On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified yet again on Capitol Hill, this time appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on his department’s 2026 budget.
But many of the questions he faced had less to do with his department’s projected spending and more to do with his leadership and fidelity to the law generally.
For example, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, drilled down on Hegseth’s activation and deployment of California National Guard members to Los Angeles, asking him, “Will you follow a court’s order regarding whether or not this deployment is legal?”
As for complying with a district court order? Hegseth seemed to deliberately leave that question hanging.
Hegseth first attempted to evade her question by referencing the ongoing federal court case. But he quickly pivoted, asserting, “I don’t believe district courts should be determining national security policy. When it goes to the Supreme Court, we’ll see.”
And given an opportunity by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., to clarify his ambiguous answer, Hegseth instead doubled down.
“As I’ve said, senator,” Hegseth began, “I don’t believe district courts should determine national security policy, but if the Supreme Court rules on a topic, we will abide by that.”
But as for complying with a district court order? Hegseth seemed to deliberately leave that question hanging.
When a Senate-confirmed defense secretary says, in so many words, that we cannot count on his department’s compliance with an order of a Senate-confirmed judge with lifetime tenure, it’s clear we are living in the legal upside-down.
And what’s worse is that Hegseth is hardly the first person in Trump’s orbit to signal, in broad daylight, that they’d be totally fine with disobeying a district court order.
Indeed, at a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Trump’s own nominees to district courts cast doubt on the necessity of following district court orders. Specifically, when asked by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., whether the executive branch should be allowed to defy a court order, three of the four nominees equivocated.
That most of Trump's district court nominees would not plainly say the executive branch should follow district court orders is stunning.
For example, the first nominee to respond, Zachary Bluestone, maintained, “I would have to take caution in answering that question. This is a highly litigated issue right now. I would echo what we heard earlier in the hearing today that generally speaking that is, of course, the rule.”
A second, Joshua Divine, also refused to give an unequivocal answer. “My understanding of the doctrine is it is almost always required that you obey a court order,” he explained, noting a “well-recognized doctrine of exceptions” for which he provided scant examples.
And then, it was Maria Lanahan’s turn. Like Bluestone and Divine before her, Lanahan would only go as far as “agree[ing] that the typical rule is that parties before a court are bound by that court order.”
That most of Trump’s district court nominees would not plainly say the executive branch should follow district court orders is stunning.
But what’s even more galling is the Trump acolyte who himself has definitively refused to comply — and remains defiant.
On Tuesday, a federal district court judge, Kathleen Williams, held Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in civil contempt for telling law enforcement in a letter that he could not stop them from enforcing an immigration-related law the judge had blocked. The Republican attorney general effectively said Williams’ order was not lawful, so their ability to make arrests under the enjoined Florida law was not “properly restrained.”
Uthmeier further explained, “[I]t is my view that no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce Florida’s new illegal entry and reentry laws.”
What was worse, Williams found, was Uthmeier’s statements to the media, including by boasting, “I’m not going to direct law enforcement to stand down on enforcing the Trump agenda and carrying out Florida’s law.”
Yet even after Williams’ ruling finding him in contempt, Uthmeier was unrepentant, posting to X, “If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it.”
Uthmeier appears to believe contempt is courageous. But will it be contagious? Maybe someone should ask Pete Hegseth. In the meantime, I’ve got my eyes glued to the lower court dockets.
