If nobody is going to enforce the Constitution, it becomes like the Constitution of Russia.
In courtrooms across America, the ancient compact between law and power is under strain. Federal judges — appointed across decades and party lines — are receiving death threats at historic rates following public condemnation from the nation's highest office, with 400 judges targeted seriously last year alone. The judiciary, designed as a check on executive authority, now finds itself navigating not only legal disputes but physical danger, as inflammatory rhetoric from national leaders translates, with troubling regularity, into threats of violence. What is at stake is not merely the safety of individual judges, but the durability of a constitutional order that has held for two and a half centuries.
- A Reagan-appointed judge who once sentenced al Qaeda operatives says he has never in 44 years encountered hostility toward the judiciary like what he faces now — bomb threats, death threats, and a wanted poster bearing his face circulated by a sitting congressman.
- The U.S. Marshals Service is overwhelmed: every time President Trump publicly labels a judge a 'communist,' 'lunatic,' or 'monster' after an unfavorable ruling, a wave of grotesque threats follows — voicemails wishing rape and decapitation, calls for assassination, messages daring judges to act.
- Judge Esther Salas, whose son was murdered at her front door in 2020 by a failed litigant, says she is more frightened now than she was after that killing — because the incitement is now coming from the presidency itself and her dead son's name is being weaponized in intimidation packages sent to judges nationwide.
- Security experts warn that the nature of threats has shifted from reactive rage to strategic intimidation — designed not to punish past rulings but to shape future ones, operating on the logic that if a message reaches a million people, only one needs to act.
- A bipartisan coalition of 55 retired federal judges has petitioned the White House for restraint, with one member warning plainly: 'If we're not careful, we're gonna get a judge killed' — while the administration continues to frame judicial resistance as 'brazen defiance' and 'war.'
On a quiet afternoon in Washington state, federal judge John Coughenour opened his door to find five sheriff's deputies with rifles — responding to a hoax report that he had murdered his wife. It was one of dozens of threats that followed his decision to block an executive order eliminating birthright citizenship. A bomb threat came the next day. Days later, a congressman circulated a wanted poster bearing his face. Coughenour, a Reagan appointee with 44 years on the bench who had sentenced al Qaeda operatives and lived under protection before, said he had never encountered anything like it.
He is not alone. Last year, 400 federal judges faced serious threats — a 78 percent increase over four years. The pattern is consistent: when President Trump loses in court, he responds publicly and caustically, calling judges 'communist radical left,' 'lunatics,' and 'monsters.' Security experts say each statement opens a floodgate. The threats that follow are often grotesque — voicemails wishing violence on judges' families, calls for assassination, messages daring judges to act. The U.S. Marshals Service, tasked with separating idle rage from genuine danger, is overwhelmed.
Judge Esther Salas, a New Jersey Obama appointee, has become a leading voice against the attacks — and carries a particular authority. In 2020, a failed litigant came to her home and shot her son Daniel dead, wounding her husband. She survived. But she says the current climate frightens her more than that day did, because the inflammatory rhetoric now originates from the nation's highest office. What makes her situation especially haunting is that her grief has been weaponized: intimidation packages referencing her murdered son's name have been sent to at least 20 judges nationwide, warning them they could 'end up like Judge Salas's son.' 'They're weaponizing Daniel's name to inflict fear on judges,' she said.
Ron Zayas, a security professional who removes judges' personal data from the internet, has worked in the field for fourteen years and says he has never seen a threat volume like this — nor a shift this alarming in its character. Threats used to be reactive. Now they are strategic, designed to influence future decisions rather than punish past ones. 'It's mob mentality,' he said. 'They wanna threaten you so that you make the right decision.' When a message reaches a million people, only one needs to act.
A bipartisan coalition of 55 retired federal judges has petitioned the White House for restraint. One member, a George W. Bush appointee, warned plainly: 'If we're not careful, we're gonna get a judge killed.' The White House has called judicial resistance a 'war' and accused judges of 'brazen defiance.' But judges across the ideological spectrum reject the framing. Coughenour, for his part, invoked the Constitution's 250-year record and warned of what happens when it goes unenforced: it becomes, he said, like the Constitution of Russia. What happens next depends on whether the threats remain words — or whether one of them becomes action.
On a quiet afternoon in Washington state, federal judge John Coughenour answered his doorbell to find five sheriff's deputies standing on his porch, rifles in hand. They had come to investigate a report that he had murdered his wife. It was a hoax—one of dozens of threats that would follow his decision to block President Trump's executive order eliminating birthright citizenship. The next day brought a bomb threat. Days later, a congressman circulated a wanted poster bearing Coughenour's face alongside several other judges, conspicuously omitting only the words "dead or alive."
Coughenour, appointed by Ronald Reagan four decades ago, had sentenced al Qaeda operatives and militia members. He had lived under round-the-clock protection before. But he had never experienced anything like this. "I've been at this for 44 years," he told investigators. "I have never encountered the hostility toward the judiciary that has existed in this country in the last year." The death threats—dozens, possibly hundreds—came in waves after his ruling on citizenship. They filled voicemails. They arrived in the mail. They appeared on the dark web.
