Trump’s Pick Raises Red Flags: Hidden Liberal Leanings?

Gavel resting on sounding block beside open book.

Trump’s nomination of Rebecca Taibleson for the Seventh Circuit has sparked questions about whether her family’s political donations reveal hidden liberal sympathies despite her impressive conservative credentials.

Story Highlights

Taibleson clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Kavanaugh, establishing strong originalist credentials
Her and her husband’s political donation patterns are raising red flags among constitutional watchdogs
The nomination emerged from a bipartisan process involving both Wisconsin senators
Conservative groups praise her qualifications while progressive organizations scrutinize her financial background

Conservative Credentials Under Scrutiny

Rebecca Taibleson’s professional background reads like a conservative legal all-star roster. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the originalist icon, and later for Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Her service as Assistant to the Solicitor General from 2019-2022 under Trump’s first administration further solidified her conservative bona fides. Currently serving as Assistant U.S. Attorney in Milwaukee, Taibleson appeared to be the perfect choice to succeed Judge Diane Sykes on the Seventh Circuit. However, questions about her and her husband’s political donations have constitutional conservatives demanding answers about where her true loyalties lie.

Bipartisan Process Raises Eyebrows

The nomination process itself tells an interesting story. Wisconsin’s Federal Nominating Commission, which has operated since the 1970s, forwarded five candidates to Trump in mid-July 2025, including Taibleson. Both Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin and Republican Senator Ron Johnson participated in this process, with Johnson publicly endorsing her as “an excellent choice.” This bipartisan support might seem reassuring, but savvy conservatives know that establishment Republicans and Democrats often agree on judges who won’t rock the constitutional boat. The real test isn’t whether politicians like a nominee—it’s whether they’ll defend the Constitution as written.

Political Donations Signal Potential Red Flags

The Alliance for Justice has compiled detailed fact sheets examining Taibleson’s political donations alongside her husband’s contributions, a level of scrutiny typically reserved for nominees with questionable ideological moorings. While conservative groups like the Ethics and Public Policy Center praise her qualifications, the very existence of donation concerns suggests there may be more to this story than meets the eye. Patriots who’ve watched too many “conservative” judges drift left once confirmed understand that family political giving patterns can reveal true beliefs better than résumés. These financial breadcrumbs often expose judicial nominees who talk conservative but think liberal.

Stakes for Constitutional Jurisprudence

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin—states where Second Amendment rights, regulatory overreach, and constitutional principles face constant assault from progressive activists. Taibleson’s confirmation could influence decades of decisions on labor law, civil rights interpretations, and federal regulatory power. Trump emphasized that she “will fearlessly defend the Constitution, and strongly uphold the Rule of Law,” but constitutional conservatives have heard similar promises before from nominees who later betrayed originalist principles. The Senate confirmation process must thoroughly examine whether Taibleson’s donation patterns reflect temporary political expedience or deeper ideological sympathies that could undermine conservative jurisprudence when it matters most.

Trump’s new judge pick: True constitutionalist or hidden Democrat? https://t.co/65StbsD0TA pic.twitter.com/jDBtqNGACW

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) September 9, 2025

With Senate confirmation proceedings underway, this nomination represents a critical test of Trump’s commitment to appointing true constitutional originalists rather than establishment-approved candidates who satisfy both parties for all the wrong reasons.