As President Donald Trump begins his second term in office, the landscape of abortion rights in the United States faces a profound and potentially lasting transformation. On January 23, 2025, Trump signed an executive order granting clemency to anti-abortion protesters, a move that set the tone for what many legal experts and advocates now see as a methodical remaking of the federal judiciary—one that could impact abortion access for generations.
According to an extensive review by the Associated Press, several of Trump’s judicial nominees have either expressed strong anti-abortion views, been closely linked with anti-abortion organizations, or played pivotal roles in defending abortion restrictions in court. These nominees, with their lifetime appointments, are positioned to shape the nation’s abortion policies long after Trump’s presidency ends.
Trump’s own stance on abortion has often been a moving target. Before his most recent campaign, he voiced support for a federal ban on abortions after 15 or 20 weeks of pregnancy. Later, he shifted to a message that decisions about abortion access should be left to the states. Throughout his campaign, he alternated between taking credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade and presenting a more neutral tone, a balancing act between his anti-abortion base and a broader public that largely supports abortion access.
The impact of Trump’s judicial picks is already being felt. Of the 17 nominees put forward in his second term, at least eight have actively argued in favor of abortion restrictions or against expanded access, AP reports. Notably, none of the reviewed nominees have a record of supporting increased abortion access. Many come from states that voted for Trump in 2024 and have enacted some of the country’s strictest abortion laws, including Missouri and Florida.
Some of the most prominent nominees include Whitney Hermandorfer, now confirmed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who built her career challenging abortion rights and defending Tennessee’s near-total abortion ban. She argued in court that abortion deserves special scrutiny as “this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.” Maria Lanahan, a district court nominee from Missouri, helped draft the state’s lawsuit challenging the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, a case with sweeping national implications. In her legal work, she also supported Missouri’s efforts to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding and defended the state’s abortion ban against constitutional challenges.
Jordan Pratt, a nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, described abortion as a “barbaric practice” and “one of the most severe invasions of personal rights imaginable” in a legal brief supporting Florida’s 15-week abortion ban. The state has since reduced its limit to six weeks. In 2025, Pratt struck down a Florida law that allowed minors to seek abortions without parental consent through a judicial waiver program. He previously worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that opposes abortion and has sued to reverse the FDA’s approval of mifepristone.
Other nominees have similar backgrounds. John Guard, nominated for the same Florida district, defended the state’s abortion restrictions as chief deputy attorney general. Joshua Divine, a deputy solicitor general from Missouri, co-authored a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone—a suit that included the claim that the medication “starves the baby to death in the womb,” a statement widely criticized as misinformation by medical experts. Divine, who once described himself as a “zealot” for the anti-abortion movement in his college newspaper, has played a prominent role in defending Missouri’s abortion restrictions, especially after voters approved an abortion rights amendment in 2024 that did not immediately overturn existing laws.
Chad Meredith, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, defended that state’s abortion ban and laws requiring mandatory ultrasounds and descriptions to patients. Bill Mercer, a Republican lawmaker from Montana and nominee for a federal judgeship, has supported a slew of anti-abortion bills, including bans after 20 weeks, mandatory waiting periods and ultrasounds, parental notification requirements for minors, and restrictions on who can provide medication abortion. Jennifer Mascott, nominated to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has argued publicly that abortion issues are best decided by states and elected officials, especially following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Legal experts like Bernadette Meyler, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University, warn that these judicial appointments are a subtle yet powerful way to reshape abortion law at the federal level. “Judicial appointments are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement,” Meyler told the Associated Press. “It’s a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash.”
The White House, for its part, maintains that these nominees reflect Trump’s campaign promises and the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on abortion. “Every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling,” said White House spokesperson Harrison Fields, referencing the 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. “The Democrats’ extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favor of President Trump’s commonsense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion.”
Anti-abortion groups have expressed optimism about the direction of Trump’s judicial nominees. “We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,” said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for SBA Pro-Life America, a leading anti-abortion organization. Kristi Hamrick, spokesperson for Students for Life, echoed this sentiment, saying she was hopeful the administration would continue nominating judges “who will respect the rule of law.”
On the other side of the debate, abortion rights advocates have sounded the alarm. Mini Timmaraju, president of Reproductive Freedom for All, argued that Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary “one judge at a time.” She noted that, until now, the courts have been a crucial avenue for advocates to challenge state abortion bans and restrictions. “This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion—saying he’s going to leave it to the states while simultaneously appointing anti-abortion extremists at all levels of government,” Timmaraju said.
Trump’s first term had already left a significant mark on the federal judiciary, with 234 judges appointed—including three Supreme Court justices who played critical roles in overturning Roe v. Wade. By the end of that term, more than one-quarter of active federal judges were Trump appointees. Now, with a second wave of nominees, the influence of his presidency on the courts—and on abortion rights—appears set to grow even deeper.
The debate over abortion in America is far from settled, and the current wave of judicial appointments ensures that the battle will continue in courtrooms across the country for years to come.