Threats to federal judges increasing, US Marshals Service warns
Judge James E. Boasberg, chief judge of the Federal District Court in DC, /Photo by Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — In the past few weeks, the U.S. Marshals Service has warned federal judges of an increase in threats in the wake of the increased attention they are getting as a result of making rulings in cases involving President Donald Trump, sources familiar with the warnings told ABC News.
The warnings to some judges have come either in written form or verbally, and often by local U.S. marshals in the district, according to sources with knowledge of the warnings.
Meanwhile, some members of Congress have introduced articles of impeachment against five federal judges that have ruled against Trump.
Earlier this month, the American Bar Association (ABA) issued a warning about the impact of threatening federal judges.
“If a court issues a decision this administration does not agree with, the judge is targeted,” William Bay, the president of the ABA, wrote. “If a lawyer represents parties in a dispute with the administration, or if a lawyer represents parties the administration does not like, lawyers are targeted.”
“Despite these efforts to intimidate, our courts are doing their job of reviewing disputes and applying the law. The ABA will defend our courts because we support the rule of law. We encourage every lawyer to do the same and demand these attacks on our judiciary stop immediately,” Bay said.
Former director of the U.S. Marshals, Ronald Davis, said threats against judges have surged at an “alarming rate.”
“The U.S. Marshals Service, responsible for ensuring the safety of our judiciary, has seen an unprecedented increase in the number of threats it must assess and respond to,” Davis, who was the most recent director and left at the end of the Biden administration, said.
“Protecting the integrity of our judicial system is not just about safeguarding individuals—it is about preserving the foundation of our democracy,” Davis said in a post on social media.
He said that an attack on a judge is an “attack on the rule of law itself.”
“The U.S. Marshals Service has a long and distinguished history of protecting our courts, but the growing complexity and volume of threats require enhanced resources. Increased funding is critical to expanding threat investigations, modernizing protective measures, and ensuring rapid response capabilities,” Davis said. “We must provide the men and women of the U.S. Marshals Service with the tools necessary to meet this evolving threat landscape.”
Chief Justice John Roberts warned in his year-end report of threats to federal judges.
Roberts noted more than 1,000 “serious threats” against federal judges investigated by the U.S. Marshals Service in the last five years, resulting in more than 50 individuals being criminally charged.
He warned of a rising tide of “doxing” federal judges and grassroots campaigns to bombard their offices with threatening messages. He also cited foreign misinformation efforts on social media to distort the meaning of judicial rulings.
“Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others,” Roberts wrote.
(WASHINGTON) — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem incorrectly responded to a lawmaker’s question on the definition of habeas corpus during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on the Department of Homeland Security budget for the upcoming year on Tuesday.
Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., asked Noem, “What is habeas corpus?”
The secretary responded, saying, “Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.”
“Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires, requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people. If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason,” she said.
“Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea,” Hassan added. “As a senator from the ‘Live Free or Die’ state, this matters a lot to me and my constituents and to all Americans.”
Hassan then asked, “Secretary Noem, do you support the core protection that habeas corpus provides that the government must provide a public reason in order to detain and imprison someone?”
“I support habeas corpus,” Noem responded. “I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not.”
Hassan interrupted Noem, saying, “It has never been done. It has never been done without approval of Congress. Even Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval from Congress.”
Later in the hearing, Noem denied any involvement in a reported reality television show featuring the Department of Homeland Security in which immigrants would compete for U.S. citizenship.
“We have no knowledge of a reality show,” Noem said. “There may have been something submitted to the department, but I did not know anything about this reality show until the reporter reached out.”
Noem then took aim at The Wall Street Journal’s reporting, saying, “That article — in fact, they had to change it later because they lied so bad, and they had us on the record saying I had no knowledge of a reality show. The department didn’t — there may have been something submitted somewhere along the line because there are proposals pitched to the department, but me and my executive team have no knowledge of a reality show and it’s not under consideration.”
