A federal judge appointed by former President Ronald Reagan announced that he has resigned from the bench. Mark Wolf, appointed by Reagan in 1985, wrote in The Atlantic that he had expected to remain on the court for the rest of his life but felt compelled to step down. Wolf wrote that he was giving up his lifetime appointment so he can speak openly against President Donald Trump, whom he accuses of undermining judicial independence and using the law to reward allies and target opponents. “My reason is simple: I no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom. President Donald Trump is
Federal Judge Appointed by Reagan Resigns to Criticize Trump Administration BOSTON – Senior U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf, a federal jurist appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, has resigned from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to speak publicly about what he describes as threats to judicial independence and the rule of law under the current administration.
In an essay published in The Atlantic on November 9, 2025, Wolf said he could no longer remain constrained by judicial ethics rules that limit public political commentary. The long-serving judge, who took senior status in 2013, cited the administration’s actions as an “assault on the rule of law,” accusing it of using the legal system to target political opponents while protecting allies.
Wolf, who began his career at the Department of Justice in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, said he was influenced by former Attorney General Edward Levi’s emphasis on nonpartisan justice. “Silence, for me, is now intolerable,” he wrote, framing his departure as a matter of conscience after more than four decades on the bench.
White House Response
The White House responded sharply. Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson called Wolf and similarly inclined judges “radical judges” more focused on personal agendas than impartial application of the law. “Judges that want to inject their own personal agenda into the law have no place on the bench,” Jackson said, adding that those wishing to engage in political discourse should resign first – as Wolf has done. She pointed to the administration’s more than 20 Supreme Court victories as evidence that its policies are legally sound.
Wolf’s resignation does not create a new vacancy for the president to fill, as his seat was already filled upon his transition to senior status. The development comes as the Republican National Committee prepares for the 2026 midterm elections with a significant financial edge.
Political Implications
RNC Chair Joe Gruters has highlighted a strong fundraising advantage over Democrats, with Republican committees holding a lead that could reach hundreds of millions of dollars in combined resources. This positions the GOP to potentially outspend opponents substantially in key races as they defend narrow congressional majorities.
Wolf’s move underscores deepening tensions between some members of the judiciary and the executive branch in a polarized political environment. While supporters view his decision as a principled stand for institutional integrity, critics see it as further evidence of judicial activism. The episode highlights ongoing debates over the boundaries of judicial conduct and the rule of law ahead of the November midterms.
using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment,” he wrote. “This is contrary to everything that I have stood for in my more than 50 years in the Department of Justice and on the bench. The White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out. Silence, for me, is now intolerable,” he added.
The former U.S. District Court judge for the District of Massachusetts noted that he began his public service career at the Department of Justice in 1974, not long after the Watergate scandal that brought down then-GOP President Richard Nixon. Wolf served under Attorney General Edward Levi during the Ford administration, crediting Levi with shaping his understanding of the rule of law and the importance of pursuing justice in a nonpartisan manner. Wolf’s successor was chosen and nominated after he assumed senior status in 2013, and the seat was formally filled by Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, in 2014. “I hope to be a spokesperson for embattled judges who, consistent with the code of conduct, feel they cannot speak candidly to the American people,” he told The New York Times.
White House Responds to Judge’s Resignation
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson countered Wolf’s commentary in a statement to Fox News Digital, noting that judges who “want to inject their own personal agenda into the law have no place on the bench.” “Here’s the reality: with over 20 Supreme Court victories, the Trump Administration’s policies have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings,” Jackson said. “And any other radical judges that want to complain to the press should at least have the decency to resign before doing so,” she added.
This comes just months before November’s midterms. Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters says Republicans may outspend Democrats this election cycle, a dramatic reversal from past campaigns where Democrats often held the fundraising advantage. Speaking on Breitbart, Gruters argued Republicans are entering the midterm cycle with significantly stronger financial positioning and unprecedented coordination across the conservative movement.
Republicans Forecast Historic Fundraising Advantage
Host Mike Slater asked Gruters to put the reported $70 million Democrats spent in Virginia’s recent redistricting battle into perspective. “How much money is that for the parties?” Slater asked. Gruters responded by painting a bleak financial picture for Democrats. “The DNC has minus 4 million [dollars], and it wasn’t the DNC that plowed $70 million: It was the collective,” Gruters said. “So, if you look at the collective on the right, we may have $800 million,” he continued. “The collective on the left may have $350 million, and when you have the court, there’s gonna be a court case that is ruled on in the next week or two, coordinated campaign limits, which will magnify that, which will allow full coordination and allow the parties to spend at the candidate rate, which is massive for us,” he said. Gruters said the financial landscape could mark a historic break from previous election cycles.
