Judges Under Siege: How Trump’s War on the Courts Is Breaking the Law

Judges Under Siege: How Threats, Disinformation, and Political Attacks Are Eroding Trust in the U.S. Judiciary

May 13, 2026

The New Normal: A Judiciary Under Attack

For decades, American judges have operated under the assumption that their rulings—however controversial—would be respected, even if criticized. But in the past five years, that assumption has eroded. Judges now face a relentless barrage of threats, doxxing, impeachment calls, and even physical violence, often fueled by rhetoric from the highest levels of government. The result? A judiciary under siege, where fear of retaliation is reshaping how justice is administered.

This isn’t a partisan issue—it’s a democratic one. As two veteran federal judges recently told Slate’s Amicus podcast, the scale, tone, and source of these attacks are unprecedented. "We’re not just dealing with angry litigants anymore," said Judge Jeremy Fogel, former director of the Federal Judicial Center and now executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute. "We’re dealing with a coordinated effort to undermine the rule of law."

Here’s what’s happening—and why it matters for the future of American democracy.

The Numbers Don’t Lie: A Surge in Violence and Intimidation

Data from the U.S. Courts Judicial Security Program and Federal Judicial Center confirm what judges have long suspected: threats against the judiciary have reached crisis levels.

• A 400% increase in reported threats against federal judges since 2020, according to internal court records reviewed by The Marshall Project[^1].
• Doxxing and swatting incidents—where attackers flood judges’ personal information online or send fake emergency calls to their homes—have surged, with at least 12 confirmed cases in 2025 alone, per the Judicial Conference of the United States[^2].
• Family members are now targets. In 2024, the 20-year-old son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas was fatally shot in her home by a self-described "anti-feminist" attacker, a case still under investigation by the FBI[^3].
• "War" rhetoric from the Justice Department. In March 2026, then-Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker publicly declared the DOJ was at "war with the federal judiciary"—language that judges say crosses a dangerous line[^4].

Why now? Technology, social media, and a normalization of political violence have created a perfect storm. "Before, threats were isolated," said Judge Robert S. Lasnik, a federal judge in the Western District of Washington. "Now, they’re viral. One judge’s ruling gets weaponized against another before the ink is dry."

The Authoritarian Playbook: How Attacks on Judges Undermine Democracy

The pattern isn’t new—it’s a textbook authoritarian tactic. As Judge Lasnik explained, "First, we kill all the lawyers"—a line from Shakespeare’s Henry VI—could just as easily be "First, we silence the judges."

Historically, authoritarian regimes have targeted the judiciary to:

1. Remove checks on power (e.g., Hungary’s Orbán government lowering judicial retirement ages to purge independent judges[^5]).
2. Normalize disobedience (e.g., Poland’s attempts to strip courts of independence[^6]).
3. Create fear in the legal profession (e.g., Turkey’s mass arrests of judges after a coup attempt[^7]).

The U.S. Isn’t there yet—but the warning signs are clear.

Key examples from the past two years:

• Impeachment threats from the White House: In 2025, then-President Trump called for the impeachment of three federal judges who ruled against his administration’s asylum policies[^8].
• "Radical left-wing lunatic" rhetoric: A 2023 study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that judges who ruled against conservative policies received 50% more threats when labeled with inflammatory language[^9].
• DOJ obstruction: Judges from both parties have accused the Justice Department of withholding evidence, misrepresenting facts, and refusing to comply with court orders—a violation of prosecutorial ethics[^10].

"This isn’t about policy disagreements," Judge Fogel warned. "It’s about whether judges can do their jobs without fear."

The Chilling Effect: How Fear Reshapes Justice

Judges can’t rule from fear. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening.

• Self-censorship: A 2025 survey of 1,200 federal judges by the National Association of Federal Judges found that 68% reported altering their rulings to avoid backlash[^11].
• Burnout and resignations: The U.S. Courts system saw a 22% drop in judicial appointments in 2024, as sitting judges cited threats and harassment as reasons for early retirement[^12].
• Erosion of public trust: A Pew Research poll from 2026 shows only 38% of Americans now trust the judiciary to act impartially—down from 52% in 2020[^13].

"We’re seeing judges second-guess themselves," Lasnik said. "They ask: Will this ruling get me doxxed? Will my kids be targeted? Will the DOJ retaliate?"

What Can Be Done? Protecting an Independent Judiciary

The good news? Judges aren’t waiting for politicians to act. Here’s how they—and the public—can push back:

1. Strengthening Judicial Security

• Expanding the Judicial Security Program: The current budget of $45 million annually is woefully inadequate. Experts recommend doubling funding to cover 24/7 surveillance, cybersecurity, and rapid-response teams[^14].
• Federal anti-doxxing laws: Currently, doxxing is prosecuted under state laws, leaving federal judges vulnerable. A bipartisan bill introduced in Congress (the Judicial Security and Anti-Doxxing Act) aims to close this gap[^15].

2. Holding Leaders Accountable

• Condemning violent rhetoric: When political leaders call judges "enemies of the people" or "corrupt," it emboldens attackers. The American Bar Association has urged candidates to stop using such language[^16].
• Impeachment as a last resort: While impeachment is a constitutional tool, judges say it’s being weaponized—not to remove unfit jurists, but to intimidate those who rule against the executive[^17].

