Politics
Judges Worry Trump Could Tell U.S. Marshals to Stop Protecting Them
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 that their security is handled by an agency that, through the attorney general, ultimately answers to the president, and whose funding, in their view, has not kept pace with rising threats.
“Cutting all the security from one judge or one courthouse — stuff like that hasn’t happened, and I don’t expect it to,” said Jeremy Fogel, a retired federal judge who directs the Berkeley Judicial Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, and is in frequent contact with current judges. “But, you never know. Because it’s fair to say that limits are being tested everywhere. Judges worry that it could happen.”
The Marshals Service said in a statement that it acted “at the direction of the federal courts” and “effectuate all lawful orders of the federal court.” The integrity of the judicial process, the statement read, depends on “protecting judges, jurors and witnesses.”
Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Trump’s decision to strip security from Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Bolton, two former officials, had no bearing on his approach to sitting judges. He called worries that the president would deprive judges of their security “speculation” that was “dangerous and irresponsible.”
Founded in 1789, the U.S. Marshals Service has a wide range of law-enforcement duties, in addition to its central function of supporting the judiciary. There are now 94 presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed U.S. marshal positions, one for each judicial district. The agency’s director reports to the deputy attorney general.
The concerns about who oversees the marshals come as threats against judges have been on the rise, expanding the burdens on the service.
Statistics released by the agency show that the number of judges targeted by threats more than doubled from 2019 to 2024, before Mr. Trump returned to office. In those years, he disputed the result of the 2020 election in court, and the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the ruling that made access to abortion a constitutional right. In June 2022, after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe leaked, an armed man made an attempt to assassinate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh at his home.
In his end-of-year report for 2024, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted “a significant uptick in identified threats at all levels of the judiciary.”
Since Mr. Trump took office in January, he and his supporters have insulted individual judges on social media and called for their impeachment in response to rulings they don’t like. In a message posted on Easter, Mr. Trump referred to “WEAK and INEFFECTIVE Judges” who are allowing a “sinister attack on our Nation to continue” in regard to immigration.
Judges and their family members have in recent weeks reported false threats of bombs in their mailboxes. As of mid-April, dozens of pizzas have been anonymously sent to judges and their family members at their homes, a means of signaling that your enemy knows where you live.
According to Ronald Zayas, the chief executive of Ironwall, a company that contracts with district courts, state courts and some individual judges to provide data protection and security services for judges and other public officials, the number of judges using his services for emergency protection is more than four times the average number for last year. He said 40 judges also used their own money to bolster their security with Ironwall, twice as many as on Jan. 1.
In a letter to Congress dated April 10, Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., who directs the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, complained that funding for court security remained frozen at 2023 levels through the 2025 fiscal year “at a time when threats against federal judges and courthouses are escalating.” Judges have issued similar warnings for years.
The total amount spent has remained nearly flat, rising to $1.34 billion in 2024 from $1.26 billion in 2022, according to statistics from the administrative office and the marshals, despite inflation and staff pay increases.
At the same time, burdens on the service have grown.
In recent years, the U.S. Marshals said in a statement, they have started helping to protect the homes of the Supreme Court justices, whose security is primarily handled by the separate Supreme Court Marshal’s Office. Last summer, a U.S. marshal stationed outside Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s home in Washington shot and wounded an armed man in an attempted carjacking.
In January, the Trump administration gave the marshals, along with other law enforcement agencies, the new power to enforce immigration laws. That move prompted Judge Edmond E. Chang, who chairs the Judicial Conference’s criminal law committee, to write a memo to all district-court and magistrate judges warning about the potential impact on the marshals’ ability to protect them. (Judge Chang declined to comment; his memo was reported earlier by Reuters.)
In addition to protecting judges’ lives, U.S. law states the marshals’ “primary role and mission” is “to obey, execute, and enforce all orders” from the federal courts. Enforcing court orders can entail imposing fines and imprisonment for anyone judges find to be in contempt of court, including, in theory, executive branch officials.
The Trump administration’s posture in some cases raises the possibility that the already-stretched marshals could emerge as a crucial referee between the branches. In the courtroom, Justice Department lawyers have come close to openly flouting court orders stemming from the unlawful deportation to a prison in El Salvador of a group of nearly 140 Venezuelans and Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, whose removal officials admitted was an “administrative error.” Two judges have responded by opening inquiries that could lead to administration officials being held in contempt of court.
“What happens if the marshals are ordered to deliver a contempt citation to an agency head that has defied a court order?” asked Paul W. Grimm, a retired federal judge who leads the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke University. “Are they going to do that? The question of who the Marshals Service owes their allegiance to will be put to the test in the not-too-distant future, I suspect.”
