Recently:
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.
Dozens of judges and their relatives have received anonymous pizza deliveries to their homes—which they perceived as a “we know where you live” message. In March, five days after the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that the administration must pay USAID contractors, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s sister was targeted with a bomb threat, according to police records. Another judge had a SWAT team called on him after he overturned an executive order restricting birthright citizenship.
Judges Weigh Taking Control of Their Own Security Amid Threats U.S. marshals, sworn to protect federal judges, ultimately answer to President Trump, who has ramped up criticism of the judiciary. By Katherine Long, James Fanelli, C. Ryan Barber. Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2025
Now:
The White House deepened its attacks on the judiciary on Wednesday [May 28] as it hit back at a federal court decision striking down President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs.
“[Trade] deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai told HuffPost in a statement. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency.”
And White House senior adviser Stephen Miller went even further, claiming in a post on X that “the judicial coup is out of control.”
White House Lashes Out At Judges After Court Blocks Trump's Tariffs A senior adviser alleged a "judicial coup" in renewed broadsides against the courts. By Li Zhou, HuffPost, May 28, 2025
Relatedly: Trump's circle, says Maggie Haberman, saw Elon Musk as "a source of tension, and he commanded this social media presence where he could intimidate any of them as well. And so I think, you know, they are happy to see this chapter end." (HuffPost, June 2, 2025)
Also:
"President Donald Trump has privately complained that the Supreme Court justices he appointed have not sufficiently stood behind his agenda, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversations. But he has directed particular ire at Justice Amy Coney Barrett, his most recent appointee, one of the sources said.
The behind-closed-doors grievances have been wide-ranging, and while many have been about Barrett, Trump has also expressed frustration about Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the sources familiar with the matter said. The complaints have gone on for at least a year, the sources said.
The president’s anger, sources said, has been fueled by allies on the right, who have told Trump privately that Barrett is “weak” and that her rulings have not been in line with how she presented herself in an interview before Trump nominated her to the bench in 2020.
* * *
Last week, as Trump raged over a three-judge panel’s decision against his tariff plan, he took aim at Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo, who played a major role in helping Trump identify judges to put on the federal bench.
In a Truth Social post, Trump called Leo a “real ‘sleazebag’ … a bad person, who in his own way, probably hates America.”"
— Trump privately complains about Amy Coney Barrett and other Supreme Court justices he nominated, Kristen Holmes and John Fritze, CNN, June 3, 2025
Trump fears Musk:
"On Tuesday [June 3], MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell suggested why the typically “explosively rageful” president has not yet said a thing.
It boils down to Trump actually being afraid of Musk and the way he could weaponize his vast wealth against him, said “The Last Word” anchor.
“That is how you know who Donald Trump fears in this world,” he said. “If you attack Donald Trump and Donald Trump says nothing, Donald Trump’s silence is the biggest expression of fear that he has.”
— Lee Moran, Lawrence O’Donnell Reveals Why Donald Trump Hasn’t Dared To Clap Back At Elon Musk Yet: The “explosively rageful” president hasn’t said a thing, and the MSNBC anchor suggested why. HuffPost, June 4, 2025
Judges are politicized:
Trump's appellate judges have formed a nearly united phalanx to defend his agenda from legal challenges. How often they ruled for him in 2025: Trump appointees: 92% Other Republican appointees: 68% Democratic appointees: 27% @schwartzesque.bsky.social Emma Schartz www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/u...
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt.bsky.social) January 11, 2026 at 9:43 AM
[image or embed]Stephen Miller understands that the criminal system is the most powerful on the state level, so he is going after local and state sovereignty.
— Jessica Pishko (@jesspish.bsky.social) January 22, 2026 at 3:14 PM
[image or embed]Relatedly, on an August 2026 episode of NBC’s Meet the Press, host Kristen Welker asked Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) about the prosecution of David Hearn for touching the Reflecting Pool and allegedly damaging it. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro had just asked to dismiss charges. Kennedy said, essentially, that the president can lie all he likes and prosecute someone for a personal or political vendetta, but a U.S. attorney can't:
"The president says it was caused by vandals. I don’t know whether he really believes that, or it’s part of his political messaging, or he’s just thinking out loud. You and I both know the president well. He exists loudly, and he grows anxious when he has an unexpressed thought. I’m not saying he doesn’t really believe it, I just don’t know. Now, the stakes are a lot higher for U.S. Attorney Pirro. You can’t lie to a federal judge. If she can’t prove her case, she was right to pull back. Because if you fool around with a federal judge, you will find out." (See Parker Molloy's post about this: plainly, Trump is "trying to throw this random guy behind bars for a decade for absolutely no reason," so is he doing it ignorantly or knowingly? Both options ought to be "gigantic scandals.")







