As the president condemns unnamed judges as “monsters who want our country to go to hell,” there’s growing talk of systemic security reforms.
Judges reportedly eye new security measures as Trump’s rhetorical attacks get worse
As Donald Trump condemns unnamed judges as “monsters who want our country to go to hell,†there's growing talk of systemic security reforms for the courts.
www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...
— Rose Spitznogle (@rosespitznogle.bsky.social) 2025-05-27T21:49:39.272Z
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/judges-reportedly-eye-new-security-measures-trumps-rhetorical-attacks-rcna209252
The inflammatory rhetoric was not a one-off; presidential comments like these have become quite common of late. In March, for example, Trump also wrote, “Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country! These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings. ... The danger is unparalleled!”
Radical condemnations like these are creating a dangerous environment in which judges, and even their family members, are increasingly concerned about their personal safety. Reuters reported in March t
hat U.S. marshals warned that federal judges are facing “unusually high threat levels as tech billionaire Elon Musk and other Trump administration allies ramp up efforts to discredit judges who stand in the way of White House efforts.”....
In April, The New York Times reported on a recent meeting of the Judicial Conference, which oversees the administration of the federal courts. The article note
d, “Behind closed doors at one session, Judge Richard J. Sullivan, the chairman of the conference’s Committee on Judicial Security, raised a scenario that weeks before would have sounded like dystopian fiction, according to three officials familiar with the remarks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations: What if the White House were to withdraw the protections it provides to judges?”
Over the weekend, The Wall Street Journal published a related report:
Amid rising tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, some federal judges are beginning to discuss the idea of managing their own armed security force. The notion came up in a series of closed-door meetings in early March, when a group of roughly 50 judges met in Washington for a semiannual meeting of the Judicial Conference, a policymaking body for the federal judiciary. There, members of a security committee spoke about threats emerging as President Trump stepped up criticism of those who rule against his policies.
The reporting, which has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, echoed the Times’ article, noted that some federal judges “
worried that Trump could order the marshals to stand down in retaliation for a decision that didn’t go his way.”
To that end, some jurists are reportedly weighing the possibility of the judiciary creating its own security force, while Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey is pushing new legislation that would shift control of the U.S. Marshals Service to the courts from the DOJ.
A Justice Department spokesperson described these concerns as “absurd.” That said
, this is the same Justice Department led by a Trump loyalist who’s also used highly provocative rhetoric related to the courts, including a recent interview in which the attorney general said judges who rule against Trump’s agenda are “deranged.” As part of the same conservative media appearance, Bondi even raised the prospect of arresting more judges.
Given the circumstances, can you blame members of the judiciary for eyeing some systemic concerns?
= new reply since forum marked as read