Concern over the oversight of the Marshals Service is not new. A 1982 report by the Government Accountability Office called the marshals’ oversight arrangement “an unworkable management condition.” As a possible solution, it proposed legislation to move control of the marshals to the judiciary.
Some members of Congress have begun proposing a similar solution.
“Do you think you could better protect judges if your security was more independent?” Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California, asked a federal judge testifying on behalf of the Judicial Conference at a hearing in February, a few days before Judge Sullivan’s remarks.
Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, responded that he considered the question of independent oversight legitimate. The judge answered that the conference would consider the matter.
In an interview, Mr. Swalwell said he was drafting legislation that would put the judiciary in charge of its own security.
Last month, Ronald Davis, who led the agency under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., issued a stark warning on LinkedIn of “a constitutional crisis if a president refuses to enforce or comply with a federal court order.” He too proposed measures to insulate the marshals from potential interference by the executive branch.
In the meantime, the administration’s immediate goal for the Marshals Service may be to shrink it.
On April 15, Mark P. Pittella, the agency’s acting director, sent a letter to more than 5,000 employees of the service as part of the staff-cutting measures associated with Elon Musk’s project, known as the Department of Government Efficiency, offering them the opportunity to resign and be eligible for more than four months of administrative leave with full pay. In the letter, obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Pittella wrote that agency leadership would review applications to ensure they did not “adversely impact U.S.M.S. mission-critical requirements.”
But a spokesman for the service said the offer was open to employees in all areas of responsibility, including marshals tasked with protecting judges.
Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, may have the deciding vote on Todd Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general. Even a single Republican “no” vote would block Mr. Blanche’s nomination, and the senator said after Wednesday’s meeting that he had not made up his mind.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
It was 2:35 am et Sunday.
The phone rang, yanking me out of deep slumber.
Calls like these are never good.
In the split second before I answered the phone, my mind traveled to the obvious place for any journalist who covers Capitol Hill and gets a call at that hour.
LINDSEY GRAHAM, SOUTH CAROLINA SENATOR WHO ROSE FROM SMALL-TOWN ROOTS TO GOP POWER BROKER, DIES AT 71
Former U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham hugs his sister Darline Graham Nordone on June 1, 2015, in South Carolina. (Jessica McGowan/Getty Images)
Surely it was about former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
McConnell has been out of service and nowhere to be found for weeks — after being hospitalized with an unspecified illness. The internet was rife with conspiracy theories and conjecture. And, considering the dearth of information, I suspected the worst.
My longtime colleague Jodie Curtis was on the line when I picked up. Jodie is a senior figure at Fox, forced into weekend overnight assignment editor duty because of an illness. Jodie calling to tell me that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was dead.
“Graham?” I asked incredulously. “Not McConnell?”
Emerging from my stupor, I instinctively presumed this might be about the infirm, Kentucky Republican. You’d have better odds presuming that overnight call was about McConnell than hitting an exacta wheel at Churchill Downs.
My instincts immediately kicked in.
What if this was psy-ops by the Russians, Chinese or Iranians. A rouse. A hoax. A hack.
I told my colleague to just wait a moment while we confirmed. It would be easy to get this wrong.
Back in the 1990s, lawmakers “killed” comedian Bob Hope on the House floor, prematurely announcing his death during special orders speeches. Yours truly – and everyone else in Washington – prematurely reported the death of the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH). She suffered from a catastrophic brain aneurism. Yet after they removed the Congresswoman from life support, she continued to live for a few hours before dying.
However, it became clear that Lindsey Graham was indeed dead. I was quickly on the air. When asked about the shock of Graham passing, I invoked a Native American adage: Death comes. And it’s always out of season.
Lindsey Graham was gone. But who would succeed him on Capitol Hill?
Think all in the family. At least for now.
Sens. Katie Britt (R-AL) and Tim Scott (R-SC) both implored the late senator’s kid sister Darline Graham to follow her brother. President Trump believed it would be a fitting tribute to the senator. So did South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) – who was in charge the appointment.
“It’s my honor to ask his sister to finish his work now,” said McMaster.
Darline Graham is a political neophyte. Lindsey Graham adopted his sister after their parents died – and Darline was a teenager.
“Lindsey has always been there for me. And now I will be there for him,” said now Sen. Darline Graham (R-SC).
Lindsey Graham was his sister’s caretaker. Now she’s the caretaker of his Senate seat until January.
But who’s next?
South Carolina has a small Congressional delegation. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) quickly excluded himself from the immediate running, noting the importance of remaining in the House. Plucking one of South Carolina’s House GOP members and appointing them to the Senate is a problem for the narrow Republican majority. The Constitution bars appointments to the House. So McMaster would have diminished the GOP’s slim majority had he picked a House member to fill in for Lindsey Graham. It would take months to conduct a special election to fill the vacant House seat.
