President Donald Trump has sounded a sharp alarm over a potential Democrat scheme to reshape the Supreme Court, framing it as a direct assault on the very foundation of American governance.

According to Breitbart News, Trump's reaction came in response to remarks by former Attorney General Eric Holder, who recently suggested expanding the Supreme Court if Democrats gain full control of the government in 2028.

Posting on Truth Social, Trump labeled Holder an "Obama sycophant" who once "weaponized" the administration against Republicans, and he didn’t hold back in critiquing the audacity of such a radical judicial overhaul. He pointed to Holder’s apparent zeal for inflating the court to "21 Radical Left Activist Judges," far beyond even previous progressive proposals.

Holder's Vision for a Transformed Judiciary

In a video Trump referenced, Holder called the Supreme Court "a broken institution" that demands "substantive reforms," hinting at expansion as a serious option. His words reveal a troubling willingness to bend longstanding norms for partisan gain, ignoring the delicate balance of power that has guided our nation for centuries.

Holder’s fixation on reform isn’t new; as far back as 2020 and 2021, he’s pushed for adding justices, citing Republican actions like the refusal to confirm Merrick Garland and the swift seating of Amy Coney Barrett. This narrative of grievance seems less about principle and more about stacking the deck when the political winds shift.

During a 2021 Brookings Institution event, he even branded federal courts as "political bodies" filled with "ideologues," while advocating for term limits and age minimums for justices. Such proposals, cloaked in calls for diversity, risk turning the judiciary into a revolving door of activist agendas rather than a bastion of impartial law.

Trump's Call to Break the Gridlock

Trump’s response cuts to the core, warning that Holder’s plan "will destroy our Constitution" by undermining the checks that keep any one faction from seizing unchecked control. He argues Republicans must act decisively, even if it means ending the filibuster to prevent this judicial power grab from taking root.

He tied the filibuster’s termination to broader electoral victories, predicting it would pave the way for sweeping Republican wins in future midterms and the 2028 presidential race. The message is clear: Americans crave action over stagnation, and capitulating to progressive overreach isn’t an option.

Trump emphasized that the public rejects gridlock, yearning for leaders who deliver results without the looming threat of government shutdowns. His vision of the "most successful four years" in national history hinges on bold moves to safeguard the integrity of our institutions from ideological tampering.

Holder's Persistent Critique of Court Legitimacy

Holder’s rhetoric has only sharpened over time, as seen in his January 2024 comments on MSNBC’s The ReidOut about Trump’s eligibility case, where he claimed "there is again no constitutional basis for it, no historical precedent for it." Such statements paint the court as teetering on the edge of public trust, but they conveniently dodge how his own proposals might erode that trust further by politicizing the bench.

He warned that a ruling favoring Trump would "really put at risk how the court will be viewed by the American public," framing it as a blow to democracy itself. Yet, one wonders if Holder sees the irony in championing a court-packing scheme that could just as easily be perceived as a democratic backslide.

His repeated grievances, from Garland to Barrett, suggest a playbook rooted in retribution rather than reform, always ready to wield power when it suits his side. This isn’t about fixing a "crisis of legitimacy"; it’s about creating a court that answers to a specific worldview, no matter the cost to stability.

Safeguarding the Republic’s Core Principles

The stakes Trump outlines couldn’t be higher, as allowing such a drastic expansion would tilt the judiciary into a tool of whichever party holds the reins. Americans deserve a court that interprets the law, not one remade to reflect the latest political fad or vendetta.

Holder’s ideas, while presented as a remedy for perceived imbalances, carry the potential to fracture the separation of powers that defines our republic. If Democrats pursue this path, they risk setting a precedent where every shift in power brings another round of judicial restructuring, leaving no branch untouched by partisan whims.

Trump’s urgency in rallying Republicans to resist this plan speaks to a broader need to protect what has endured through centuries of challenge. The Constitution isn’t a plaything to be reshaped on a whim, and defending it demands vigilance against schemes that prioritize ideology over enduring principle.