🔗 Share this article

The US President rarely accepts guidance, especially from international figures who frequently attempt to praise and admire the American leader.

But, the Central American nation's authoritarian leader Nayib Bukele has followed a distinct strategy by calling on the White House to follow his example in impeaching what he terms “dishonest judges.”

His appeal for Trump to move against the American court system also received support from Trump allies, such as an social media message by former close Trump ally the billionaire, who has in the past amplified Bukele's demands to oust US judges.

Growing Risks to Court Autonomy

Experts say that the leader's recent remarks come at a time of unprecedented dangers to court autonomy and specific justices in the US, and during a period where the president's team is employing comparable authoritarian methods used by rulers in countries such as Turkey, Hungary, the Asian nation, and his native El Salvador to weaken government oversight.

The president's online statement last week was one more in a long series of taunts and allegations he has made against the American judiciary, including a spring claim that the US was “experiencing a court takeover,” and ridicule of a federal judge's ruling to halt deportation flights transporting accused illegal immigrants to his nation's harsh correctional facilities.

Attacks on Oregon Justice

Bukele's impeachment call was also issued during online attacks on Oregon justice Judge Immergut by presidential advisor Stephen Miller, attorney general Bondi, Elon Musk, and the president himself in a recent press gaggle.

The judge had issued restraining orders preventing Trump from mobilizing the national guard, initially in the state then in California. Trump has been pushing to send troops into the city, which the president has characterized as “war-ravaged” based on small, non-violent protests outside the urban homeland security facility.

History of Targeting Judges

Miller, Bondi, and Musk have a history of attacking judges who have ruled against presidential directives or otherwise hindered the administration's policy goals. Before resuming office recently, the president directed his followers against judges presiding over his legal cases, who were then inundated with threats and abuse.

Monitoring groups, law enforcement agencies, and judges themselves have highlighted a heightened atmosphere of risks and intimidation in the months since he returned to the presidency.

Increasing Risk Data

Based on data collected by the US Marshals Service, in the current year through the end of September, there were 562 incidents to 395 US justices, giving rise to 805 inquiries. 2025 has already surpassed the first recorded year, 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. Data from the university's Bridging Divides Initiative indicates that there have been at least 59 instances of intimidation, targeting, stalking, or violence committed against judges on the state and municipal levels in 2025.

Analyst Insights on Threat Sources

Specialists say that the threats are a product 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 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 January to February of this year, the initial period of Trump’s administration.”

Heidi Beirich, the co-founder of GPAHE, said: “Trump’s warnings against judges have certainly driven digital abuse at judges and demands for impeachment. Attacking the courts is one more step in the administration's advance towards strongman rule.”

Global Strongman Playbook

This progression towards authoritarianism has been well-trodden in the past decade in multiple nations, such as by the Salvadoran.

In 2021, right after commencing a new term in the face of legal bans, Bukele’s allies in congress voted to remove the country’s attorney general and five judges on the constitutional court. The justices, who had angered him by ruling against coronavirus measures, were replaced by new appointees hand picked by the leader.

The action mirrored Viktor Orbán’s overhaul of the nation's judiciary several years back; Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s judicial purges recently; and efforts at similar moves in Israel and Poland.

Undermining Judicial Independence

Analysts say that the threats and rhetorical attacks in the US can be viewed as attempts to undermine judicial independence in a system that offers no easy way for the president to remove judges Trump disapproves of.

Leonard, an associate professor at the university who has studied authoritarian backsliding in free nations, said the Trump administration had learned from the examples set by authoritarians overseas.

“The government is observing at these successes and setbacks. They know they’re not going to be able to pass any legislation that would undermine the judiciary,” she said.

Pointing to examples such as Miller’s relentless claims of nearly limitless presidential authority, she added: “They directly attack the courts by stating over and over that it is not a co-equal branch in the separation of powers.

“They persist in redefine the discussion by repeating their claim that the executive has greater authority 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 authority of their ability to make those rulings. Personal intimidation on top of weakening trust in courts may make judges hesitate about decisions that go against the sitting government, which is, of course, highly concerning for court oversight and for the political system.”

Coercion Methods

Kim Lane Scheppele, academic of social science and global studies at the Ivy League school, has documented the use of “authoritarian law” by the such as the Hungarian and Putin, and has warned about escalating threats to judges in the US.

She highlighted a series of termed “harassment deliveries” this year, in which judges have received unsolicited food orders with the recipient listed as a name, the son of Justice Salas, who was killed at the residence in several years ago by a gunman targeting the judge.

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

“US justices are protected by the presidential protection and the federal police. And these are specialized law enforcement that are placed institutionally inside the Department of Justice. And Pam Bondi has been spearheading the criticism on federal judges.”

Administration Aims

On the government's objectives, the expert said that “removing a US justice is highly not going to happen because it’s very difficult to do. {Right now|Currently