Appointing Darline Graham solves that problem.
Reps. Russell Fry (R-SC), Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Ralph Norman (R-SC) are all interested in running for the full term. South Carolina will hold a snap primary in mid August. The winner will face Democrat Annie Andrews in November. Lindsey Graham had just secured the Republican nomination for a fifth term last month.
President Trump’s influence will play an outsized role in who gets the nod. He’s already singled out Fry.
But the election will look a little different this fall. November will mark the first time since the mid-1950s that either Lindsey Graham or late, legendary Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) isn’t on the ballot in the Palmetto State.
The Senate met for the first time Monday afternoon since Graham’s passing.
“Lord, we remember with gratitude his commitment to the responsibilities entrusted to him and the many ways he sought to serve the people of this country. Give comfort, strength and peace to his family, friends, colleagues and all who mourn his passing,” prayed Senate Chaplain Barry Black.
The Senate shrouded Graham’s desk with a black cloak. A bouquet of white roses rested on the desk, signifying a new beginning without a Senate titan.
“The halls of the Senate already feel empty without him,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD).
‘THIS IS NOT NORMAL’: AOC UNLOADS ON MCCONNELL’S PROLONGED ABSENCE
Former Sen. Lindsey Graham attends a press conference on border security at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on December 7, 2023. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Well wishers left notecards and flowers outside Graham’s office in the Russell Senate Office Building.
Senators praised Graham’s tenacity.
“He didn’t want to just argue about things. He wanted to actually solve things,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) on Fox.
Even until the end.
Over the weekend, Graham appeared to forge a deal on a Russia sanctions measure.
“This could be well, this could well be the end of the war in Ukraine. It could put all the pressure on Russia to finally end their illegal war of aggression,” predicted Sen. Angus King (I-ME).
Lindsey Graham first won a seat in Congress in 1994 as part of the “Republican Revolution.” That’s the historic class which flipped control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Graham and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) are the only members from that 1994 class still serving in Congress.
Graham earned a national profile barely four years after arriving in Washington. House GOP leaders tapped Graham to serve as one of the House “managers,” prosecuting articles of impeachment for President Clinton in the Senate.
“Impeachment is not about punishment,” argued Graham before the Senate in January, 1999. “Impeachment is about cleansing the office.”
Three years after that, Graham left the House. He became one of 100 in the Senate. But his colleagues conceded that the institution felt hollow at just 99.
“I am comforted by the knowledge that in the end, he has just changed his address. And that one day, Mr. President….” said Thune on the floor, pausing for ten seconds. “We will laugh together again.”
The Leader’s voice then cracked as he fought back tears.
“Mr. President, I yield the floor,” Thune whispered.
By Tuesday afternoon, Darline Graham became the 2,022nd senator in American history. But the first to immediately succeed her brother.
“He always said that his greatest accomplishment was the way that Darline turned out,” said Britt.
“I’m glad that there will be another Sen. Graham and that Darline will serve with us,” said
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE). “That’ll allow for some continuity.”
Graham’s passing leaves a Congressional chasm.
“It will be difficult to pass anything without Sen. Graham because he’s been such a significant voice in the Senate,” said Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY).
It’s unclear if any of that will fall to the Senate’s newest member.
LINDSEY GRAHAM’S SISTER CARRIES ON LATE SENATOR’S WORK, BECOMING SOUTH CAROLINA’S FIRST FEMALE SENATOR
Darline Graham Nordone speaks during a press conference outside the governor’s South Carolina State House office in Columbia. (Grant Baldwin/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Darline Graham joined her brother’s side when he briefly ran for President in 2015. She says Lindsey taught her how to ride a bike while growing up.
“He would hold on to the bicycle as I pedaled. And he’d run along beside of me. Give me a big push and shout ‘Keep pedaling! Keep pedaling!’ said the new senator. ” And then he was the one who comforted me when I stopped pedaling and fell off the bicycle.”
Today, Darline Graham is again hopping onto that bicycle to finish Lindsey Graham’s term.
You can almost hear the late senator, in his “upstate” twang shouting to his sister “Keep pedaling! Keep pedaling!”
Democrat Xavier Becerra holds a commanding lead in the California governor’s race in a new poll, which also shows broad voter support for a ballot proposition to reform the state’s landmark environmental law to speed up housing and infrastructure.
The survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, released Wednesday night, focused primarily on questions related to climate change and environmental policies.
The results show Californians have a strong distaste for building data centers for artificial intelligence technology, and largely favor the state’s efforts to protect the environment and cut emissions — with some exceptions.
The survey showed Becerra with a big lead over Republican Steve Hilton in the race to replace term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom. Becerra, a longtime Democratic officeholder, received support from 61% of likely voters, compared with 36% for Hilton, a populist conservative who once advised a British prime minister.
Gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton speaks at the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in L.A. on Wednesday.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
The results are not surprising in a state where Democratic voters significantly outnumber Republicans. The GOP has not won a statewide election since 2008.
Just 2% of likely voters said they were unsure which candidate to support in the November election. The poll results skewed heavily partisan, with more than 9 in 10 Democratic and Republican voters picking their party’s respective candidate. Most independent voters leaned toward Becerra, 60%, over Hilton, 34%.
The results are similar to data from a poll conducted just before the June 2 primary election that asked voters to pick between the two candidates. In that survey, 52% said they supported Becerra and 31% were for Hilton.
In a statement Wednesday, Hilton characterized the race as “wide open,” contending that Becerra’s support was weaker than the poll’s headline figures would indicate.
“Instead of a 36-year career politician, we need a positive, energetic problem-solver with business experience and plans to make our state ‘Califordable’ — that’s me,” Hilton said.
Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland said in a statement that “Californians got to know Xavier Becerra during the primary, and they’re ready to make him their next governor. We’re keeping our eyes on the prize — hitting the trail every day ’til November to turn that support into votes.”
Support for CEQA reform
A ballot measure aimed at reforming the California Environmental Quality Act to speed up construction notched a strong showing in the poll.
Nearly three-quarters of likely voters, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents, said that they would vote for Proposition 45. The measure would shorten windows for environmental review, public comment and legal challenges for certain housing, transportation, water infrastructure and other projects.
“At this early stage in the campaign, California voters are feeling more aligned with Democratic candidates on the environment, and it shows in the polling,” said PPIC survey director Mark Baldassare. “But strong support for Proposition 45 reveals their desire to balance environmental priorities with housing and infrastructure needs.”
Strong data center opposition
The poll found large majorities of Californians do not want new data centers to support the AI boom built in their area; 44% of adults say they “strongly oppose” such projects, and 29% “somewhat oppose” them.
The majority opposition holds across political parties, geographic regions, gender, race and income. It’s especially pronounced in the Inland Empire, where plans for a 950,000-square-foot data center came to a halt after fierce resident pushback. Three-quarters of people surveyed in that region said they oppose building new data centers.
“Every day, we are hearing about how local communities across the nation are responding to plans for data centers,” Baldassare said. “Californians have weighed in and they share this growing concern.”
Support for environmental policies — except if they cost more
The poll also shows strong, if somewhat qualified, support for California’s efforts to reduce climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment.
Three-quarters of adults said policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been a good thing overall, and 65% said they support California leaders’ efforts to make their own environmental policies separate from the federal government.
While most respondents — 62% — said they favor a law requiring 100% of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources within the next two decades, just 38% said they were willing to pay more for electricity sourced from renewables.
“With energy prices spiking and affordability a growing concern, Californians are just not willing to pay more for renewable energy,” Baldassare said. A near-unanimous majority, 96%, said the cost of energy — including gasoline, natural gas and electricity — is a problem.
Newsom’s move to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035 also appears to have fallen out of favor. Two-thirds of Californians oppose the policy, a significant slip in approval from 2021, when a PPIC survey showed 49% supported the move.
Still, majorities of likely voters — 53% and 51%, respectively — said they approve of Newsom’s and the state Legislature’s handling of environmental issues.
At 28%, President Trump’s approval rating on the environment was much lower. In his second term, Trump has moved to slash environmental regulations, including easing pollution regulations on coal-fired power plants and pushing for oil drilling off California’s coast.
“Given this ratings gap, it’s not surprising that Californians want to see the state take the lead on climate change policy,” Baldassare said.
The survey polled 1,578 California adults, 1,003 of whom were likely voters, in English and Spanish from June 29 to July 6 and had a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points in either direction.
-
Rhode Island5 minutes agoJamestown Swarm Chaser has unique talent for catching, moving bees
-
South-Carolina11 minutes agoSouth Carolina Lottery Powerball, Pick 3 results for July 15, 2026
-
South Dakota17 minutes ago
SD Lottery Powerball, Lotto America winning numbers for July 15, 2026
-
Tennessee23 minutes agoHeavy police presence reported near Highway 31W in White House
-
Texas29 minutes agoNTSB Confirms Texas Tesla Had 100% Floored Accelerator Pedal During Fatal Crash
-
Utah35 minutes agoMuslim man stabbed at Utah mall over his religion, authorities say
-
Vermont41 minutes agoBen & Jerry’s Foundation says it will shut down amid legal dispute with parent company – VTDigger
-
Virginia47 minutes agoDrought emergency declared for parts of Virginia; governor warns of water restrictions
