On Friday, April 25, 2025, The New York Times reported that judges across the United States are increasingly concerned about their security, particularly in light of President Donald Trump’s recent actions and statements. This sentiment was underscored during a recent meeting of the Judicial Conference, where approximately 50 judges convened in Washington, marking their first gathering since Trump retook the presidency.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan, who leads the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Judicial Security, raised alarms regarding the potential for the White House to withdraw security protections for federal judges. This discussion came amid rising threats against judges, highlighting fears that the U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for judicial security and operates under the Justice Department, could be influenced by presidential authority.
Sullivan’s concerns were notably heightened by Trump’s previous decisions to strip security from former officials such as Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. Amid this context, judges expressed unease about their safety and the adequacy of resources allocated for their protection.
The U.S. Marshals Service has reported a significant increase in threats against judges, with the number of targeted judges more than doubling from 2019 to 2024. This trend coincided with heightened political tensions surrounding the 2020 election and subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
The Marshals Service emphasized its commitment to judicial security, stating it acts according to the directives of federal courts. However, the agency’s effectiveness and funding have come under scrutiny, particularly as the financial support for court security has not kept pace with rising threats. In a letter to Congress, Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr. pointed out that funding for court security has remained stagnant through the 2025 fiscal year, despite escalating risks.
Reports indicate that judges have been targeted not only by direct threats but also through unusual intimidation tactics, including false bomb threats and unsolicited deliveries of pizzas to their homes. This pattern has raised alarms about the overall safety of judges and their families. Additionally, the use of private security services by judges has surged, with the number of judges seeking emergency protection reportedly quadrupling compared to the previous year.
Concerns about judicial security have gained further urgency as external pressures on the U.S. Marshals Service have increased. The agency, which also plays a crucial role in enforcing court orders, has been tasked with additional responsibilities, including protecting the homes of Supreme Court justices. Recent incidents, such as an armed confrontation outside Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s residence, have illustrated the volatile environment judges are facing.
The potential implications of Trump’s administration on judicial security were highlighted by retired federal judge Paul W. Grimm, who questioned the loyalty of the Marshals Service in situations where executive orders may conflict with judicial rulings. This uncertainty has fueled discussions among lawmakers about the need for independent oversight of judicial security to better protect judges from potential political interference.
In recent congressional hearings, some representatives have proposed transferring control of the Marshals Service to the judiciary, a move aimed at enhancing the agency’s independence and effectiveness in safeguarding judges. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., indicated that he is working on legislation to facilitate this change, reflecting growing concern among lawmakers about the current oversight structure.
As the dialogue about judicial security continues, the Marshals Service is navigating a complex landscape of increasing threats and scrutiny over its operations. The agency recently faced staff reductions as part of broader government efficiency measures, which could further impact its ability to protect judges.
In conclusion, as threats against judges escalate and political tensions mount, the urgency for a reassessment of judicial security measures has become clear. The ongoing discussions in Congress and among judicial leaders will likely play a pivotal role in shaping the future of judicial safety in the United States.
Source: The New York Times