Coughenour is not alone. Last year, 400 federal judges became targets of serious threats, a 78 percent increase over four years. The surge coincides with a pattern: whenever President Trump loses a case in court, his public response has been swift and caustic. He has called judges "communist radical left," "lunatics," and "monsters." He has accused them of obstruction and defiance. Each statement, judges and security experts say, opens a floodgate. The threats that follow are often grotesque. One voicemail, left after a judge ruled the president had violated the First Amendment, contained a wish that the judge's family be raped and decapitated. Another, after a benefits ruling, called for assassination. A third dared the judge to press charges against Trump.
The U.S. Marshals Service, tasked with distinguishing idle rage from genuine danger, is overwhelmed. Judge John Jones, a retired federal judge from Pennsylvania and a George W. Bush appointee, joined 55 other retired judges in forming a bipartisan group to petition the White House for restraint. "If we're not careful," Jones said plainly, "we're gonna get a judge killed." He believes the administration is deliberately delegitimizing the courts to consolidate executive power. "It's a presidency sort of on steroids," he explained, "with a very dormant Congress and a president who means to really say what the law is."
Judge Esther Salas, an Obama appointee in New Jersey, has become a leading voice against the attacks. She knows the cost of judicial violence intimately. In 2020, a failed litigant came to her home and shot her son Daniel dead, wounding her husband Mark. She survived that horror. But she says the current climate frightens her more. "I'm more concerned right now than I was after my only child was murdered," she said, her voice steady. The reason: the inflammatory rhetoric is now coming from the nation's highest office, amplified across the country.
What makes her case especially haunting is the weaponization of her grief. Intimidation packages have been sent to judges nationwide—at least 20 bearing her murdered son's name. The order forms reference Daniel. The messages warn: "We know where you live. We know where your children live. And do you want to end up like Judge Salas's son?" Salas has not seen the attorney general or deputy attorney general publicly denounce these tactics. "They're weaponizing my baby boy," she said. "They're weaponizing Daniel's name to inflict fear on judges."
Ron Zayas, CEO of a company that removes judges' personal data from the internet, has worked in security for fourteen years. He has never seen anything like the current volume of threats. More alarming still is the shift in their nature. Threats used to be reactive—"you ruled against me, and I want to kill you." Now they are strategic. "There's a whole other sphere of saying 'I wanna influence what you do,'" Zayas explained. "It's mob mentality. They wanna threaten you so that you make the right decision." When a message reaches a million people, he noted, only one needs to act.
The White House has responded by saying the president understands the dangers of political violence—he has survived two assassination attempts. It has accused judges of "brazen defiance" and "unlawful rulings." The Deputy Attorney General called the judicial resistance a "war." But judges across the ideological spectrum say the comparison fails. Judge Jones, a Republican, stated plainly: "I would not concede that the Democratic party or Democratic office holders have conducted themselves in any way that's similar to what this administration is doing with respect to the federal judiciary." The Constitution, Coughenour reminded his critics, has been the judiciary's north star for 250 years. "If nobody is going to make that decision and nobody's gonna enforce the Constitution," he said, "it becomes like the Constitution of Russia." What happens next depends on whether the threats remain words or whether one of them becomes action.
Notable Quotes
I've been at this for 44 years. I have never encountered the hostility toward the judiciary that has existed in this country in the last year.— Judge John Coughenour
They're weaponizing my baby boy. They're weaponizing Daniel's name to inflict fear on judges.— Judge Esther Salas, on packages sent in her murdered son's name
If we're not careful, we're gonna get a judge killed. It's just that stark.— Judge John Jones
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why do you think the president attacks judges so publicly? What does he gain?
He's trying to delegitimize the courts themselves. If people stop trusting judges, they stop accepting rulings against him. It shifts power away from the judiciary toward the executive.
But doesn't he understand that his words can inspire violence?
The judges I spoke with believe he does understand. That's what makes it more troubling. The White House says he knows the dangers of political violence. Yet the attacks continue.
What's different about this moment compared to past political tensions?
The scale and the coordination. Judges say they've never seen this volume of threats. And now the threats aren't just angry—they're strategic. People are trying to intimidate judges into ruling a certain way.
Judge Salas mentioned packages sent in her son's name. How is that even legal?
It's not. The Marshals are investigating. But the fact that it's happening at all, that someone thought to weaponize a murdered child's name to threaten other judges—that's the climate we're in.
Do the judges think this will change?
They're worried it won't. Not unless the rhetoric from the top stops. Judge Salas said she hasn't heard the attorney general denounce these tactics. Without that, the message to the public is that this is acceptable.
What's at stake if judges start ruling based on fear?
Everything. The Constitution becomes unenforceable. The rule of law collapses. You end up with a system where power flows entirely to whoever can threaten most effectively.