A Pattern of Evasion: How President Trump’s Judicial Nominees Avoid the Truth to Secure Lifetime Appointments

Overview

A new Demand Justice report analyzed the Questions for the Record (“QFRs”) and oral testimonies submitted by President Trump’s Article III judicial nominees in 2025, finding that all 33 respondents provided answers about the 2020 election and January 6, 2021 that were dishonest or misleading.

The analysis finds that nominees’ responses appear nearly identical, with many nominees using verbatim phrasing, repeating key words, and, overall, using unusual and evasive language that’s almost entirely outside the normal, historical, and common lexicon used to describe such events.

For instance, every nominee provided near-identical phrasing to avoid a direct answer about the 2020 election, instead referencing the results of the Congressional “certification” process, or answering by noting that President Biden “served” as President. And 27 of 33 nominees provided extremely similar responses in regard to January 6, often describing what transpired as a “political issue” and refusing to comment further.

All 33 nominees omitted key phrases and descriptions commonly used to describe the factual events of the 2020 election and January 6.

One now-confirmed judge – Maria Ann Lanahan – who serves on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, responded to a question about January 6th by stating: “I was not present at the U.S. Capitol at the time. I do not have personal knowledge of the details.”

In short, not a single answer provided by the nominees on the 2020 election or January 6 was a direct, factual response – all nominees used similar language and sentence construction to avoid contradicting President Trump’s false narratives about both events.

Background

As part of the confirmation process, all nominees receive a hearing in which members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have the opportunity to ask those individuals questions. Afterwards, senators on committee are able to submit written questions to nominees after their hearing. These QFRs are another chance for senators to elicit information from nominees beyond their brief 5 minutes of in-person questioning.

Historically, judicial nominees have avoided providing direct answers on questions of unsettled law or constitutional interpretation that may come before them if confirmed. Yet, on these two subjects, President Trump’s second term judicial nominees repeatedly avoid providing answers on basic questions of documented, established, and historical fact.

Nominees have been asked numerous questions related to the 2020 election and January 6. To ensure as uniform a comparison as possible, in regard to the election, this report primarily focuses on one question that all nominees were uniformly asked: “Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?” In regard to January 6, we evaluated the answers to two questions, one of which at least all nominees were asked: “Was the U.S. Capitol attacked by a violent mob on January 6, 2021?,” or “Do you agree with me that the attack at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, was an insurrection? Why or why not?”

Our analysis finds that answers to these questions, as well similar ones raised during hearings and additional QFRs, are strikingly uniform. On the 2020 election: nominees’ answers use nearly identical phrasing that avoids plainly acknowledging President Biden’s victory. On January 6, responses universally fail to speak to the plain facts on what occurred during the attack on the Capitol.

Analysis – A Pattern of Evasion

2020 Election Results

All 33 nominees were asked, “Did Trump lose the 2020 election?”

Not a single nominee was willing to state the affirmative fact that Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
All nominees referred to the certification process as opposed to the actual results in overwhelmingly similar terms.
Further avoiding speaking to President Biden’s victory, 19 out of 33 said only that Biden “served” as president.
Strongly, and falsely, suggesting the results of the 2020 election are still in legal dispute, nearly one-third (10 out of 33) nominees further declined to answer the question on additional grounds, typically suggesting it would be “improper” to “opine,” “express an opinion,” or be seen as “opining” on the results of the election.
Further, 7 out of those 10 who answered in this manner used strikingly similar phrasing when starting to do so: “To the extent this question seeks…”

Key Omissions:

0 of the 33 nominees said that President Trump lost the 2020 election.
0 of the 33 nominees used other common election terms such as: popular vote or margin of victory.
0 of the 33 nominees said that all litigation on the election’s results had concluded many years ago and no court had found any meaningful evidence of fraud.
0 of the 33 nominees said that President Biden received over 300 electoral votes.
0 of the 33 nominees said that President Biden won the popular vote by 7 million.

The Events of January 6, 2021

For reference: All 33 nominees were asked either, “Was the U.S. Capitol attacked by a violent mob on January 6, 2021?,” or “Do you agree with me that the attack at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, was an insurrection? Why or why not?”

Not one nominee was willing to speak to the events that occurred that day.
- 27 out of 33 of nominees characterized the events of January 6 as a political issue, using phrases such as “political debate,” “political controversy,” or “political issue.”

Despite not being asked about this topic, 12 out of 33 raised the pardons that Trump issued for those convicted due to their actions on January 6.
Despite the well-documented loss of life, violence, and damage committed on January 6, including the five police officers who died due to the events of the riot, only 4 of the nominees mentioned law enforcement at all.
- While all four denounced violence towards law enforcement, all but one of their answers were speaking about law enforcement generally and not tied specifically to the violence on January 6.
Beyond the 4 nominees who denounced violence towards law enforcement, only 3 additional nominees mentioned violence on that day in any capacity.
Nearly two-thirds of nominees, 21 out of 33, said it would be “improper,” “impermissible,” “inappropriate,” or “not appropriate” to comment on the events of January 6.
Related, 29 of the 33 claimed judicial ethics rules prevented them from answering the question.
- 13 cited specifically to Canon 3(A)(6), which prohibits the discussion of pending and impending litigation despite the nature of the attack on the Capitol not being the focus of any legal dispute.

Key Omissions:

0 of the 33 nominees mentioned the specific law enforcement officers who died as a result of the events that occurred on January 6.
0 of the 33 nominees used commonsense descriptions of what happened that day: attack, trespassing, breaking and entering, destruction of property, and/or vandalism.
0 of the 33 nominees mentioned that the House and Senate chambers were broken into.
0 of the 33 nominees mentioned that the bipartisan United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol found enough evidence to recommend that the Department of Justice indict Trump for his part in the events of January 6 and made that recommendation to the DOJ in December 2022.
0 of the 33 nominees mentioned the death threats the rioters directed at Mike Pence.
0 of the 33 nominees thanked the law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol for their bravery.

Conclusion

All Article III judges swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution – ethical conduct and truthful behavior during the confirmation process is a prerequisite to that oath. Yet every nominee this year has repeated dishonest or misleading information about two historical facts, an indication that such answers are a political requirement for securing a nomination from President Trump. To date, 19 Democratic Senators have voted to confirm at least one judicial nominee who gave dishonest or misleading information about January 6 and the 2020 election.

See the nominees' full responses below:

Did Trump lose the 2020 election?

President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election and served as the 46th President of the United States. To the extent this question seeks to elicit an answer that could be taken as opining on the broader political debate regarding the conduct of the 2020 presidential election or on statements by any political figure, my response, consistent with the position of prior judicial nominees when asked questions regarding the 2020 election or political commentary, is that it would be improper to offer any such comment as a judicial nominee. See Code of Conduct U.S. Judges, Canon 3A(6); Canon 5.