While sources close to Alito have said in recent days that he has no intention of retiring after the current high-court term, those reports have no bearing on the Oval Office’s modus operandi to always be prepared in the event of a vacancy, according to people who are advising the president on nominees from an outside capacity.

“The White House is always ready to go” with a Supreme Court nominee, said one source who is currently advising in the judicial nominations process. “I think there is reasonably a shorter list of people that would be examined if time comes for a vacancy.”

From outsourcing to ownership

In Trump’s first term, his judicial strategy was, by design, outsourced.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump released a public list of possible Supreme Court nominees in the wake of the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death — a move aimed at reassuring skeptical conservatives that he would appoint reliably originalist judges. That list was heavily shaped by outside institutions, particularly the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, signaling that those groups would play a central vetting role.

At the center of that effort was then-executive vice president of the Federalist Society Leonard Leo, who effectively served as the architect of Trump’s judicial pipeline, helping guide selections that included current Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

In Trump’s second term, the departure from advising with Leo has been the biggest and most discernible difference.

The infrastructure remains — the same legal networks, the same credential pipeline — but the locus of control has moved inward. The White House counsel’s office runs point on nominations, and Trump himself is far more engaged in the selection process.

“The president is actually interested in the particulars this time in ways that he just wasn’t last time,” said Mike Fragoso, a former Senate Judiciary Committee aide and former chief counsel to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Trump’s interest and involvement were not just superficial. Fragoso said Trump is now directly engaged with advisers and outside voices, including conversations with allies such as Article III Project founder Mike Davis, reflecting a more hands-on approach to evaluating candidates and legal strategy.

Other judicial nominee advice has stemmed from corners of Trump’s orbit, including figures such as deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and members of his founded advocacy group, America First Legal.

That increased involvement of a number of high-profile figures and Trump loyalists has helped concentrate decision-making inside the White House counsel’s office, led by David Warrington and his team. While outside advisers and conservative legal figures still provide input, interviews conducted by the Washington Examiner suggest their role is more consultative than directive.

A source familiar with the process said that dynamic is subject to change for higher profile nominees.

“For something like a Supreme Court nominee, the decision will come directly from Trump,” the source said.

The same pipeline — with a twist

Despite the shift in control, both Mike Fragoso and Robert Luther III, a George Mason University law professor who served as associate counsel in the White House Counsel’s Office during Trump’s first term, said the composition of nominees has not meaningfully diverged from Trump 1.0.

“We were looking for candidates with fortitude who were originalists and textualists, with strong credentials,” said Luther, who is now an outside adviser to the process. “That’s what we’re still seeing.”

Fragoso said: “The talent pool of smart, conservative young lawyers — they’re all in the same network.”

That network, heavily influenced by the Federalist Society, continues to produce candidates with familiar credentials: elite clerkships, experience in constitutional litigation, and backgrounds in state solicitor general offices.

Luther said the defining characteristics of Trump-era nominees remain consistent.

“We were looking for candidates with fortitude who were originalists and textualists, with strong credentials,” he said. “That’s what we’re still seeing.”

A separate source outside the administration familiar with the process said roughly “80%” of current nominees would be indistinguishable from those selected in Trump’s first term, pushing back at prior media reports that Trump would seek to distance himself from the Federalist Society.

“At the end of the day, the talent pool of smart, conservative young lawyers — they’re all in the Federalist Society, so it’s sort of the same basket of apples,” Fragoso said.

What has changed, however, is an added layer of personal connection.

At least a handful of appellate court appointees have represented Trump in litigation or served in his administration, such as D.C. Circuit Judge Greg Katsas, who was previously deputy counsel under Trump 1.0, reflecting what Fragoso described as a “slight preference” for candidates with direct ties to the president.

That preference is not dispositive, he said, but it can serve as a differentiator among otherwise similarly qualified candidates.

DOJ’s role: critical but behind the scenes

While the White House drives the selection process, the Justice Department plays a key supporting role once a nominee is chosen.

Chad Mizelle, who previously served as chief of staff to former Attorney General Pam Bondi, said DOJ’s involvement is focused less on picking candidates and more on ensuring they survive confirmation.

“Once that decision is made, that’s when DOJ really gets involved,” Mizelle said. “We’re going to help the person put together their questionnaire, dig into the details, and make sure everything is complete.”

That process centers on the Senate Judiciary Questionnaire, a comprehensive document that requires nominees to disclose their legal work, public statements, and professional history.

Mizelle said the stakes are high.

“The worst-case scenario is that something isn’t disclosed,” he said. “That can be a really bad look and could even block a nomination.”

DOJ lawyers, he said, work “around the clock” to comb through decades of a nominee’s record, from speeches to legal filings, ensuring there are no surprises during confirmation hearings.

