On January 10, just ten days before Donald J. Trump is set to be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States, Judge Juan Merchan plans to sentence Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Though Merchan has indicated the sentence will be an unconditional discharge—no jail time, fines, or probation—the timing has sparked outrage among Trump’s allies. They argue the move is a deliberate attempt to brand him as a “felon president” before he retakes the oath of office.
Adding fuel to the fire is Judge Merchan’s $15 donation to Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign and his daughter’s active involvement with a progressive organization that opposes Trump. Merchan has refused to recuse himself despite accusations of bias, and a conduct complaint filed with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct has already been dismissed.
Now, with Republicans controlling the White House, Congress, and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court after January 20, what options remain for Trump and his allies to counteract Merchan’s influence in his ongoing legal battles? Below are strategies that could be considered, with their potential benefits and pitfalls.
1. File a Federal Lawsuit Challenging Merchan’s Impartiality
Action: The Trump administration or Republican allies could file a federal lawsuit arguing that Judge Merchan’s refusal to recuse himself violates Trump’s constitutional right to an impartial judiciary.
Rationale: The lawsuit would focus on the argument that Merchan’s donation to Biden’s campaign and his daughter’s role in a progressive political action organization create an appearance of bias, even if no actual misconduct occurred. Federal courts might view this as a due process violation under the 14th Amendment.
Challenge:
• Federal courts have limited jurisdiction over state judiciary matters. The case would need to establish a federal question tied to Trump’s constitutional rights, which may face legal hurdles.
• This approach could also take years to resolve, rendering it ineffective in the short term.
2. Push for Legislative Reforms in New York State
Action: Republicans could lobby the New York State Legislature to amend state judicial conduct rules or create new laws targeting judicial impartiality, specifically aimed at disqualifying judges with perceived conflicts of interest.
Hypothetical Law Name: “New York Judicial Integrity and Impartiality Act”
Basic Wording:
“No judge shall preside over a case involving a defendant where the judge or an immediate family member has made political contributions to an opposing candidate or holds a position in an organization that actively opposes the defendant.”
Challenge:
• New York currently has a Democratic trifecta: Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democratic majority in the State Assembly, and a Democratic majority in the State Senate. Passing such a law in this political climate is nearly impossible.
• Even if successful, the law might face legal challenges on constitutional grounds, particularly regarding its retroactive application.
3. Federal Legislation on Judicial Oversight
Action: Congress could pass federal legislation limiting state judges’ ability to preside over cases involving federal officials, former federal officials, or candidates for federal office.
Hypothetical Law Name: “Federal Judicial Neutrality Act”
Basic Wording:
“No state judge may preside over a case involving a former, current, or incoming federal official where the judge or their immediate family member has made political contributions to an opposing candidate.”
Challenge:
• This law would face constitutional challenges for potentially infringing on states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment.
• Implementing such legislation retroactively would almost certainly trigger legal disputes over its fairness and legality.
4. Public Pressure and Political Campaigns
Action: Launch a public campaign highlighting Merchan’s potential biases to pressure him into resigning or to influence public opinion about the fairness of the proceedings.
Tactics:
• Emphasize Merchan’s political donation to Biden and his daughter’s role in progressive activism.
• Use social media and conservative media outlets to amplify the issue and galvanize public support.
Challenge:
• Judges are typically insulated from public opinion and unlikely to resign under political pressure.
• Critics might argue this approach undermines the independence of the judiciary.
5. Investigate Other Potential Misconduct
Action: Explore whether Merchan has engaged in any other actions that could justify removal or further complaints to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Hypothetical Scenario: If credible evidence of bias, unethical behavior, or procedural missteps emerges, new complaints could be filed to reignite the investigation into his conduct.
Challenge:
• Without concrete evidence of wrongdoing beyond the Biden donation and familial connections, this avenue is unlikely to succeed.
6. Retroactive Disqualification of Judges with Political Donations
Action: Pass federal legislation disqualifying state judges who have made any political donations within the last 10 years from presiding over cases involving federal officials.
Hypothetical Law Name: “Judicial Impartiality and Accountability Act”
Basic Wording:
“No judge who has made political donations in the last 10 years may preside over any case involving federal officials or candidates for federal office. This law applies retroactively.”
Challenge:
• Retroactive application would face constitutional scrutiny as an ex post facto law.
• Critics would argue it unfairly penalizes judges for political activity protected by the First Amendment.