“That article was completely inaccurate, completely inaccurate and false, and the fact that they printed it when they knew it was false was a dereliction of their work,” she added.
(WASHINGTON) — The White House on Thursday lashed out at federal judges who have blocked President Donald Trump from being able to impose global tariffs — a key part of his second-term agenda.
Trump, who has a long history of going after judges whose rulings he disagrees with, as of Thursday afternoon had yet to weigh in on two courts deeming some of his tariffs as “unlawful.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, though, opened her briefing with a lengthy attack on the legal setbacks. She called it “judicial overreach” and called on the nation’s highest court to step in.
“These judges are threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage,” Leavitt said. “The administration has already filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay to strike down this egregious decision. But ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country.”
The Court of International Trade on Wednesday struck down Trump’s global tariffs as “contrary to law.” A federal appeals court is temporarily delaying the ruling while the administration challenges the ruling, reinstating the policy for now.
The three-judge panel had found the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which Trump leaned on to enact his tariffs, does not give him the “unlimited” power to impose the levies he has in recent months. They said it the authority for most tariffs rests with Congress, and Trump’s tariffs don’t constitute “unusual and extraordinary threat” that would allow him to act unilaterally.
Leavitt criticized the panel as “activist judges” despite its three members being appointed to the bench by three different presidents: Trump, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan.
“The president’s rationale for imposing these powerful tariffs was legally sound and grounded in common sense,” she said. “President Trump correctly believes that America cannot function safely longterm if we are unable to scale advanced domestic manufacturing capacity, have our own secure, critical supply chains, and our defense industrial base is dependent on foreign adversaries.”
“Three judges of the U.S. Court of International Trade disagreed and brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump, to stop him from carrying out the mandate that the American people gave him,” she added.
Leavitt also touted the Republican-controlled Senate declining a bipartisan measure put forward to block Trump’s tariffs. That measure failed by the slimmest of margins in a 49-49 vote.
“Following Liberation Day, Congress firmly rejected an effort led by Senator Rand Paul and Democrats to terminate the president’s reciprocal tariffs. The courts should have no role here,” she argued.
When Trump announced his long-anticipated “Liberation Day” tariffs against nearly all U.S. trading partners in early April, he deemed chronic trade deficits a national emergency that “threatens our security and our very way of life.”
Since then, he’s often changed or delayed the tariff rates originally set out, often resulting in market turmoil. A 90-day pause on the higher, so-called “reciprocal” levies instituted so Trump could work on trade deals is set to expire in early July.
ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott asked the White House if its actively reviewing other methods to implement Trump’s tariff agenda in light of the court orders.
“The president’s trade policy will continue. We will comply with the court orders. But yes, the president has other legal authorities where he can implement tariffs,” Leavitt said.
“We can walk and chew gum at the same time,” Leavitt said.
ABC News’ Kelsey Walsh and Peter Charalambous contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — After weeks of internal GOP wrangling, the Republican-led House early Thursday passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” critical to advancing President Donald Trump’s tax and immigration agenda.
A smiling Speaker Mike Johnson announced the massive measure passed by a single vote — 215-214 — and was greeted with applause. He had struggled to get it done — as he had promised — by Memorial Day, before lawmakers go on recess.
The sweeping package of tax cuts, Medicaid reform and immigration spending delivers on many of the president’s domestic campaign promises.
Following debate that stretched Wednesday through the entire night and into early Thursday morning, the vote was a triumphant moment for Johnson, who conquered sharp divisions among his conference “through a lot of prayer” amid a historically low 3-vote majority.
“The bill gets Americans back to winning again, and it’s been a long time coming,” Johnson proclaimed during his speech on the floor moments before the final vote. “It quite literally is again morning in America, isn’t it, all right?”
Trump celebrated the passage of what he called “THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL” in a social media post, calling it the “most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!”
He said it fulfilled his campaign promise of “No Tax on Tips and No Tax on Overtime.” He also recognized the tax deductions when consumers purchase an American-made vehicle, funding for the Golden Dome defense system, and the “TRUMP Savings Accounts” incorporated in the legislation.
