A Florida jurist who gave Donald Trump a legal boost in his ongoing battle with the Pulitzer Prize Board has now secured a lifetime seat on the federal bench.
Judge Ed Artau, known for siding with Trump in a case challenging the Pulitzer Board’s refusal to revoke journalism awards tied to coverage of Russian interference, was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in a narrow 50-43 Senate vote along party lines.
The move makes Artau the sixth Trump nominee of the former president’s second term to clear the Senate, continuing a sweeping campaign to stack the judiciary with conservatives. It also adds to the 234 judges Trump placed during his first term—an imprint that reshaped the federal courts.
Artau, the son of Cuban immigrants who fled the island in 1962, has served on Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal since 2020, after a stint as a trial judge beginning in 2014. His nomination came just months after he joined a panel that allowed Trump’s defamation case against the Pulitzer Board to advance.
That lawsuit stems from the Board’s 2018 decision to honor the Washington Post and New York Times for their reporting on alleged ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. When independent reviews upheld the awards, Trump sued, branding the reporting “fake news.” Artau, in his concurring opinion earlier this year, agreed the case should proceed, criticizing what he called “now-debunked allegations.”
During Senate debate, Democrats blasted Artau’s path to nomination as riddled with conflicts. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused him of “one of the most blatant cases of quid pro quo I have ever seen,” alleging Artau pursued the federal seat while presiding over Trump’s lawsuit.
At his confirmation hearing, Democratic senators pressed him on whether litigants could ever expect impartiality. Artau insisted he harbored “no personal bias or prejudice” and rejected suggestions that his judicial aspirations influenced his rulings.
With his confirmation, Trump further cements his influence over the courts—while reigniting debate about judicial independence, political loyalty, and the thin line between ambition and impartial justice.