Navigating a Complex Judicial Landscape
As January 10 approaches, the Trump administration and its allies face significant hurdles in challenging Judge Merchan’s role in Trump’s case. While complaints, lawsuits, and legislative reforms could theoretically shift the judicial landscape, each strategy comes with substantial legal, constitutional, and political challenges.
Ultimately, the fight against Judge Merchan’s influence may serve as a rallying cry for Trump’s base, energizing his supporters for the battles ahead. Whether these efforts succeed in removing or sidelining Merchan, they highlight the broader tension between state judicial systems and federal political dynamics in the Trump era.
If None of That Works: Extreme Measures to End Merchan’s Reign (Purely hypothetical and intended solely for academic discussion and conversation. This article, regardless of merit or soundness, does not endorse or suggest any illegal or unethical actions.)
If conventional strategies fail to remove Judge Juan Merchan from the equation, the Trump administration could explore more unorthodox, albeit controversial, measures to neutralize his influence. While these ideas would face legal, ethical, and political scrutiny, they reflect the lengths a determined administration might consider.
1. Revoke Citizenship and Deportation
Since Judge Merchan was born in Colombia and is a naturalized U.S. citizen, the administration could propose legislation targeting individuals in judicial roles with a questionable record of impartiality. A hypothetical “Judicial Integrity Act” could include provisions to revoke citizenship if a judge is found to have acted in ways deemed detrimental to national interests or the constitutional rights of an individual.
• Challenge: Such a law would likely face constitutional challenges regarding due process and retroactive application. Stripping a naturalized citizen of their status based on judicial rulings could set a dangerous precedent.
2. Expanding Federal Oversight into State Judiciary
A new “Federal Accountability in State Judiciaries Act” could grant Congress authority to review and remove state judges presiding over cases involving federal officials or elections. Merchan’s handling of Trump’s case could be retroactively scrutinized under this new framework.
• Challenge: Federalism and the 10th Amendment would pose significant hurdles. The law would almost certainly be contested by state governments as an overreach.
3. Executive Order Blocking State-Level Judicial Interference
President Trump could issue an executive order barring state judges from presiding over cases involving former, current, or incoming federal officials. This could be framed as a matter of national security or the protection of federal institutions.
• Challenge: Such an order would likely be challenged as unconstitutional, as the president has no direct authority over state judicial systems.
4. Leveraging Federal Agencies to Investigate Merchan
Federal agencies such as the Department of Justice or Homeland Security could be tasked with investigating Merchan’s background, finances, or affiliations. Findings could be used to pressure his resignation or discredit him publicly.
• Challenge: This could be seen as an abuse of power, and any investigation would need substantial justification to avoid allegations of political targeting.
5. Defund Courts Where Merchan Operates
Congress, under Republican control, could propose cutting federal funding to New York State judicial systems that handle cases involving federal officials. This would indirectly pressure the state judiciary to reconsider its assignments.
• Challenge: This tactic could punish the broader judicial system, potentially harming other cases and eroding public trust.
6. Launch a Massive Public Relations Campaign
Trump’s administration could mount a sustained PR campaign to discredit Merchan, focusing on his daughter’s connections to Democratic politics, alleged biases, and decisions in high-profile cases. The aim would be to generate overwhelming public pressure for his resignation.
• Challenge: While this might galvanize Trump’s base, it could also backfire by appearing vindictive or overly partisan.
7. State-Level Political Maneuvering
Trump-aligned Republicans in New York could push for legislation making judges in state courts subject to term limits or performance reviews. This could provide a legal pathway to remove or sideline Merchan.
• Challenge: Democrats control the New York State Assembly and Senate, making this difficult to achieve unless Trump’s allies gain significant influence at the state level.
8. Invoke International Treaties for Dual Citizenship
If Merchan holds dual citizenship with Colombia, the administration could argue for his disqualification on grounds of potential foreign influence. A new “Judicial National Allegiance Act” could prohibit dual citizens from serving in cases involving federal officials.
• Challenge: This would likely be seen as discriminatory and face constitutional challenges. Merchan’s citizenship status would also need verification.
A Call to Action
While some of these ideas are extreme and push the boundaries of legality and ethics, they underscore the frustration with a judicial system that Trump and his supporters view as irreparably biased. Judge Merchan’s role in Trump’s case exemplifies the deep divisions in American politics and the ongoing battle over judicial impartiality. As President Trump assumes office, the fight for accountability in the judiciary may well become a defining feature of his second term.
