🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump does not usually take counsel, especially from foreign leaders who often attempt to praise and admire the American leader.

But, the Central American nation's strongman president Nayib Bukele has adopted a distinct strategy by calling on the White House to emulate his actions in impeaching what he terms “corrupt judges.”

The call for the president to move against the American court system also received backing from Maga figures, including an X post by former close Trump ally the billionaire, who has previously boosted the Salvadoran's demands to oust US judges.

Growing Threats to Court Autonomy

Experts note that Bukele's recent intervention occur of unmatched threats to court autonomy and individual judges in the US, and during a phase where the president's team is employing similar authoritarian tactics used by leaders in nations such as Türkiye, the European state, India, and Bukele's own the Central American country to undermine democratic accountability.

The president's social media call recently was just the latest in a string of provocations and claims he has leveled against the US's legal system, including a spring assertion that the US was “experiencing a judicial coup,” and ridicule of a court's ruling to halt removal operations transporting accused undocumented individuals to his country's harsh prison system.

Criticism on Federal Judge

Bukele's impeachment call was also made during social media attacks on Oregon justice Judge Immergut by presidential advisor Stephen Miller, attorney general Pam Bondi, Elon Musk, and Trump himself in a recent press gaggle.

The judge had ordered injunctions preventing the administration from mobilizing the military reserves, first in Oregon then in the West Coast state. Trump has been eager to send soldiers into Portland, which the president has characterized as “war-ravaged” based on limited, peaceful demonstrations outside the urban homeland security facility.

Record of Attacking Judges

The advisor, Bondi, and Musk have a history of attacking judges who have blocked presidential directives or otherwise impeded the government's policy goals. Prior to returning to power recently, Trump urged his followers against judges presiding over his legal cases, who were then inundated with intimidation and harassment.

Monitoring groups, law enforcement agencies, and judges themselves have highlighted a heightened climate of threats and coercion in the period since he returned to the presidency.

Increasing Risk Data

According to data collected by the US Marshals Service, in 2025 through the end of September, there were 562 incidents to nearly four hundred federal judges, giving rise to more than eight hundred inquiries. 2025 has already surpassed the first recorded year, and 2024, and is likely to exceed the previous year's high of 630 threats.

The dangers are not just happening at the national level. Data from the university's research project shows that there have been at least fifty-nine cases of intimidation, targeting, surveillance, or physical attacks directed against judges on the state and municipal levels in the current year.

Analyst Insights on Threat Sources

Specialists say that the intimidation are a product of the rhetoric coming from senior administration figures.

In May, the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE) published a comprehensive report alleging that “malicious and highly irresponsible statements from Trump administration members and supporters coincide with rising aggressive posts on online platforms.” It noted “a 54% increase in demands for impeachment and violent threats against judges across digital networks from the first two months 2025, the first full month of Trump’s administration.”

Beirich, the founder of the organization, said: “Trump’s warnings against judges have definitely fueled digital abuse at judges and calls for impeachment. Attacking the courts is another move in the administration's advance towards authoritarianism.”

International Authoritarian Tactics

This progression towards autocracy has been well-trodden in recent years in multiple nations, such as by the Salvadoran.

In several years ago, right after starting a second term in the face of legal bans, the president's parliamentary loyalists voted to remove the country’s attorney general and five judges on the supreme court. The judges, who had provoked his ire by rejecting coronavirus measures, were replaced by new appointees selected by the leader.

The move mirrored the Hungarian leader's overhaul of the nation's judiciary in 2018; Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s judicial purges recently; and attempts at comparable actions in the Middle Eastern state and the European country.

Weakening Judicial Independence

Experts explain that the threats and verbal assaults in the US can be seen as efforts to weaken judicial independence in a structure that provides no simple method for the president to remove judges the administration opposes.

Leonard, an academic at Illinois State University who has researched authoritarian backsliding in free nations, said the Trump administration had taken cues from the examples set by strongmen abroad.

“The government is looking around at these achievements and setbacks. They know they’re not going to be able to pass any laws that would weaken the judiciary,” she said.

Pointing to instances such as Miller’s relentless claims of nearly limitless executive power, she added: “They openly attack the courts by stating repeatedly that it is not a equal branch in the separation of powers.

“They continue to redefine the debate by repeating their claim that the president has more power than this other co-equal branch, which is not how separation powers work.”

Leonard said: “Justices' sole safeguard is public trust in the legitimacy of their capacity to make those decisions. Individual threats on top of weakening trust in courts may make judges think twice about decisions that go against the current administration, which is, of course, massively problematic for court oversight and for democracy.”

Intimidation Tactics

Kim Lane Scheppele, academic of social science and international affairs at Princeton University, has documented the use of “autocratic legalism” by the likes of the Hungarian and the Russian, and has spoken out about rising threats to judges in the US.

She pointed to a wave of so-called “pizza doxxings” recently, in which judges have received unsolicited pizza deliveries with the customer listed as a name, the son of Judge Esther Salas, who was murdered at the judge’s home in several years ago by a gunman targeting Salas.

“Everyone understands what it means. ‘We know where you live. We’re coming for you,’” Scheppele said.

“US justices are protected by the presidential protection and the Marshals Service. And these are specialized police units that sit institutionally inside the Department of Justice. And Pam Bondi has been leading the criticism on federal judges.”

Administration Aims

Regarding the administration’s aims, the expert said that “impeaching a US justice is highly not going to happen because it’s very difficult to do. {Right now|Currently