Is the 'Trump Coalition' Cracking?

The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, spent $250 million in the 2024 elections, playing a crucial role in Trump’s victory. In return, Trump created an advisory position for Musk—the "Ministry of Government Efficiency (DOGE)." Musk had argued that cutting "$2 trillion" from the federal budget would eliminate deficits, but this target was later reduced to $1 trillion. According to U.S. media reports, Musk only managed to cut $175 billion in spending, though some commentators claim the real figure was much, much lower.

Musk was also against the steep tariffs imposed on imports from the European Union and China. After expressing disappointment over the massive Budget Bill, which passed the House of Representatives by just one vote, Musk stepped down from his leadership role at DOGE.

The first obstacle Musk faced was the Military-Industrial Complex. He was displeased with the military budget’s increase to $1 trillion and drew backlash for criticizing the Pentagon’s favored military technologies. However, the Complex’s power proved stronger.

The "Trump coalition" was a mix of different groups with varying interests. One of these factions was the new tech class, where Musk took a leading role. Diverging interests are now pulling the coalition apart. Another rift involved the Federalist Society, the conservative legal organization that controls the federal judiciary pool for right-wing governments.

The Federalist Society was long led by conservative Catholic Leonard Leo, who played a key role in Trump’s first-term appointment of three Catholic justices to the Supreme Court. With these appointments, conservatives gained a majority on the Court—paving the way for the overturning of abortion as a constitutional right.

When Trump imposed heavy tariffs on imports from China and other countries, an organization called the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed a lawsuit against him on behalf of a Florida-based company. This lawsuit, opened in April 2025, along with others from various states, was brought before the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). Among the NCLA’s financial backers were prominent Republican donors, including billionaire businessman Charles Koch and Leonard Leo. Following this lawsuit, reports emerged that Trump’s relationship with the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo had soured.

Last week, a three-judge panel at the CIT ruled that Trump did not have the authority to raise tariffs. The Trump administration appealed the decision, and the appeals court temporarily stayed the CIT’s ruling.

What infuriated Trump was that one of the judges on the International Trade Court had ties to the Federalist Society. Even worse, Trump himself had appointed this judge during his first term, based on the Society’s recommendation. Indeed, in a social media post, Trump directly targeted the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo, while also admitting his past collaboration with them in judicial appointments.

Trump pointed out that Leo boasted about controlling federal judges and Supreme Court justices, saying, "I hope that’s not the case—I don’t believe it is!" Likewise, Trump expressed deep disappointment with the Federalist Society over their poor recommendations for judicial nominees, stating, "This is something that should not be forgotten!"

Trump’s advisor Stephen Miller, who called the CIT’s ruling a "judicial coup," sent a clear message: "We will no longer use the Federalist Society for judicial appointments from now on." When the tariff issue reaches the Supreme Court, Leo’s influence will be put to the test.

In 2022, Jewish businessman Barre Seid donated his $1.6 billion fortune to Leonard Leo’s Marble Freedom Trust. A headline in the Jerusalem-based Times of Israel read: *"Pro-Israel dark money donor gives $1.6 billion to conservative NGO."* The report highlighted Seid’s role in funding the Marble Freedom Trust, which helped secure a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to U.S. media reports, Barre Seid, labeled a "libertarian right-winger," has used his personal wealth since the 1980s to fund a range of conservative and libertarian causes, including conservative think tanks and neoliberal economic institutes. This explains why the NCLA launched a battle against the tariffs—clarifying the financial and ideological motives behind the legal challenge.