On March 11, about 50 judges gathered in Washington for a six-month meeting of the Judicial Council, which oversees the administration of federal courts. It was the first time a meeting has met since President Trump took over the White House.
During discussions on staffing levels and long distance planning, judges' conversations focused on growing threats to judges and their safety, several people attending the rally said.
Behind the lockdown at one session, Judge Richard J. Sullivan, chairman of the conference's Judicial Security Committee, raised a scenario that sounded like dystopian fiction a few weeks ago, according to three staff members familiar with the anonymity status.
The former US s-service, which oversees judicial security by law, is part of the Justice Department, and Trump has directly controlled the way the president has not had since the Watergate scandal.
Judge Sullivan pointed out that Trump stripped former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his former national security adviser John Bolton of security. Will federal justice, the latest target for Trump's rage, be it?
Judge Sullivan, who was appointed President George W. Bush and subsequently promoted to appeals judge by Trump, introduced questions about his closing door remarks to the U.S. court administrative office, stating “full trust in the head of judicial security.”
There is no evidence that Trump is considering revoking his safety from the judge. But Judge Sullivan's remarks were an extraordinary indication of the judge's uncertainty over the threat facing the federal bench. And they emphasize that they are underscoring the discomfort from the judge. Their security will be handled by an agency that ultimately answers the president through the Attorney General and that their funds are not responding to the rising threat.
“Reducing all security from one judge or one court — that's not what happened, and I don't expect it,” said Jeremy Vogel, a retired federal judge who directed the Berkeley Judicial Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, and frequently contacted current judges. “But you never know, because it's fair to say that limits are being tested everywhere. The judges are worried that it could happen.”
In a statement, Marshall Services said it would act “at the direction of the federal court” and “affect all legal orders of the federal court.” The integrity of the judicial process relies on the “protection of judges, ju judges and witnesses.”
White House spokesman Harrison Fields said Trump's decision to strip Pompeo and two former staff members Bolton had nothing to do with his approach to judges. He called for concern that the president would be “dangerous and irresponsible” to steal their security “speculation” from judges.
Founded in 1789, the former US S-Service has a broad range of law enforcement obligations, in addition to its central function in supporting the judiciary. He is currently appointed president, and the senator has been appointed former US s, one in the Judicial District. The agency director reports To the Deputy Attorney General.
With the growing threat to judges, concerns about who will oversee Marshalls have increased the burden of services.
Statistics released by the agency show that before Trump took office, the number of threat targeted judges more than doubled from 2019 to 2024. That year, he challenged the results of the 2020 election, and the Supreme Court responded to Roev. It overturned Wade. In June 2022, an armed man attempted to assassinate Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh at his home after the Supreme Court's ruling on ROE was leaked.
In a year-end report in 2024, Secretary John G. Roberts Jr. said that “a significant increase in threats identified at all levels of justice.”
Since Trump took office in January, he and his supporters have scorned individual judges on social media and sought bullets each in response to rulings they disliked. In a message posted on Easter, Trump mentioned “weak and ineffective judges” who allow “sinister attacks on our country” in regards to immigration.
The judges and their families have been reporting the false threat of bombs in their mailboxes in recent weeks. As of mid-April, dozens of pizzas had been sent anonymously to the judge and his family at home.
According to Ironwall CEO Ron Zayas, the company that contracts district, state courts and some individual judges to provide data protection and security services to judges and other civil servants, the number of judges using the service for emergency protection is more than four times the average last year. He said 40 judges used their money to increase security with twice the ironwall on January 1st.
In a letter to Congress dated April 10, Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., directing the administrative office of US courts, complained, “I accused that court security funds remain frozen at the 2025 level until 2025 at a time when the threat to federal judges and courts is intensifying.” The judges have been giving similar warnings for years.
Despite inflation and increased staff salaries, the total amount spent has remained almost flat, up from $1.26 billion in 2022 to $1.34 billion in 2024, according to statistics from the Management Office and the Former S.
At the same time, the burden of service has grown.
In recent years, the former US S. said in a statement that it has begun to help protect the Supreme Court's home. Last summer, a former US S stationed outside the home of Judge Sonia Sotomayor in Washington, injured an armed man with a carjack, shot dead.
In January, the Trump administration gave Marshall a new authority to enforce immigration law, another law enforcement agency. The move has led Judge Edmund E. Chan, who chairs the Judicial Council's Criminal Law Committee, to write notes to all district courts and magistrate judges warning about the potential impact on Marshall's protective capabilities. (Judge Chang declined to comment. His memo was previously reported by Reuters.)
In addition to protecting the lives of judges, US law states that the former “primary role and mission” is “to obey, enforce and enforce all orders” from federal courts. Enforcement of a court order may involve fines and imprisonment on anyone who finds himself in court contreat, including theoretical secretariat staff.
The Trump administration's stance has increased the possibility that, in some cases, the already-growing former S will appear as a key judge between branches. In the courtroom, Justice Department lawyers approached an openly enthusiastic court order arising from nearly 140 Venezuelans and Kilmer Armando Abrego Garcia's illegal deportation to El Salvador prison. The two judges responded by launching an investigation that could lead to administrative authorities being detained at the court's light empty.
“What happens if a former s is ordered to deliver a lightly empty quote to an agent who violates a court order?” asked Paul W. Grimm, a retired federal judge who heads the Balch Institute of Justice at Duke University. “Are they trying to do that? I think the question of who Marshall's services are loyal to will be tested in the not too distant future.”
Concerns about Marshall Services oversight are nothing new. A 1982 report by the Government's Accountability Office called the Marshalls' oversight agreement “an in-feasible management conditions.” A possible solution was proposed to transfer control of the former S to the judiciary.
Some members of Congress are beginning to propose similar solutions.
“Do you think you can better protect your judges if your security is more independent?” California Democratic leader Eric Swalwell asked a federal judge who testified on behalf of the judiciary meeting at a February hearing just days before Judge Sullivan said.
Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican of California, responded that he legally considers the issue of independent surveillance. The judge replied that the meeting would consider the issue.
In an interview, Swalwell said he is drafting a law that will take charge of justice's own safety.
Last month, Ronald Davis, who headed the agency under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said, “If the president refuses to enforce or comply with federal court orders, he issued a harsh warning of the constitutional crisis. He also proposed measures to isolate the former from potential interference by the administrative agencies.
In the meantime, the administration's immediate goal for Marshall Services may be to reduce it.
On April 15, Acting Director of the Agency, Mark P. Pittera, wrote letters to more than 5,000 employees of the service as part of a staff cut measure related to the Elon Musk project known as government efficiency, providing the opportunity to resign from more than four months of administrative leave and qualify. In a letter obtained by the New York Times, Pittera wrote that agency leadership will review the application and “prevent negatively affecting USMS mission-critical requirements.”
However, a service spokesman said offers are open to employees in all responsible areas, including former members of the judges.