“Great job by Speaker Mike Johnson, and the House Leadership, and thank you to every Republican who voted YES on this Historic Bill!,” Trump wrote.
“Now, it’s time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!” Trump added, before slamming Democrats.
During the final House vote, Republican lawmakers approached the speaker with congratulatory handshakes and back slaps. Someone also played Queen’s “We Are The Champions” off a phone for about 10 seconds while the vote was underway.
Republicans cheered, whistled and applauded when the threshold for passage was achieved at 6:54 a.m.
The successful vote, with one GOP lawmaker voting present, sends the reconciliation bill to the Senate, where the Republican majority is expected to revise the legislation over the next month or longe
Two House Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, opposed the vote alongside the entire House Democratic Caucus. Rep. Andy Harris, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, voted present.
Johnson took a victory lap following the vote – holding a news conference alongside his leadership team and committee chairs – after Republicans pulled off the improbable and passed the president’s signature legislative package.
“It’s finally Morning in America again,” Johnson beamed as he reported his earlier comment. “The media and the Democrats have consistently dismissed any possibility that House Republicans could get this stuff. They did not believe that we could succeed in our mission to enact President Trump’s America first agenda, but this is a big one, and once again, they have been proven wrong.”
After a marathon hearing that ended overnight, the House Rules committee voted 8-4 to tee up action on the House floor.
The committee vote came after changes to several of the bill’s provisions, including a change to when Medicaid work requirements would kick in.
Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, one of the GOP holdouts that had put the bill’s fate in question, was absent for the committee’s votes.
The key procedural step was needed before advancing the legislation to a final vote.
That meeting came after earlier negotiations with hard-liners fell apart Tuesday. The GOP is far from unified around the bill, which they earlier had said they hoped to move to a vote on Wednesday. Several sticking points, primarily regarding Medicaid work requirements and a cap on state and local tax deductions, still need to be worked out.
After the meeting, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “The meeting was productive and moved the ball in the right direction. The President reiterated how critical it is for the country to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill as quickly as possible.”
Clearing the House is just the first hurdle for the bill — it will also have to pass muster with a Senate Republican conference that is already telegraphing that they plan to make changes.
Here are the major changes to the bill in the 42-page amendment:
Medicaid: The start date for new Medicaid work requirements will now kick in “no later than December 31, 2026.” The original bill had the work requirements starting in 2029.
This alteration is a win for hardliners who have for days been pushing for steeper spending cuts to be included in the package. Medicaid work requirements are expected to reduce spending in the bill.
There is also a new incentive for states to not expand Medicaid. Medicaid expansion states are increasing state-directed payments up to 110% to maintain the structure.
State and Local Tax Deductions: SALT deduction rises to $40,000 for incomes under $500,000. This is a substantive change from the $10,000 cap that was implemented by Republicans in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
This is a concession geared toward satiating blue-state Republicans in states like New York and California. Many of them conditioned their support for the package on lifting or raising the cap on these deductions. Moderates will brand this as a big win.
Maga Savings Account: The amendment changes the names of these accounts. Instead of MAGA Accounts, they will now be called “Trump” Accounts. The president’s last name appears in the manager’s amendment +50 times.
Expedited cuts to clean energy credits: Some of Biden-era clean energy tax credits will phase out sooner, allowing Republicans to recoup costs to apply toward the overall cost of the bill. To receive credits, new projects must break ground within 60 days or be “placed in service” by the end of 2028.
Billions in border security reimbursements: The Department of Homeland Security appropriates $12 billion to states for costs associated with Biden-era border actions through September 30, 2029. The DHS Secretary can authorize grants to assist with immigration enforcement.
Ends tax on silencers: The manager’s amendment delists silencers from the National Firearms Act, effectively ending a tax on transferring silencers.
ABC News’ Kelsey Walsh contributed to this report.