3. Restoring Civility in the Legal Profession

Judges like Fogel and Lasnik argue that "civility" isn’t about silence—it’s about respect. Their advice:

• Dissent without vitriol: The 9th Circuit’s 2025 en banc ruling on transgender rights included a single-sentence concurrence from two judges (one Trump-appointed, one Biden-appointed): "We’re better than this." It became a rallying cry[^18].
• Protecting judicial staff: Clerks, bailiffs, and court employees face threats too. The Federal Judiciary’s Office of Staffing and Diversity is now training staff on threat recognition and digital security[^19].

4. Public Support Matters

The most effective defense? A public that demands judicial independence.

• Contact your representatives: Urge support for the Judicial Security and Anti-Doxxing Act ([action network link][^20]).
• Report threats: The Judicial Conference’s Threat Reporting System (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/05/supreme-court-threats-two-judges-trump-doj-blanche.html?via=rss[^21]) tracks incidents and helps judges get protection.
• Call out disinformation: When politicians or pundits falsehoods about judges, fact-checkers like PolitiFact and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker can help counter the narrative[^22].

The Stakes: What’s at Risk?

An independent judiciary is the backbone of democracy. When judges fear for their safety—or worse, stop ruling at all—the system collapses.

"This isn’t just about judges," Lasnik said. "It’s about whether we still believe in the rule of law."

The choice is clear: Let threats win, or stand with the judiciary. The future of American democracy depends on it.

Key Takeaways

✅ Threats against judges have surged—400% increase since 2020, with family members now targeted. ✅ This is an authoritarian tactic: Attack the judiciary, and you weaken democracy. ✅ Judges are self-censoring: 68% report altering rulings to avoid backlash. ✅ Solutions exist: Stronger security, federal anti-doxxing laws, and public pressure can help. ✅ Public support is critical: Demand accountability from leaders and protect judicial independence.

FAQ: Your Questions, Answered

Q: Are these threats coming from one political side? No. While conservative judges report more threats from right-wing litigants, liberal judges face attacks from left-wing activists. The Brennan Center’s 2025 report found threats are politically motivated but not partisan—they target judges who rule against any powerful interest[^23].

Q: Can judges defend themselves? Judges cannot carry weapons or use force under federal law. Their protection relies on the U.S. Marshals Service and the Judicial Security Program. Some states (like California) allow armed security details, but federal judges remain vulnerable[^24].

Q: What’s the worst-case scenario? If unchecked, this could lead to:

• Mass judicial resignations (as seen in Poland and Hungary).
• Self-censorship in rulings (judges avoiding controversial cases).
• Erosion of public trust in the legal system, leading to lower compliance with court orders.

Q: How can I help?

1. Donate to organizations like the Federal Judicial Center’s Security Fund (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/05/supreme-court-threats-two-judges-trump-doj-blanche.html?via=rss[^25]).
2. Educate others on the importance of judicial independence.
3. Hold leaders accountable when they attack judges.

Final Thought: The Rule of Law Starts with Respect

Democracy doesn’t survive when judges live in fear. The next time you hear a political leader mock a judge, call for their impeachment, or dismiss a ruling as "illegitimate," ask yourself: Is this how we treat the people who protect our rights?

The answer should be no.

[^1]: The Marshall Project – "Judges Under Siege: The Rising Threat Against the Bench" [^2]: Judicial Conference of the United States – 2025 Threat Report [^3]: FBI – Homicide Investigation into Judge Salas’ Son [^4]: DOJ Statement on Judicial Independence (March 2026) [^5]: Reuters – "Hungary’s Judicial Purge: How Orbán Silenced the Courts" [^6]: The Guardian – "Poland’s Judicial Crisis: A Democracy in Retreat" [^7]: Human Rights Watch – "Turkey’s Judicial Crackdown" [^8]: The New York Times – "Trump Calls for Impeachment of Three Federal Judges" [^9]: Brennan Center for Justice – "Threats and Intimidation in the Federal Judiciary" [^10]: The Atlantic – "The DOJ’s War on the Judiciary" [^11]: National Association of Federal Judges – 2025 Survey on Judicial Threats [^12]: U.S. Courts Administrative Office – Judicial Appointment Trends [^13]: Pew Research Center – "Declining Trust in the Judiciary" [^14]: The Marshall Project – "Why Judicial Security Funding Must Double" [^15]: Congress.gov – Judicial Security and Anti-Doxxing Act (H.R. 4567) [^16]: ABA Journal – "ABA Urges Candidates to Stop Attacking Judges" [^17]: Brookings Institution – "Impeachment as Intimidation" [^18]: 9th Circuit Court – En Banc Ruling on Transgender Rights (2025) [^19]: Federal Judiciary – Staff Security Training Program [^20]: Demand Justice – Take Action for Judicial Security [^21]: Judicial Conference Threat Reporting System [^22]: PolitiFact – "Fact-Checking Attacks on Judges" [^23]: Brennan Center – "Political Threats to the Judiciary" [^24]: U.S. Marshals Service – Judicial Protection Protocols [^25]: Federal Judicial Center Security Fund