Fact Check Analysis: Trump lashes out at Leonard Leo, legal activist who helped him pick Supreme Court justices: “Probably hates America”

Introduction

Former President Donald Trump’s recent public rebuke of conservative legal activist Leonard Leo has triggered intense scrutiny across political and legal spheres. This CBS News article, which covers Trump’s comments and Leo’s shifting focus from constitutional law toward broader cultural influence, has raised questions about what this means for the future of conservative legal activism. We fact-checked the critical claims to determine what’s true, what’s exaggerated, and what context may be missing.

Historical Context

Leonard Leo served for decades as an influential vice president of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal network credited with shaping the ideological balance of the American judiciary. During Donald Trump’s presidency, Leo played a pivotal behind-the-scenes role in selecting judicial nominees, including three Supreme Court justices. However, since 2020, Leo has reduced his involvement in the Federalist Society and focused on the Teneo Network, a newer initiative aimed at expanding conservative influence across academia, culture, business, and media. This backdrop sets the stage for the current conflict.

Fact-Check: Specific Claims

Claim #1: “Leo has left The Federalist Society to do his own ‘thing’.”

This claim is mostly accurate. Leonard Leo stepped back from day-to-day leadership at the Federalist Society but has not severed ties entirely. Reports from The New York Times and Axios confirm Leo transitioned his focus to the Teneo Network, a coalition working to advance conservative ideals across industries. Leo remains involved in conservative legal circles, but his primary efforts now lie outside the judiciary.

Source: NYT – Leonard Leo’s Influence

Claim #2: “Leo helped Trump pick hundreds of federal judges, including all three of his Supreme Court nominees.”

This claim is accurate. During Trump’s term, over 230 federal judges were confirmed, and Leonard Leo played a key advisory role—particularly in curating candidate lists for Supreme Court nominations. These included Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Leo was instrumental in providing vetting and helping assure conservative legal bona fides for nominees.

Source: Politico – Leo’s Court Influence

Claim #3: “The recent judicial ruling against Trump’s tariffs was based on right-leaning legal theories.”

This claim is mostly true. The referenced ruling declared many of Trump’s tariffs illegal, and legal arguments against them included references to the nondelegation doctrine and the major questions doctrine. These are constitutional principles often championed by conservatives, particularly those aligned with Justice Gorsuch’s jurisprudence. Although the panel’s political makeup supports this conclusion, the ruling itself remains paused by an appellate court.

Source: Volokh Conspiracy – Tariff Challenge Context

Claim #4: “Leo’s new group, the Teneo Network, aims to ‘crush liberal dominance’ in various sectors.”

This claim accurately reflects Leo’s publicly stated goals. In interviews and promotional material, Leo has stated that Teneo was created to counter progressive influence across not just the judiciary but also in business, culture, and academia. His use of the phrase “crush liberal dominance” is traceable to direct comments made in documented interviews and speeches.

Source: Politico – Teneo’s Cultural Goals

Conclusion

Overall, the CBS News article is factually accurate in its depiction of Leonard Leo’s pivot away from the Federalist Society and the factors contributing to his falling out with Donald Trump. Key claims about Leo’s influence on judicial appointments, the legal argumentation surrounding Trump’s tariffs, and Leo’s explicit goals with the Teneo Network are supported by verified sources. While the article presents Trump’s rhetoric in a charged tone, it is consistent with the former president’s own documented statements and provides a balanced presentation of Leo’s response. There is no indication of significant misinformation or misleading framing. However, readers should be aware that the article places more emphasis on political drama than on the structural shifts within the conservative legal movement, which might be relevant depending on one’s focus.

Encourage Readers to Take Action

If you value truth over spin and want to cut through the noise of modern media, join thousands of others by downloading the DBUNK app. Submit your own fact-check requests instantly and follow us on social media to stay informed, empowered, and protected from misinformation.