Amy Klobuchar Gets Flustered During Testy Exchange With Ted Cruz: ‘What Did You Just Say?’

In a fiery Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, tensions boiled over as Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) sparred in a sharp exchange over the role of federal courts in blocking Trump-era policies, exposing deep partisan rifts over judicial authority.

The clash came during a contentious debate over the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025, a Republican-backed bill that seeks to bar federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions—rulings that have halted major executive actions in recent years.

Klobuchar, defending Democratic state attorneys general for filing lawsuits in response to what she called unconstitutional actions, accused Trump-appointed judges of overstepping their roles.

“The only reason there’s all these injunctions, Senator Cruz,” Klobuchar began, “is because he’s violating the Constitution. Why would Trump-appointed judges prove—”

Cruz then interjected with a question that set off a tense back-and-forth. “Why don’t you file them in red districts?” Cruz shot back.

“Why don’t you file them in red districts?” Cruz repeated. “Why are the Democrat attorneys general seeking out left-wing, blue-seam colleagues?”

WATCH:

TRIGGERED
Amy Klobuchar gets mega-frustrated by Ted Cruz: “I will take more than my time since he’s taking more than his time to YELL AT ME.” pic.twitter.com/bKrbJPwZbs
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 2, 2025

Cruz’s sarcastic tone and pointed questions prompted audible frustration from Klobuchar, who tried to regain control of her time. “I am so excited to be following Senator Cruz once again,” she said dryly.

“I’m not yelling,” Cruz insisted. “I asked a question.”

“And I will take more than my time,” Klobuchar said, “since he’s taken more than his time to yell at me.”

The legislation, if passed, would limit court rulings to only the parties directly involved in a case, effectively ending the practice of sweeping injunctions that apply nationwide. A similar bill has been introduced in the House by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), with support from Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA).

Democrats, however, claim that such injunctions are often the only effective check on executive overreach. While the legislation has energized conservatives frustrated by recent legal roadblocks to Trump’s agenda, it has also highlighted the growing acrimony between Republicans and Democrats over how—and where—legal fights should be waged.

Since President Donald Trump’s return to office in January 2025, his administration has encountered significant judicial resistance, with federal judges issuing at least 15 nationwide injunctions against key policies. These injunctions have temporarily halted initiatives such as the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, the termination of birthright citizenship, and the prohibition of transgender individuals serving in the military.

In response, the Trump administration has intensified its criticism of the judiciary. President Trump has publicly attacked judges who have ruled against his policies, labeling them as “highly conflicted” and suggesting that they are biased against his administration. For instance, he criticized U.S. District Judge James Boasberg after the judge was assigned to cases involving the administration, questioning the fairness of the judicial process.