“It’s incredibly important work,” Mizelle said, describing the department’s role as a “supporting” one that operates largely out of public view.

He contrasted that approach with what he described as shortcomings in the previous administration’s vetting process.

“We’re picking better candidates, full stop,” Mizelle said, pointing to instances where prior nominees struggled to answer basic legal questions or failed to fully disclose key information.

Loyalty, law, and the confirmation game

The increased emphasis on personal familiarity and loyalty to the president has fueled debate over whether Trump is prioritizing piety to the president in his judicial picks.

However, Fragoso said that narrative framing misses the mark.

“The vast majority of these people are serious constitutionalists,” he said, adding that they have a “loyalty to the Constitution.”

Still, the political dimension becomes unavoidable during confirmation hearings, where nominees face increasingly pointed questions designed to test their independence.

One of the most common lines of questioning involves the 2020 election, with Democrats pressing nominees to state explicitly that former President Joe Biden won. Nominees typically respond with carefully constructed answers, noting that Biden was certified as the winner, without going further.

Fragoso described those exchanges as tactical.

“What Democrats want is for the nominee to say something that’s going to create a problem,” he said.

He characterized the hearings as a strategic exercise rather than a substantive one.

“It’s just moves and countermoves,” he added.

Alito speculation and the inside short list dynamics

All of these dynamics take on added significance amid persistent speculation about the future of the Supreme Court, particularly surrounding Alito.

Sources familiar with the justice’s thinking have tamped down expectations of an imminent retirement. Earlier this month, sources told CBS News that Alito, 76, is not planning to step down this year. Similar guidance has been conveyed regarding Justice Clarence Thomas, 77, who also has no current plans to retire.

Fragoso said such reporting likely reflects the justices’ present thinking — but emphasized that those decisions can shift quickly.

“I think it’s correct that his current thinking is that he will stay,” he said. “That doesn’t mean in two months it won’t be different.”

Even one source described discussion about Alito’s career decisions as counterproductive, noting that he finds the chatter “offensive” and does not want to be seen as “expired meat.”

Behind the scenes, there is no confirmed formal short list, but conversations among those familiar with the process point to a relatively small universe of serious contenders.

A source who wished to remain anonymous said for the White House, there may be what amounts to an informal “first tier” of potential candidates that frequently come up in legal circles. That group includes figures such as Solicitor General John Sauer and U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida, along with a handful of other appellate jurists widely viewed as viable options.

“I think there is probably a handful of people that would be looked at,” the source said.

For more conventional options for Trump to pick as a Supreme Court nominee, sources have said Trump-appointed 5th Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham would be a top contender on account of his prior clerkship with Alito back in 2008, giving him a model jurisprudence that would mirror the current justice.

But from a Trump 2.0 lens, a person like Sauer, 51, might be an obvious choice on account of his legal pedigree, his prior service to Trump on his legal counsel, and his willingness to take on difficult legal arguments such as Trump’s bid to undo birthright citizenship.

For Cannon, the justification is also simple in that she was previously nominated by Trump and on account of her handling of his classified documents indictment brought by former special Jack Smith, which resulted in her dismissing the case after finding Smith to be unlawfully appointed. But the problem, one source said, is that her position as a district judge might be difficult to justify her elevation to one of nine high court seats, though her being only 45 years old also provides a confidence that she would remain on the court for decades to come.

A source inside the administration offered a more pointed assessment of how Trump might approach the decision if a seat opens. Despite much resistance by Democrats to Trump’s nominees during his first term, the only nominee to encounter much resistance, 3rd Circuit Judge Emil Bove, was harped on by Trump’s adversaries primarily over his closeness and loyalty to the president prior to his second term in office, and for his handling of high-profile cases like the dismissal of the corruption case involving former New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

Bove was also one of Trump’s personal lawyers who served alongside Todd Blanche, now the current Acting Attorney General, during Trump’s string of criminal cases. And it just so happens that a candidate like Bove is one who sources in the administration say would be a ripe pick for the president were a vacancy to occur on the Supreme Court.

“If he can get Judge Bove to 50 votes, he would absolutely select him to replace Alito,” one source in the administration told the Washington Examiner.

The same source noted that while candidates like Cannon are seen as viable, there is recognition inside the administration that elevating a district court judge directly to the Supreme Court could present confirmation challenges.

SENATE GOP ‘PREPARED’ TO CONFIRM ALITO HIGH COURT REPLACEMENT BEFORE MIDTERM ELECTION

Taken together, those insights reinforce the central theme of Trump’s second-term judicial strategy. The candidate pool remains rooted in the same conservative legal ecosystem that shaped his first term.

But the selection process itself has become more personal, more fluid, and more directly influenced by the president’s own instincts, especially when it comes to the highest court.