Unbiased. Straight Facts.™
Watch and Listen

Threats against federal judges double during Trump administration

Ray Bogan (Political Correspondent)
Federal judges have received a rising number of threats. Now, they want more control over their own security through the U.S. Marshals.
Image credit: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

Judges face increased threats

Data from the U.S. Marshals Service shows that from October 2024 through February 2025, 80 judges received threats. That number jumped to 162 judges between March 1 and mid-April.

A call for more control

Federal judges are exploring ways to take security into their own hands, including the possibility of commanding their own security force.

Proposed changes to US Marshals

Sen. Cory Booker introduced legislation to move the U.S. Marshals Service from holding a dual role in both the executive and judicial branches, to being solely under the command of the judicial branch.

Full story

Threats against federal judges have more than doubled since President Donald Trump took office. Data from the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) shows that from October 2024 through February 2025, 80 judges received threats. However, from March 1 through mid-April, that number jumped to 162 judges.

The data was obtained by The New York Times from U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey, whose son was murdered by an attorney who didn’t like her rulings.

What kinds of threats are judges experiencing?

According to The Wall Street Journal, dozens of judges and their families have received anonymous pizza deliveries to their homes, which they take as a “we know where you live” threat.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s sister received a bomb threat after the justice ruled against Trump in the USAID contractor case. Other judges have been the victims of “swatting” –– a fake call to the police of a situation so dire it requires a SWAT team-level response.

The Journal reports that federal judges are exploring ways to take security into their own hands, including the possibility of commanding their own security force.

A possible change in the US marshal’s role

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., introduced legislation on May 22 to move the U.S. Marshals Service from holding a dual role in both the executive and judicial branches to being solely under the command of the judicial branch. Booker contends such a move would ensure the agency can perform its primary mission of protecting federal judges and enforcing court orders.

“Our U.S. marshals are critical to protecting the rule of law, and they must be able to do their jobs without political interference,” Booker stated. 

Booker cited a recent meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States, where a judge expressed concern that Trump could order the USMS to stand down from its judicial protection. 

According to the USMS, it is responsible for protecting more than 2,700 sitting judges and 30,000 prosecutors. The Marshals investigated 822 threats and potential threats against those it protects in fiscal year 2024.

Snorre Wik (Photographer/Video Editor) and Drew Pittock (Digital Producer) contributed to this report.
Tags: , , , ,

Why this story matters

Increasing threats against federal judges raise concerns about judicial security, the independence of the judiciary, and the effectiveness of current protective measures and protocols.

Judicial security

Rising incidents of threats and harassment against federal judges and their families highlight the need to assess and improve systems for their protection.

Judicial independence

Proposals to alter the U.S. Marshals Service's reporting structure reflect concerns that political influence could impact the judiciary's ability to function impartially and safely.

Legislative response

Legislative efforts, such as Sen. Cory Booker's bill, demonstrate attempts to address perceived vulnerabilities in judicial protection and ensure federal agencies can fulfill their primary roles without political interference.

Sources

  1. The New York Times
  2. The Wall Street Journal
  3. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.

Sources

  1. The New York Times
  2. The Wall Street Journal
  3. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.