President Trump has never been shy about calling out what he sees as corruption in America’s legal system. Now, in an exclusive interview, he’s warning that the practice of “judge-shopping” has grown so out of control it threatens the very foundation of equal justice.

Judge-shopping isn’t a new concept, but in the hands of Democrat power lawyers like Marc Elias, it has become a sharp political weapon. The idea is simple: activists file cases in courts where they know a sympathetic judge is likely to be assigned. That means you can practically predict the ruling before the case ever begins. Trump, who has seen critical parts of his agenda blocked in court, described the tactic bluntly: “You know the outcome of a case as soon as the judge is picked.”

The president didn’t mince words. He warned that the Left is using judge-shopping as “their final weapon” to “take down America.”

Breitbart’s Alex Marlow, who detailed the practice in his book Breaking the Law, points to examples like the 2008 Minnesota Senate race. Marc Elias steered that recount battle to a favorable courtroom where rejected ballots—including those suspected of being cast by felons—were eventually counted, flipping the race to Democrat Al Franken. That one seat gave Barack Obama the 60-vote majority needed to ram through Obamacare.

The problem isn’t confined to the past. During Trump’s first administration, four judges in deep-blue jurisdictions blocked his move to end birthright citizenship. And when he tried to use the Alien Enemies Act, Judge James Boasberg—who just happened to be “available” on a Saturday morning—was assigned the case. Critics argue the timing looked more like coordination than coincidence.

The tactic is effective precisely because of how the federal court system is structured. Some courts have just one or two judges, making outcomes easy to predict. Others, like the D.C. District Court, are stacked with judges who share the same ideological outlook. By carefully choosing the venue, the Left ensures that conservative policies face a hostile bench before arguments even begin.

This raises deep concerns about impartiality. Judges don’t just rule on the law—they control what evidence comes in, how juries are instructed, and what arguments are allowed. A strategically placed judge can tilt the playing field in ways that go unnoticed by the public but have massive consequences.

Trump says the pattern is too obvious to ignore. “Judge-shopping is rampant at levels never seen before,” he said, warning that the tactic could destroy faith in the courts entirely. If Americans come to believe that court outcomes are predetermined by politics, the principle of equal justice under law collapses.

Breitbart’s reporting notes that while many courts use random assignment, loopholes and manipulation make true randomness rare. Some activist attorneys file identical lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, increasing their odds of landing the “right” judge. Others time their filings to target judges they know are available. These maneuvers, while technically legal, undermine the spirit of impartial justice.

For conservatives, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Trump’s critics often talk about “protecting democracy,” but weaponizing the courts through judge-shopping undermines the very system that protects all citizens. As Trump and his allies argue, if the courts can be gamed, then no conservative policy—no matter how popular—can survive the gauntlet of activist judges.

The president says it’s time to reform the system before it’s too late. But dismantling judge-shopping won’t be simple. It would require structural changes in how cases are assigned and how courts handle venue rules. Still, Trump insists the fight must begin now.

In his words, if America doesn’t put an end to this tactic, the damage will go far beyond partisan politics. It could erode the foundation of justice itself.