Federal Judges Warn Trump Rhetoric Fueling Threats to Judicial Safety

Federal judges in the United States are sounding an alarm unlike any in modern American history. As President Donald Trump escalates his verbal attacks on the judiciary — calling judges "monsters," "lunatics," and "communist radical left judges" — the men and women who serve on the federal bench say they are facing a torrent of death threats, harassment, and intimidation that is putting their lives and their families in danger [1][2].

The numbers tell a stark story: the U.S. Marshals Service recorded 564 threats against 396 federal judges in fiscal year 2025, up from 509 threats the prior year [3]. In the first five months of 2025 alone, 373 threats were investigated — nearly matching the entire previous year's total [4]. And since fiscal year 2026 began in October 2025, another 131 threats have already been logged [1]. Anti-judicial rhetoric online has surged 327 percent between May 2024 and March 2025 [2].

As one federal judge put it, political leaders are "playing Russian roulette with our lives" [5].

The Rhetoric: From Disagreement to Delegitimization

Presidential criticism of judicial decisions is nothing new. But legal scholars and judges themselves say Trump's rhetoric has crossed a line from policy disagreement into systematic delegitimization of the judiciary as an institution [6].

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump and his administration have labeled federal judges who ruled against his policies as "rogue," "crooked," and "lunatic," casting their decisions not as merely incorrect, but as fundamentally illegitimate [7]. After losing a court battle over deportation flights for alleged Venezuelan gang members, Trump called the presiding judge "a lunatic." When immigration crackdowns were ruled illegal, he called the judges "monsters who want our country to go to hell" [7][8].

"And also we cannot allow a handful of communist radical left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States," Trump declared in one characteristic statement [7].

The Brennan Center for Justice has tracked these attacks in a comprehensive database, documenting a pattern that goes far beyond any previous administration's criticism of the courts [6]. The White House has dismissed suggestions that the president's comments fuel threats, with a spokesperson calling the connection "deeply unserious" [9]. Yet the judges on the receiving end of both the rhetoric and the threats see a direct and unmistakable link.

The Threats: Voicemails, Swatting, and Worse

The threats are not abstract. They are deeply personal, often violent, and increasingly directed at judges' families.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell has received more than 400 "vile, threatening, horrible" voicemails since January 2025, including messages wishing for his imprisonment and assassination [1]. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth has received multiple death threats at his home [5]. Someone sent a SWAT team to the home of U.S. District Judge John Coughenour after he overturned one of Trump's executive orders — a tactic known as "swatting" that involves filing a false emergency report to trigger an armed police response [5].

At least 11 federal judges' families have dealt with threats of violence or harassment following rulings against the Trump administration, according to a Reuters investigation [5]. Judges in Washington state have described the threats as "just so disgusting," detailing harassment that escalated after Trump-related rulings [10].

In a CBS News "60 Minutes" investigation, judges reported that hundreds of threatening messages were left on courthouse voicemail systems, with callers echoing the president's language almost verbatim [9][1].

Source: U.S. Marshals Service / Bloomberg Law / CBS News

Data as of Mar 13, 2026CSV

The Security Dilemma: Who Protects the Judges?

Perhaps the most alarming dimension of this crisis is a structural one: the U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for protecting federal judges, reports to Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice — which answers to the same president who is attacking the judges [5][11].

This chain of command has created what judges describe as a fundamental conflict of interest. Trump has already demonstrated a willingness to withdraw security protection from those he perceives as enemies, having previously pulled protection from former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former National Security Advisor John Bolton [5].

At the semiannual meeting of the Judicial Conference in March 2025, judges took the extraordinary step of discussing the creation of their own armed security force — a move that would be unprecedented in American history [11][12]. The proposal, discussed behind closed doors, reflects the depth of judges' concern that the executive branch cannot be trusted to protect a judiciary it is actively attacking.

"The idea that the same branch of government that is calling us 'monsters' is also in charge of our physical safety — that's a problem that keeps judges up at night," one federal judge told Rolling Stone [12].

Senator Cory Booker and other Democrats have introduced legislation that would transfer control of the U.S. Marshals from the executive to the judicial branch, allowing the Chief Justice and the Judicial Conference to appoint the Marshals Service director [5]. The bill has not advanced in the Republican-controlled Congress.

The Legislative Offensive: Impeachment Threats and Power Stripping

While judges face physical threats from the public, they are simultaneously confronting institutional threats from Congress. Six judicial impeachment resolutions were introduced in 2025, targeting judges who ruled against the administration [13][14].

Among the targets is Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. District Court, who halted deportation flights. Other judges facing impeachment threats include U.S. District Judges Paul A. Engelmayer and John Bates [13]. Chief Justice Roberts issued a rare public statement in response: "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose" [15].

