The head of the Federal Trade Commission under the Trump administration likened the American Bar Association to the “communist party” on Thursday, accusing the powerful legal group of using its influence to advance a far-left agenda.
“This is the equivalent of enrolling me in the Communist Party of America,” FTC Commissioner Andrew Ferguson said, recounting how he was automatically signed up for ABA membership early in his legal career.
Ferguson on the ABA: “This organization is extraordinarily dangerous… the equivalent of enrolling me in the Communist Party of America.”
Says the group labeled even mainstream GOP judicial nominees “unqualified” with “dangerous, radical views,” and argued its role in shaping…
— Kaelan Deese (@KaelanDC) March 26, 2026
His remarks came during a broader discussion hosted by the Federalist Society’s Young Lawyers Chapter about whether the ABA’s long-standing control over law school accreditation raises antitrust concerns and undermines state authority over the legal profession.
For decades, the ABA has served as the primary accreditor of U.S. law schools. Because many states require graduation from an ABA-accredited institution to sit for the bar exam, many conservative critics argue the group effectively controls entry into the legal profession.
Panelists, including America First Legal executive director Gene Hamilton, Texas Deputy Attorney General Brent Webster, and Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker, repeatedly questioned whether that authority has been exercised in a politically neutral manner.
Citing a recent analysis by AFL, speakers said roughly 80% of the ABA’s amicus briefs over the past decade advanced liberal-leaning positions, about 20% were neutral, and none supported conservative outcomes. In cases involving President Donald Trump or his allies, the ABA sided against them every time it filed.
/1
EXPOSED — AFL has released a report finding that 80% of the American Bar Association’s filings from the last decade support leftist causes and lawfare against President Trump.
The ABA is not a neutral arbiter and does not deserve to be treated like one. pic.twitter.com/GHdAu2TkYn
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) March 26, 2026
“Whatever the ABA once was, it has become an unapologetic arm of the Democrat Party,” Ferguson said, arguing that federal agencies should not “lend credibility and prestige” to the organization.
The FTC has already taken steps to distance itself. Ferguson said he directed the agency to prohibit political appointees from joining the ABA, speaking at its events, or using government resources to participate in its activities.
The criticism aligns with a broader push by the Trump administration to curtail the ABA’s influence. The Justice Department has moved away from its traditional role working with the ABA on judicial nominee evaluations, citing concerns about bias, while an executive order issued last spring warned that accrediting bodies engaging in unlawful discrimination could lose federal recognition.
Conservative legal groups have also intensified scrutiny. A report released last year by former and current Heritage Foundation scholars GianCarlo Canaparo and Zack Smith argued the ABA “has been politicized” and now operates as an activist organization rather than a neutral standard-setter.
The report highlighted the ABA’s advocacy on issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gender identity, as well as its position that the Equal Rights Amendment should be treated as ratified despite rejection by courts and federal archivists.
More significantly, the report argued that the ABA’s role as the sole nationally recognized law school accreditor allows it to impose ideological requirements on legal education, including diversity mandates that critics say conflict with federal law and Supreme Court precedent.
A recent clash between the ABA and the religious Thomas More Law School in Florida exemplified the problem. There, the accreditation scrutiny centered on whether the school’s Catholic teachings could conflict with ABA nondiscrimination standards on sexual orientation and gender identity. The ABA ultimately dropped its inquiry into the school earlier this month after Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier denounced the investigation as discriminating against the school’s religious values.
At Thursday’s standing-room panel, state officials described those concerns as already shaping policy decisions.
Texas recently moved to decouple from ABA accreditation requirements, allowing alternative pathways for law schools to qualify graduates for the bar. Florida has taken similar steps, with officials signaling further reforms may follow.
Ferguson and other speakers framed it as both an antitrust and federalism problem, warning that a single accreditor with no meaningful competition can distort the marketplace for legal education.
“If there’s nowhere else to go, that organization will drift,” Ferguson said, arguing the ABA’s influence extends beyond cost to shaping “which ideas are you required to be introduced to” in law school.
Critics also argue ABA accreditation rules contribute to rising costs by mandating faculty structures, facilities, and program requirements that limit innovation and competition.
The ABA disputes those claims and maintains that its centralized role benefits students and the profession.
“An accreditor recognized by all states — which allows portability of law degrees — is in the best interests of law students, law schools, states, and the profession,” Daniel Thies, chairman of the ABA’s legal education council, told the Washington Examiner in a statement.
“The Council has been recognized as this accreditor because it is committed to ensuring that lawyers receive a quality legal education so they can competently and ethically serve their clients and the public,” Thies said. “The consistent quality of Council-accredited schools and student outcomes is a testament to that commitment.”
He added that the ABA views its role as a “privilege and an honor” and intends to continue supporting the legal system nationwide.
Still, momentum appears to be building among Republican-led states and federal officials to challenge that role.
DOJ ANTITRUST SHAKE-UP REFLECTS EFFORT TO DEFINE ‘MAGA ANTITRUST’
At least 17 states currently tie bar eligibility directly to ABA-accredited degrees, creating what critics describe as a self-reinforcing system that makes it difficult for alternative accrediting models to emerge.
As more states explore breaking from that structure, the long-standing model of a single national gatekeeper for the legal profession is facing its most serious test in decades.