If All Else Fails: Serve as a “Felon President” or Seek a Pardon from Albany
At the end of the day, Donald J. Trump could embrace the idea of becoming the first “felon president” in U.S. history—an irony that wouldn’t faze his supporters. With over half the electorate backing him in the 2024 election, Trump’s base has already shown that they view the charges against him as nothing more than political theater and a gross abuse of the judicial system.
Owning the Label: “Felon President”
Trump could reframe the narrative, using his conviction as a badge of honor that symbolizes his fight against the “deep state” and political weaponization of the judiciary. For his supporters, it’s a rallying cry, not a deterrent. By serving as a convicted president, Trump could demonstrate resilience, showing that a politically motivated conviction is no match for his vision and leadership.
The New York Pardon Route: Trump, Jr., Eric, or Hochul
If serving as a “felon president” is not the preferred route, Trump and his allies could consider a gubernatorial pardon in New York—a state-level mechanism to clear his record. While the current governor, Democrat Kathy Hochul, is highly unlikely to issue a pardon, a more Trump-aligned future governor could do so. Enter a new political strategy: grooming a strong candidate like Donald Trump Jr. or Eric Trump to challenge Hochul in the next gubernatorial race.
Why Trump Jr. or Eric Trump?
Both have national name recognition, financial backing, and the unwavering support of Trump’s base. With New York’s economy and crime rates as key talking points, a campaign spearheaded by a Trump could galvanize conservative voters in the state.
The Elon Musk Factor
If convincing Hochul to pardon Trump is off the table, tech magnate Elon Musk, an open Trump ally, could use his influence to support a gubernatorial campaign against Hochul. With Musk’s massive reach and financial resources, a well-coordinated campaign could shift the state’s political dynamics enough to secure a pardon for Trump through a new governor.
Conclusion: A Fight for Justice, Legacy, and Priorities
The battle against Judge Juan Merchan’s influence in Donald J. Trump’s legal case is emblematic of a broader fight over judicial impartiality and the weaponization of the legal system in American politics. Whether through legislative reform, public campaigns, or extreme measures, the Trump administration and its allies have multiple avenues to challenge what they perceive as systemic bias.
Some of the ideas presented, like the hypothetical scenario of deporting Judge Merchan, are included tongue-in-cheek to illustrate just how far brainstorming and legal creativity can go when discussing plausible and implausible solutions. These extreme suggestions underscore the frustration many feel about the perceived lack of accountability within the judiciary.
However, it is equally possible that Judge Merchan could remain unaffected by these efforts and continue presiding over cases without consequence, effectively getting away with what some perceive as bias or even corruption. This potential outcome reflects the inherent difficulty of addressing perceived judicial misconduct, especially when legal and constitutional safeguards are in place to protect judges from political retaliation.
That said, as President Trump embarks on his second term with just four years to implement his vision, it may be wiser for him to channel his energy into fixing the damage caused by the Biden/Harris administration. Trump has always emphasized that “our success will be our retribution,” and rather than mirroring the vendettas of his opponents, his time may be better spent focusing on delivering the victories his supporters expect. By rebuilding what was broken and proving his critics wrong through tangible achievements, Trump could cement his legacy far more effectively than engaging in prolonged battles with individuals like Merchan.
In the end, the greatest retribution for perceived injustice may not be punishment but unparalleled success. January 10 and January 20 will set the stage for the next chapter—not just in Trump’s presidency but in the American political saga.
Disclaimer
This article is an opinion piece meant to explore hypothetical and legal scenarios for addressing a contentious judicial issue. It is not intended to advocate for or incite any illegal actions, nor does it represent a call to action for any measures beyond what is permissible under existing laws and constitutional frameworks.
The scenarios discussed are purely speculative and serve as a thought exercise for those curious about what steps, if any, could be attempted within the boundaries of legality. The challenges and limitations of each hypothetical action are clearly outlined, emphasizing the obstacles and constitutional considerations they would face.
This piece is not intended to undermine the judiciary, promote hostility, or suggest actions that violate the rule of law. Anyone reading this article with concerns should take a deep breath and understand that this is a discussion of hypotheticals—not policy proposals or endorsements of any specific course of action.
We fully support the principles of judicial independence and due process and encourage constructive, respectful dialogue on these matters. Rest assured, there is no cause for investigation into this article, as it merely engages in a hypothetical exploration of legal and political possibilities. Chill out, and let’s keep the conversation productive.
