Progressive group targets Senate Democrats for backing Trump’s judicial nominees

Progressive Group Launches Campaign Against Democratic Senators Who Backed Trump Nominees

A progressive advocacy organization has launched a significant advertising campaign targeting three senators from the Democratic caucus who have voted to confirm some of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees. Demand Justice announced a weeklong blitz costing over $1 million aimed at pressuring Democrats to take a more unified stand against the president’s judicial appointments.

The campaign specifically targets Democratic Senators John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, along with independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats. None of these senators face reelection in the upcoming cycle, but Demand Justice president Josh Orton made it clear this is merely the opening move in a potentially broader effort.

“We want to change Senate Democratic behavior so that they begin acting in a more moral way and in a more politically expedient way,” Orton stated. He warned the group would escalate its campaign to include more vulnerable lawmakers and those with presidential ambitions unless they “find their moral compass, and stand up to Trump.”

The initiative comes at a politically sensitive moment for Democrats. Eight members of the party’s Senate caucus—including the three targeted senators—recently joined Republicans to end a government shutdown, a decision that sparked significant backlash from the party’s progressive base. The move highlighted growing tensions within the Democratic Party over how forcefully to oppose Trump’s agenda while developing a strategy to recover from significant electoral losses in 2024.

A key issue driving the campaign is the behavior of Trump’s judicial nominees during confirmation hearings. Many have refused to acknowledge fundamental facts about recent American history, including Trump’s 2020 election loss and the nature of the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol as a violent insurrection. Orton argued Democrats shouldn’t provide “bipartisan cover” to judicial nominees unable to affirm these basic truths.

Abortion rights have emerged as another flashpoint in the judicial confirmation process. An Associated Press review found approximately half of Trump’s nominees have expressed anti-abortion views, maintained connections with anti-abortion organizations, or defended restrictions on reproductive rights—positions that have further intensified opposition from progressive groups.

The campaign reflects broader tensions between progressive activists demanding aggressive resistance to Trump’s agenda and Democratic leadership navigating the practical limitations of minority status in Washington. With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, Democrats face significant constraints on their ability to block nominations outright.

Senator Fetterman, who has previously drawn criticism from the left over his positions on Israel and willingness to break with party orthodoxy, defended his voting record last month. “If Democrats have a problem with somebody that votes 91% of the same times as you are—more than nine out of 10 times—then maybe our party has a bigger problem,” he told CBS News.

Senator Hassan justified her vote to end the government shutdown despite progressive criticism, explaining many of her constituents were suffering and that Republicans were unlikely to offer better terms. She noted she has supported Trump executive branch nominees she considered “qualified or acting in good faith.”

Senator King has occasionally broken ranks on judicial confirmations, notably as the only Democratic caucus member to vote for a federal judge in Missouri who had previously worked on cases challenging abortion rights. He later acknowledged this vote was “a mistake.”

The campaign by Demand Justice illustrates the complex political calculations facing Democratic lawmakers as they balance resistance to Trump’s agenda with practical governance considerations—all while progressive activists push for a more confrontational approach to what they view as the president’s authoritarian tendencies.