Rather than pursuing impeachment directly, House Republican leaders have taken a legislative approach to curtail judicial power. The House passed the "No Rogue Rulings Act," led by Rep. Darrell Issa, which limits district court judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions — a tool that has been pivotal in blocking Trump administration policies. The vote was 219-213, along party lines [14][13].

More quietly, a provision was inserted into the sprawling "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" that would prevent federal courts from using appropriated funds to enforce contempt-of-court citations in certain circumstances — a move legal experts called a stealth attack on judicial enforcement power [13].

Source: GDELT Project

Data as of Mar 13, 2026CSV

The Supreme Court Strategy: Emergency Orders and Judicial Minimization

The administration's assault on judicial power extends to the highest court. An analysis of Trump's Justice Department filings reveals a systematic strategy to diminish the role of lower courts: 97 percent of the 31 emergency requests filed at the Supreme Court since February 2025 claim that judges are improperly interfering with presidential power, compared to just 26 percent of the Biden administration's emergency requests over four years [16].

This strategy seeks to establish the principle that federal district judges lack the jurisdiction or authority to review or block executive actions — effectively asking the Supreme Court to render much of the federal judiciary powerless to check presidential overreach [16][17].

In 2025, the Brennan Center documented at least 117 state-level bills attacking the independence or powers of courts, with 15 becoming law [18]. In Utah, a new law subjects the chief justice to gubernatorial reappointment every eight years — signed after the state supreme court blocked a gerrymandered congressional map. In Arkansas, legislation steered constitutional cases away from judges in the capital city [18].

Chief Justice Roberts and the Defense of Independence

Chief Justice John Roberts has emerged as the judiciary's most prominent defender, though his power to actually protect the institution is limited.

In his 2024 year-end report, Roberts identified four threats to judicial independence: violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments [15]. "Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary," he wrote, "but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others" [15].

Roberts drew an explicit parallel to the desegregation era of the 1950s and 1960s, when federal judges faced threats for ordering school integration and the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations stood behind the courts. He warned that the nation had "avoided the standoffs" since that era, but that "elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be rejected" [15].

In May 2025, Roberts went further, publicly declaring that government "doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent" [15]. A survey by the National Judicial College found that 90 percent of judges believe judicial independence is under threat [19].

The Noncompliance Problem

Beyond rhetoric and threats, the crisis has manifested in what many legal scholars consider the most dangerous development of all: executive noncompliance with court orders.

A Washington Post investigation found that Trump officials were accused of defying one in three judges who ruled against the administration [20]. This noncompliance directly undermines the foundation of the judicial system — the principle that court orders carry the force of law and must be obeyed by all parties, including the government.

Roberts addressed this directly in his year-end report, writing that "judicial independence is undermined unless the other branches are firm in their responsibility to enforce the court's decrees" [15]. Legal experts warn that if the pattern continues, it could erode public confidence in the courts and the rule of law itself [19][6].

Historical Context: An Unprecedented Convergence

The United States has seen attacks on the judiciary before. President Andrew Jackson reportedly defied a Supreme Court ruling, and Franklin Roosevelt attempted to pack the court. During the civil rights era, southern officials openly resisted federal court orders.

But legal historians say the current moment is distinguished by the convergence of multiple threats simultaneously: the president's personal attacks on individual judges, congressional threats of impeachment, legislative efforts to strip judicial power, executive noncompliance with court orders, a surge in physical threats against judges and their families, and structural concerns about the independence of the security force charged with protecting judges [6][19].

"We are in genuinely uncharted territory," said former federal judge Jeremy Fogel, who co-convened a meeting of former judges and legal experts to discuss threats to the rule of law through the organization Protect Democracy [21]. "The system of checks and balances is being tested in ways we haven't seen in our lifetimes."

The American Bar Association has identified the threats to judicial independence as among the most serious challenges to the rule of law in the organization's history, calling on political leaders of all parties to refrain from personal attacks on judges and to ensure compliance with court orders [19].

What Comes Next

The trajectory of the crisis remains uncertain. The Supreme Court will continue to adjudicate emergency requests from the administration seeking to limit lower courts' power. Congressional efforts to restrict judicial authority through legislation are ongoing. And the Judicial Conference continues to explore options for securing the physical safety of judges outside the executive branch's chain of command.

What is clear is that the federal judiciary — the branch of government designed by the framers to be insulated from political pressure — is under a degree of strain that is testing the constitutional framework itself. The judges who took an oath to uphold the law now find themselves asking a question that would have seemed unthinkable a generation ago: who will protect them while they do it?