Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Andrew Ferguson has declared an all-out war against the “lawyer’s wing of the Democratic Party”—the American Bar Association (ABA).
The new directive prohibits any FTC political appointees from engaging with or benefiting from the ABA in any capacity.
“Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson announced a new policy that prohibits FTC political appointees from holding leadership roles in the American Bar Association (ABA), participating in ABA events, or renewing their ABA memberships. Additionally, the FTC will no longer use its resources to support any employee’s ABA membership or participation in ABA activities,” according to the FTC.
This decisive action comes in the wake of the ABA’s recent, highly politicized critique of President Donald J. Trump’s administration, particularly its efforts to reform the corruption-riddled USAID.
The ABA’s outburst was nothing short of a political diatribe, accusing the Trump-Vance administration of “wide-scale affronts to the rule of law,” while conveniently ignoring the nation’s crippling $36 trillion debt crisis.
The ABA’s statement read:
“It has been three weeks since Inauguration Day.
Most Americans recognize that newly elected leaders bring change. That is expected. But most Americans also expect that changes will take place in accordance with the rule of law and in an orderly manner that respects the lives of affected individuals and the work they have been asked to perform.
Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.
We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. There are efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit, and social media announcements that disparage and appear to be motivated by a desire to inflame without any stated factual basis. This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few.
But it is wrong. And most Americans recognize it is wrong.
It is also contrary to the rule of law.
The American Bar Association supports the rule of law. That means holding governments, including our own, accountable under law. We stand for a legal process that is orderly and fair.
We have consistently urged the administrations of both parties to adhere to the rule of law. We stand in that familiar place again today. And we do not stand alone. Our courts stand for the rule of law as well.”
The ABA supports the rule of law. Read full message: https://t.co/ykBNNHKRqh pic.twitter.com/EXtIR2HdP1
— American Bar Association (@ABAesq) February 10, 2025
Chairman Ferguson, in his letter to the staff, countered these claims with sharp criticism of the ABA’s stance, suggesting that the ABA’s statement was less about upholding the law and more a political tirade filled with Democrat talking points.
Ferguson pointed out the ABA’s long history of biased actions against Republican judicial nominees and its controversial positions on various social issues.
He also highlighted the ABA’s significant financial interests in USAID, with over $39 million in taxpayer-funded grants and contracts in the past year, accusing them of a conflict of interest when attacking Trump’s reforms.
Chairman Ferguson’s letter to staff read:
The President of the ABA recently issued a statement accusing the Trump-Vance Administration of “wide-scale affronts to the rule of law.” What followed was a breathless screed leveled against President Donald J. Trump’s swift and tireless delivery on his promises to the American people to confront our existential immigration crisis and end waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. This statement was not a sober assessment of the law. It was a collection of Democrat political talking points with the ABA’s logo affixed at the top.
[…]
The ABA’s statement mentioned nothing about this debt crisis. It instead attacked President Trump’s decision to reform the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The ABA’s focus on USAID is not a coincidence.
The ABA has had its hand in the USAID till for some time. The ABA received more than $22 million from USAID and nearly $17 million from the State Department in taxpayer-funded grants and contracts in the last 12 months alone.
Shortly after releasing its statement, the ABA joined a coalition of left-wing NGOs in suing President Trump to turn the USAID spigot back on. Nothing prevents the ABA suing to collect taxpayer money from USAID. But its failure to disclose its massive financial interest in USAID while criticizing President Trump’s reform of that troubled agency was deceptive and unethical.
That deception is particularly galling given that the ABA claims it was founded to promote ethical conduct among America’s lawyers. The ABA’s partisan advocacy on behalf of Democrats is not new. It has been happening for decades. Consider just a few examples:
• A long, documented history of biased ratings of Republican judicial nominees including Justice Clarence Thomas, Judge Robert Bork, Judge Edith H. Jones, Judge Lawrence VanDyke, Judge Sarah Pitlyk, and Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle.
• The imposition of unlawful DEI requirements on American law schools as a requirement of accreditation.
• The putative “recognition” of the Equal Rights Amendment as a part of the U.S. Constitution, a fatuous and tendentious position rejected by every court to have considered it, as well as then-President Joe Biden’s own Archivist of the United States.
• Consistently leftist amicus advocacy on nearly every major social issue, including affirmative action, transgender ideology, capital punishment, and abortion.
FTC Chairman Ferguson announces new policy regarding American Bar Association: https://t.co/SzBl8Apg7P
— FTC (@FTC) February 14, 2025
Senator Mike Lee has come out in strong support of Ferguson’s decision, praising his courage for distancing the FTC from the ABA’s overtly leftist agenda.
Lee criticized the Senate Judiciary Committee’s longstanding reliance on the ABA, “the lawyer’s wing of the Democratic Party,” for vetting judicial nominees, questioning the propriety of the ABA’s monopoly over law school accreditation and its evident hostility towards religious and conservative members of the legal community.
“Hats off to FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson for disassociating himself and the FTC from the American Bar Association, aka, “the lawyer’s wing of the Democratic Party”
The ABA has every right to exist as a leftist institution
But let’s not pretend it’s anything other than a leftist advocacy group—that’s exactly what it is
I’ve never understood why the Senate Judiciary Committee pretends the ABA has any kind of an official role in vetting judicial nominees, given its proven track record of giving biased advice, favoring leftists and disfavoring conservatives
It should have no more of an official role in vetting judicial nominees than the Federalist Society or any Republican lawyers’ association
Nor have I ever understood why we have to accept ABA’s monopoly over law-school accreditation
The ABA’s accreditation monopoly has contributed to the notorious lack of ideological diversity in American legal academia
It’s also fueled an almost palpable hostility toward religious lawyers, professors, students, and law schools
The ABA can do and be what it wants
But the rest of us—particularly those of us who are conservative and religious—shouldn’t play along, as if the ABA is a neutral, authoritative body without a leftist political agenda.”
Elon Musk also weighed in and said, “True, ABA has become a far-left political organization.”
True, ABA has become a far-left political organization https://t.co/6AGqRjhPOD
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 15, 2025
The post Federal Trade Commission Cuts Off Far-Left American Bar Association, “the Lawyer’s Wing of the Democratic Party” — Bans Appointees from Any Involvement appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.