On March 11, around 50 judges met in Washington for their regular Judicial Conference, which manages the federal court system. This marked the first meeting since President Trump reassumed office.
During discussions centered on staffing and long-term strategies, attendees expressed heightened concern regarding increasing threats to judges and their safety, as reported by several participants.
In a private session, Judge Richard J. Sullivan, who leads the conference’s Committee on Judicial Security, presented a hypothetical that might have seemed unrealistic just weeks prior, as shared by three officials with knowledge of the discussion, who asked to stay anonymous: What if the White House decided to remove the security protections for judges?
The U.S. Marshals Service, responsible for judicial security by law, is under the Justice Department, which is directly influenced by Mr. Trump in an unprecedented manner since the Watergate era.
Judge Sullivan pointed out that Mr. Trump had already withdrawn security from Mike Pompeo, his former secretary of state, and John Bolton, his ex-national security adviser. Could the federal judiciary, which has recently been in Mr. Trump’s crosshairs, be next?
Sullivan, appointed by President George W. Bush and later elevated by Mr. Trump, deferred questions about his private comments to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which expressed “full confidence in those safeguarding judicial security.”
Although there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Trump is planning to revoke judges’ security, Judge Sullivan’s comments reflect significant anxiety among judges regarding the threats against them. This situation underscores judges’ discomfort with having their security overseen by an agency that ultimately reports to the president and whose funding has not kept up with increasing dangers.
“Removing security from just one judge or courthouse — such scenarios are unlikely, and I don’t anticipate it happening,” said Jeremy Fogel, a retired federal judge and director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, who regularly communicates with current judges. “However, the situation is unpredictable. It is reasonable to suggest that boundaries are being tested. Judges are concerned it could happen.”
In a statement, the Marshals Service affirmed that it operates “at the direction of the federal courts” and carries out all legal orders from the federal court. According to their statement, the integrity of the judicial process relies on “protecting judges, jurors, and witnesses.”
White House representative Harrison Fields indicated that Mr. Trump’s withdrawal of security from Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Bolton had no relevance to how he treats sitting judges. He labeled concerns about potential security revocations for judges as “speculation” that is “dangerous and irresponsible.”
Established in 1789, the U.S. Marshals Service has a broad range of law enforcement responsibilities, in addition to its primary role supporting the judiciary. There are currently 94 U.S. marshal positions, each appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, corresponding to each judicial district. The agency’s director reports to the deputy attorney general.
The anxiety regarding the marshals’ oversight comes amid increasing threats against judges, heightening the challenges faced by the service.
Statistics reveal that from 2019 to 2024, the number of judges facing threats more than doubled, during which time Mr. Trump contested the 2020 election results in court, while the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which previously established abortion access as a constitutional right. In June 2022, post the leak of the Supreme Court’s Roe decision, an armed individual attempted to assassinate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh at his residence.
In his end-of-year report for 2024, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. highlighted “a marked increase in identified threats throughout the judiciary.”
Since Mr. Trump took office in January, he along with his supporters have targeted specific judges on social media, criticizing them and calling for their impeachment over unfavorable rulings. In an Easter message, Mr. Trump referred to “WEAK and INEFFECTIVE Judges” who are permitting a “sinister assault on our Nation to persist” in relation to immigration.
Recently, judges and their families have received false bomb threats in their mailboxes. By mid-April, numerous pizzas were sent anonymously to judges’ homes, implying that the sender knows their location.
Ronald Zayas, chief executive of Ironwall, a firm collaborating with district courts, state courts, and some judges to supply security and data protection services, reported a fourfold increase in judges seeking emergency protection. Additionally, 40 judges opted to personally finance their security with Ironwall, which is twice the amount from January 1.
In a letter to Congress on April 10, Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., who manages the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, expressed concern that court security funding remained stagnant at 2023 levels through the 2025 fiscal year “while threats against federal judges and courthouses continue to rise.” Judges have been raising similar alarms for years.
The overall expenditure has remained relatively stable, increasing to $1.34 billion in 2024 from $1.26 billion in 2022, according to data from the administrative office and the marshals, despite inflation and salary hikes.
Meanwhile, the pressures on the service have escalated.
In recent years, the U.S. Marshals have stated that they have begun assisting in protecting the homes of Supreme Court justices, whose primary security is managed by the separate Supreme Court Marshal’s Office. Last summer, a U.S. marshal outside Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s residence in Washington shot and injured an armed man during a carjacking attempt.
In January, the Trump administration granted marshals and other law enforcement agencies new authority to enforce immigration laws. This decision led Judge Edmond E. Chang, who is the chair of the Judicial Conference’s criminal law committee, to issue a memo to all district court and magistrate judges, highlighting concerns about how this might affect the marshals’ capacity to ensure their safety. (Judge Chang did not provide comments; his memo was previously reported by Reuters.)
Besides safeguarding the lives of judges, U.S. law specifies that the marshals’ “main role and mission” is to “obey, execute, and enforce all orders” from federal courts. Enforcing court orders could involve levying fines and imprisoning individuals whom judges find in contempt, which could potentially include executive branch officials.
The approach of the Trump administration in certain cases suggests that the already burdened marshals could become crucial intermediaries among government branches. In court, Justice Department lawyers have almost disregarded court orders related to the improper deportation of nearly 140 Venezuelans and Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, whose removal was admitted by officials as an “administrative error.” Two judges have launched inquiries that might lead to contempt charges against administration officials.
“What will happen if the marshals receive an order to issue a contempt citation to an agency leader defying a court order?” questioned Paul W. Grimm, a retired federal judge now leading the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke University. “Will they follow through? The issue of whom the Marshals Service owes allegiance to will likely be tested soon, I suspect.”
Concerns regarding the management of the Marshals Service are longstanding. A 1982 report from the Government Accountability Office described the oversight of the marshals as “an unworkable management condition.” As a potential remedy, it suggested legislation to transfer control of the marshals to the judiciary.
Some congressional members have begun to suggest a similar fix.
“Do you think judges could be better protected if your security were more independent?” Representative Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, asked a federal judge testifying on behalf of the Judicial Conference during a February hearing, just days before Judge Sullivan’s comments.
Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, acknowledged that the question of independent oversight was valid. The judge indicated that the conference would look into the issue.
In a subsequent interview, Mr. Swalwell mentioned he was drafting legislation aimed at placing the judiciary in charge of its own security.
Last month, Ronald Davis, who led the agency during President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s administration, issued a serious warning on LinkedIn about “a constitutional crisis if a president refuses to enforce or comply with a federal court order.” He also recommended steps to protect the marshals from possible interference by the executive branch.
For now, the administration’s immediate aim for the Marshals Service may be to reduce its size.
On April 15, Mark P. Pittella, the acting director of the agency, sent a letter to over 5,000 service employees as part of cutback efforts related to Elon Musk’s initiative called the Department of Government Efficiency, offering them the chance to resign while being eligible for over four months of paid administrative leave. The letter, obtained by The New York Times, specified that agency leadership would assess applications to ensure they did not “negatively impact U.S.M.S. mission-critical requirements.”
However, a spokesperson for the service indicated that this offer was available to employees across all responsibilities, including marshals responsible for protecting judges.
