Rep. Jim Jordan Developing Strategy to Defund “Anti-MAGA” Judges Blocking Trump’s Agenda

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan is spearheading an initiative to challenge what he describes as “anti-MAGA” federal judges who have issued rulings that hinder key elements of former President Donald Trump’s policy agenda.

The Ohio Republican and close Trump ally has expressed growing frustration with district court judges—many appointed by Democrats—who have blocked executive actions aimed at reducing government spending, increasing deportations, and limiting foreign aid.

Since Trump began his current term, 15 lower court injunctions have been issued against his administration’s policies—surpassing the combined total during both terms of President Barack Obama (12) and the entire tenure of President Joe Biden (14).

“Everything’s on the Table,” Jordan Says

“We’re looking at everything,” Jordan said when asked how Congress could respond to what he views as judicial overreach. “There may be some other areas where we can look at where the appropriations and the power of the purse and funding make sense.”

According to Jordan, lawmakers are considering legislative measures that would limit the power of district judges to issue sweeping injunctions against executive policies. He also indicated that Congress could use its constitutional authority to restructure or defund certain lower courts.

“I’ve had early conversations with [House Appropriations Committee Chair] Tom Cole and others about how Congress might address court funding. So, we’re exploring all options,” Jordan stated.

Court Funding and Oversight Under Review

Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to organize and fund the federal judiciary—with the exception of the Supreme Court. This power gives lawmakers a range of options, from adjusting court budgets to potentially eliminating entire district courts. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson echoed this sentiment earlier in the week, asserting that Congress holds the power to “eliminate” courts if necessary.

Still, Jordan emphasized that any defunding plan would likely avoid cutting security-related budgets, especially in light of previous threats against members of the judiciary, such as those made against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh following the Dobbs abortion ruling.

Boasberg in the Hot Seat

As part of his broader strategy, Jordan plans to hold a congressional hearing next week featuring U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. Boasberg recently issued an injunction blocking Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals deemed connected to gang activity—a ruling that has drawn strong criticism from conservatives.

Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett described Boasberg’s decision as a defiance of precedent set by the Supreme Court.

“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,” Jarrett said during a Fox News segment. “The high court held that the act is constitutional and not subject to judicial review. When the president invokes it, no court—including the Supreme Court—can interfere.”

Jarrett further argued that Judge Boasberg is bound by precedent and should not override a decision that rests solely within the president’s national security authority.

Broader Debate Over Judicial Power

The dispute over executive authority and judicial intervention has intensified as both liberal and conservative legal scholars weigh in. Critics across the political spectrum have questioned whether district courts should have the power to block federal policies through nationwide injunctions, with some calling for clearer limitations on judicial reach.

More than 50 court rulings have already paused or altered White House initiatives during Trump’s current term, drawing condemnation from the former president, who has labeled the judges responsible as “radical” and their actions “unlawful.”

Jordan’s approach signals a more aggressive strategy from congressional Republicans, who see the federal judiciary not just as a legal challenge, but as a political obstacle to Trump’s policy agenda. As the House Judiciary Committee moves forward, the coming hearings and legislative proposals could reshape how the branches of government interact—and redefine the limits of judicial authority in an era of intense partisan conflict.