US federal judges consider creating own armed security force as threats mount

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Guardian

Sun 25 May 2025 15.39 EDT
Last modified on Sun 25 May 2025 15.48 EDT


Federal judges are discussing a proposal that would shift the armed security personnel responsible for their safety away from the Department of Justice (DoJ) and under their own control, as fears mount that the Trump administration is failing to protect them from a rising tide of hostility.

The Wall Street Journal revealed on Sunday that the idea of creating their own armed security detail emerged at a meeting of about 50 federal judges two months ago. A security committee at the twice-yearly judicial conference, a policymaking body for federal judges, raised concerns about the increasing number of threats against judges following Trump’s relentless criticism of court rulings against his policies.

Under the current system, federal judges are protected by the US marshals service, which is managed by the justice department. According to Wall Street Journal, those participating at the March conference expressed worries that Trump might instruct the marshals to withdraw security protection from a judge who ruled against him. Amid those anxieties, the idea surfaced that federal judges should form their own armed security force.

That would involve bringing the US marshals service under the direct control of the head of the judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts. At present, marshals fall under the remit of Pam Bondi, the US attorney general. Bondi was appointed by the president and is a Trump loyalist. She has made clear she will be guided by him – breaking a decades-long norm that kept the White House at arm’s length from the DoJ to ensure law enforcement and prosecutorial independence.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/25/federal-judges-armed-security-doj-trump-attacks

[SSJVegeta]

1. How though?

[Javaman]

18. I'm sure the dog killer will be all over that...

for a fee of course and via one of the many many right wing slime security corporations.

what better way to control the supremes than to make them feel secure.

[markodochartaigh]

2. "Competing factions

within the government depend upon their own security forces for their personal safety."

I'll take "Things Which Are Not Characteristic of Well-functioning Democracies" for one hundred, Alex.

[Paladin]

3. The judges' apprehensions are obviously well-founded.

Without question, trump would minimize protection for any judges who displeased him with their findings. And the further away their personal security is from the odious Pam Bondi's control, the better. Yet another shameful development from this scofflaw regime.

[Irish_Dem]

4. US Marshals showed themselves from day one as Trump's Nazi Gestapo.

Helping Musk illegally break into buildings and harassing people.

[perdita9]

5. This is what judges get for coddling Trump

As a convicted felon he shouldn't have been allowed on the ballot but John Roberts and crew failed to follow the Constitution.

[NotHardly]

10. THIS

[markodochartaigh]

12. Apparently in the

Official Supreme Court Dictionary the definitions for "tourist" and "terrorist" had been mixed up.

[Fullduplexxx]

6. Anonymity on phone calls ought to be made illegal

[twodogsbarking]

7. Where do I sign up.

[ToxMarz]

8. Maybe they need their own Revenue Service too

Because unless they have their own independent funding to operate, they will still be at the mercy of corrupt politicians in the other branches

[travelingthrulife]

9. They can fill the ranks with all the MAGA folk they refused to properly punish.

[GJGCA]

11. Hmm... Quis custodiet...

...ipsos custodes?

Seems applicable in more way than one...



On edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F

[ancianita]

15. A good read. Thank you.

[mdbl]

13. They better do it while they still can.

[hadEnuf]

14. Democrats should consider doing that

as well as the rest of the non-Trump public.

He is misusing government agencies and encouraging his armed and insane followers into violence as well.

[madville]

16. Congress would have to approve

And fund any such changes, not likely anytime soon. And Trump would have to sign any such legislation, that wouldn’t happen.

[joanbarnes]

17. Do it.