Judges Worry Trump Could Tell U.S. Marshals to Stop Protecting Them

The New York Times ^ | April 25, 2025, 10:37 a.m. ET | Mattathias Schwartz and Emily Bazelon

[E. Pluribus Unum]

On March 11, about 50 judges gathered in Washington for the biannual meeting of the Judicial Conference, which oversees the administration of the federal courts. It was the first time the conference met since President Trump retook the White House.

In the midst of discussions of staffing levels and long-range planning, the judges’ conversations were focused, to an unusual degree, on rising threats against judges and their security, said several people who attended the gathering.

Behind closed doors at one session, Judge Richard J. Sullivan, the chairman of the conference’s Committee on Judicial Security, raised a scenario that weeks before would have sounded like dystopian fiction, according to three officials familiar with the remarks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations: What if the White House were to withdraw the protections it provides to judges?

The U.S. Marshals Service, which by law oversees security for the judiciary, is part of the Justice Department, which Mr. Trump is directly controlling in a way that no president has since the Watergate scandal.

Judge Sullivan noted that Mr. Trump had stripped security protections from Mike Pompeo, his former secretary of state, and John Bolton, his former national security adviser. Could the federal judiciary, also a recent target of Mr. Trump’s ire, be next?

Judge Sullivan, who was nominated by President George W. Bush and then elevated to an appellate judgeship by Mr. Trump, referred questions about his closed-door remarks to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which stated its “complete confidence in those responsible for judicial security.”

There is no evidence that Mr. Trump has contemplated revoking security from judges. But Judge Sullivan’s remarks were an extraordinary sign of the extent of judges’ anxiety over the threats facing the federal bench. And they highlight a growing discomfort from judges...

[GingisK]

Great idea!

[Glad2bnuts]

That is the exact comment I was going to write.

[brownsfan]

It’s an outstanding way to save money.

[Qwapisking]

be a shame if those judges lost their protection for, you know, reasons.

[SpaceBar]

Thanks for the tip, Mattathias and Emily.

[cableguymn]

I didn’t know that they even had protection. You’re right it is a great idea

[Fledermaus]

They could always hire a gang banger from El Salvador.

[butlerweave]

Great idea!

Ya , that is a great idea , make them pay for their own security

[Wpin]

Maybe they deserve to lose protection. Many are acting lawlessly against the nation.

[SmokingJoe]

Criminal lawless “judges* like Boesberg should not have federal marshal protection.
Federal marshals should be arresting them for their crimes like they just arrested Judge Dugan in Milwaukee.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Do it. Why should the lives of America’s greatest lawmen be endangered protecting these far-left tyrants in black robes?

[Sacajaweau]

There’s 1770 Federal Judges...

[hanamizu]

There is no evidence that Mr. Trump has contemplated revoking security from judges.

---

So the most important fact is buried in the 7th paragraph.

[madison10]

Came to say the same. Great idea, judge.
Thanks.

[dpetty121263]

Let the People decide their fates...If the People want to dish out some opinions on these Judges, I have no problem with it.

[ModelBreaker]

Why are they afraid? They can just issue a nationwide injunction requiring whatever degree of protection they want.

[Colorado Doug]

Turn off their climate control too. To save energy, ya know. We all want to do our part for Mother Gaia

[Mathews]

Well, stop doing stupid chit.

[jimpick]

Judicial tyranny has ramifications? Who knew? So glad they are starting to realize that their actions may have consequences.