🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump rarely accepts counsel, particularly from foreign leaders who often seek to praise and admire the US president.

However, the Central American nation's authoritarian leader Nayib Bukele has adopted a different strategy by calling on the White House to follow his example in removing so-called “corrupt judges.”

The call for Trump to take action against the American court system also garnered backing from Maga figures, such as an social media message by one-time supporter Elon Musk, who has in the past boosted the Salvadoran's calls to impeach US judges.

Growing Risks to Court Autonomy

Experts note that the leader's latest remarks occur of unmatched threats to court autonomy and individual judges in the US, and during a period where the Trump administration is using comparable strong-arm tactics employed by leaders in nations such as Turkey, Hungary, the Asian nation, and Bukele's own El Salvador to weaken democratic accountability.

The president's social media call last week was one more in a string of taunts and allegations he has made against the US's legal system, such as a spring assertion that the US was “facing a court takeover,” and ridicule of a federal judge's order to stop removal operations transporting suspected undocumented individuals to his nation's brutal correctional facilities.

Criticism on Oregon Justice

The Salvadoran's demand for removal was also issued amid online criticism on the state's federal judge Judge Immergut by presidential advisor Stephen Miller, attorney general Bondi, Elon Musk, and the president himself in a recent press gaggle.

Immergut had issued restraining orders blocking Trump from mobilizing the military reserves, initially in Oregon then in the West Coast state. Trump has been pushing to dispatch troops into Portland, which the leader has characterized as “battle-scarred” based on limited, non-violent demonstrations outside the city's federal building.

History of Attacking Judges

The advisor, Bondi, and Musk have a history of attacking judges who have ruled against presidential directives or in other ways impeded the government's political agenda. Before resuming office recently, the president directed his supporters against judges presiding over his legal cases, who were then deluged with threats and abuse.

Watchdog organizations, police departments, and the justices have pointed to a heightened climate of risks and intimidation in the months since he re-entered the presidency.

Increasing Risk Data

According to information collected by the US Marshals Service, in 2025 through the third quarter, there were 562 incidents to nearly four hundred US justices, leading to more than eight hundred inquiries. 2025 has already surpassed 2022, and 2024, and is on track to top 2023's high of over six hundred reported incidents.

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

Analyst Insights on Threat Sources

Specialists state that the intimidation are a result of the language coming from top government officials.

In May, the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE) published a comprehensive report alleging that “malicious and reckless statements from White House allies and allies align with escalating aggressive posts on online platforms.” It recorded “a 54% increase in calls for removal and violent threats against judges across digital networks from January to February of this year, the first full month of Trump’s administration.”

Heidi Beirich, the founder of GPAHE, said: “Trump’s warnings against judges have definitely driven digital abuse at judges and demands for ouster. Attacking the courts is one more step in the administration's march towards authoritarianism.”

Global Strongman Playbook

That march towards authoritarianism has been common in the past decade in several countries, including by Bukele.

In several years ago, right after commencing a second term in the face of constitutional prohibitions, the president's allies in congress voted to remove the nation's attorney general and five justices on the constitutional court. The judges, who had angered him by ruling against pandemic policies, were replaced by new appointees hand picked by the leader.

The move echoed Viktor Orbán’s overhaul of Hungary’s court system several years back; the Turkish president's court cleanups in 2019; and attempts at similar moves in Israel and Poland.

Undermining Judicial Independence

Analysts explain that the intimidation and rhetorical attacks in the US can be seen as attempts to weaken judicial independence in a structure that offers no easy way for the president to remove judges the administration disapproves of.

Leonard, an academic at Illinois State University who has studied democratic decline in democracies, said the Trump administration had learned from the models set by authoritarians overseas.

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

Pointing to examples such as the advisor's persistent claims of broad presidential authority, she noted: “They directly criticize the courts by stating over and over that it is not a equal branch in the government structure.

“They continue to redefine the discussion by repeating their claim that the executive has more power than this other co-equal branch, which is not how checks and balances work.”

The professor said: “Justices' only protection is people’s belief in the legitimacy of their capacity to make those rulings. Individual threats on top of eroding institutional legitimacy may make judges hesitate about judgments that go against the sitting government, which is, of course, highly concerning for court oversight and for democracy.”

Intimidation Tactics

Scheppele, academic of social science and international affairs at Princeton University, has documented the use of “autocratic legalism” by the likes of Orbán and Putin, and has spoken out about escalating dangers to judges in the US.

She highlighted a wave of termed “harassment deliveries” this year, in which judges have received unwanted pizza deliveries with the recipient listed as Daniel Anderl, the son of Justice Salas, who was killed at the judge’s home in 2020 by a gunman aiming at the judge.

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

“Federal judges are protected by the presidential protection and the federal police. And those are both specialized law enforcement that are placed institutionally inside the Department of Justice. And Pam Bondi has been leading the attacks on federal judges.”

Administration Aims

Regarding the administration’s objectives, the expert said that “impeaching a US justice is almost certainly not going to happen because it’s so hard to do. {Right now|Currently