We’re not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think. I don’t care what the Left thinks. We’re coming.”
March 17
In court, Trump administration lawyers have repeatedly assured judges that they are not defying court orders — doing so would risk punitive action from the court and prompt a constitutional stand-off between branches of government. But Trump and his allies have publicly ramped up their criticisms of judges who block administration policies and suggested they would not always feel bound to follow their orders. Trump himself has called for impeaching judges who ruled against him, prompting a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.
The post The Trump administration’s conflicting messages to the public and the courts appeared first on Politico.
