🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump is not typically known for counsel, especially from foreign leaders who frequently attempt to praise and admire the US president.

However, El Salvador's authoritarian leader Nayib Bukele has followed a distinct strategy by urging the Trump administration to follow his example in removing what he terms “dishonest judges.”

The call for the president to take action against the US judiciary also received support from Trump allies, including an X post by former supporter the billionaire, who has previously boosted the Salvadoran's calls to impeach US judges.

Growing Risks to Judicial Independence

Experts note that Bukele's latest intervention occur of unprecedented dangers to court autonomy and specific justices in the US, and during a period where the president's team is employing similar authoritarian tactics used by leaders in countries such as Türkiye, Hungary, India, and Bukele's own the Central American country to undermine democratic accountability.

Bukele's social media call recently was one more in a string of provocations and allegations he has made against the US's legal system, such as a spring claim that the US was “facing a judicial coup,” and his mockery of a court's order to halt removal operations sending suspected illegal immigrants to his nation's brutal prison system.

Criticism on Oregon Justice

The Salvadoran's demand for removal was also issued during social media attacks on Oregon federal judge Judge Immergut by White House aide Stephen Miller, former AG Pam Bondi, Elon Musk, and the president himself in a latest media briefing.

The judge had issued injunctions preventing the administration from mobilizing the military reserves, initially in the state then in the West Coast state. The president has been pushing to send troops into the city, which the president has described as “battle-scarred” based on small, peaceful demonstrations outside the urban homeland security facility.

Record of Attacking Justices

The advisor, the former AG, and Musk have a long record of criticizing judges who have ruled against presidential directives or otherwise impeded the government's political agenda. Before returning to power recently, Trump directed his supporters against judges presiding over his civil and criminal trials, who were then inundated with threats and harassment.

Watchdog organizations, law enforcement agencies, and judges themselves have pointed to a increased atmosphere of risks and intimidation in the period since he re-entered the presidency.

Rising Risk Data

Based on information collected by the US Marshals Service, in 2025 through the end of September, there were 562 threats to nearly four hundred federal judges, leading to more than eight hundred investigations. This year has already eclipsed the first recorded year, and last year, and is likely to top 2023's record of 630 reported incidents.

The dangers are not just happening at the federal level. Information by the university's research project indicates that there have been at least 59 instances of threats, targeting, surveillance, or physical attacks directed against judges on the local level in 2025.

Analyst Analysis on Root Causes

Experts state that the threats are a product of the language coming from top government officials.

In May, the watchdog group published a detailed report alleging that “malicious and highly irresponsible statements from White House allies and allies coincide with escalating aggressive posts on online platforms.” It noted “a fifty-four percent rise in demands for impeachment and physical intimidation against judges across social media platforms from January to February of this year, the initial period of the president's term.”

Beirich, the founder of GPAHE, said: “Trump’s warnings against judges have definitely driven online vitriol at judges and demands for impeachment. Targeting the courts is another move in the administration's advance towards strongman rule.”

Global Authoritarian Tactics

That march towards authoritarianism has been well-trodden in the past decade in several nations, such as by the Salvadoran.

In several years ago, right after starting a new term in the face of legal bans, Bukele’s parliamentary loyalists voted to dismiss the country’s attorney general and five judges on the supreme court. The justices, who had provoked his ire by ruling against pandemic policies, made way for new appointees hand picked by the leader.

The action mirrored Viktor Orbán’s remodeling of Hungary’s court system in 2018; the Turkish president's judicial purges recently; and efforts at comparable actions in the Middle Eastern state and Poland.

Undermining Judicial Independence

Analysts explain that the intimidation and rhetorical attacks in the US can be seen as efforts to weaken court autonomy in a system that provides no simple method for the president to dismiss judges the administration disapproves of.

Meghan Leonard, an associate professor at Illinois State University who has studied authoritarian backsliding in free nations, said the Trump administration had learned from the examples set by strongmen overseas.

“The administration is looking around at these successes and setbacks. They know they’re not going to be able to enact any legislation that would weaken the judiciary,” she said.

Citing instances such as Miller’s relentless assertions of nearly limitless presidential authority, she added: “They directly attack the judiciary by stating repeatedly that it is not a equal branch in the government structure.

“They persist in reframe the discussion by emphasizing their claim that the president has greater authority than this other co-equal branch, which is not how separation powers work.”

Leonard said: “Justices' only protection is people’s belief in the authority of their ability to make those decisions. Personal intimidation on top of weakening institutional legitimacy may make judges think twice about judgments that go against the sitting government, which is, of course, massively problematic for judicial review and for the political system.”

Coercion Methods

Kim Lane Scheppele, professor of social science and international affairs at the Ivy League school, has documented the use of “autocratic legalism” by the likes of Orbán and Putin, and has spoken out about escalating threats to judges in the US.

She highlighted a series of termed “pizza doxxings” this year, in which judges have received unwanted food orders with the recipient listed as Daniel Anderl, the son of Justice Salas, who was murdered at the residence in several years ago by a assailant targeting the judge.

“Everyone knows what it means. ‘Your address is known. We’re coming for you,’” Scheppele said.

“US justices are guarded by the presidential protection and the Marshals Service. And these are specialized police units that are placed institutionally inside the federal agency. And Pam Bondi has been spearheading the attacks on federal judges.”

Administration Aims

Regarding the government's objectives, the expert said that “impeaching a federal judge is highly not going to happen because it’s very difficult to do. {Right now|Currently