Subcommittee Democrats and Trump-Appointed Judges Reject MAGA’s Campaign to Undermine the Courts, Highlight the Need for Robust Funding

Washington, D.C. (June 24, 2025)—Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Hank Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, led subcommittee Democrats in countering Republicans’ effort to undermine the independence of the judiciary and wield the budgetary process as leverage to coerce the judiciary into ignoring Trump’s lawlessness.

The hearing included testimony from two Trump-appointed judges: the Honorable Amy St. Eve, Circuit Judge and Budget Committee Chair, Judicial Conference of the United States; and the Honorable Michael Y. Scudder, Circuit Judge and Information Technology Committee Chair, Judicial Conference of the United States. 

Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans’ attacks on judges who rule against the Administration have led to an increase in physical threats against judges, judiciary staff, and their families. 

• Rep. Zoe Lofgren said: “The Committee is holding a hearing focused on fiscal responsibility and supporting the functioning of our courts, while some of the members of this body are actively attacking judges with baseless impeachment threats. I don’t think you can claim to support the judiciary while undermining its independence. This isn’t about constitutional accountability. It’s about political intimidation and that political intimidation could—among unhinged members of the public—also bleed into uh actual physical violence.”
   
• Ranking Member Raskin asked Judge Scudder if he agrees that “a judge should never rule in a way that is designed to please a public official, as opposed to enforce the meaning of the law?” Judge Scudder replied, “I do agree with that, […] and that is embedded within the oath that judges take is we swear to decide and resolve issues without, without fear or favor. The independence of the judiciary is enshrined in Article III of the Constitution and we take seriously the duty that you recognized earlier, that Chief Justice Marshall pronounced in Marbury.”
   
• Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove said to Judges St. Eve and Scudder: “I applaud you for asking for more money for security because one of my Republican neighbors has a ‘Wanted’ poster outside his office with pictures of 18 judges—nine of whom are Republicans. It’s very scary to me and to all of the folks who are walking the halls, visiting us, to see.” 

Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans are threatening to deny the federal judiciary of sufficient funding, robust security, and secure infrastructure. 

• Ranking Member Johnson said: “Under the leadership of MAGA Republicans and the Trump Administration, it is harder than ever for the judiciary to serve the American people. […] Cyber-attacks on sensitive judiciary systems are on the rise, but the Trump administration is taking apart our cybersecurity infrastructure that keeps us safe. Even our buildings aren’t safe from Donald Trump. Our courthouses are crumbling, but he’s ending the leases for courthouses and building that are in use for the American people.”
   
• Ranking Member Johnson asked Judge St. Eve to explain “what having the courts adequately funded means for the constitutional functions of the judicial branch and conversely, how frozen funding can snowball into bigger problems for the rule of law.” Judge St. Eve said: “Having sufficient funding is essential for us to carry out our constitutional duties. The courts have to be funded for the judges to do their work and carry out their duties.”
   
• Rep. Deborah Ross said: “Recent events have shown that while we should be improving and investing in judicial security, this Congress is entertaining cuts to budgets because judges are issuing decisions that President Trump or some of my colleagues on this committee disagree with. But physical threats are not the only danger judges have for their ability to do their jobs. The judiciary is increasingly subject to cyber threats and attacks.” Judge Scudder replied, “You are absolutely correct, and as I tried to underscore, the cyber risk that the judiciary faces is very real. It’s persistent. It’s sophisticated. It’s hard to stay ahead of.”
   
• While Republicans refuse to provide for the safety of judges and courthouses in the face of growing threats, Rep. Eric Swalwell said that Democrats want to shield the courts from political interference: “My concern is that we have put your security in the hands of the executive branch and it’s often lately that the commander-in-chief will Tweet out or issue statements against judges and now your security is in the hands of somebody who doesn’t like a ruling that one of your colleagues has made. That’s why I introduced what’s called the Marshals Act. Every Member of the Democratic side supports it. […] This would move judicial security from the executive branch. […] Essentially judges would become in charge of their own security. […] My introducing this legislation is entirely motivated by the fact that I don’t know who the president will be four years from now, eight years from now, 25 years from now, but I do know that threats are escalating against judges. I think regardless of who the party is at the White House, their independence needs to remain independent of their own security threats.”
   
• Ranking Member Johnson said: “When Congress passed the CR in December, the Federal Defender Services budget was frozen at the level from the year before, leaving the program at a critical shortfall. Without funding, the federal defenders won’t be able to provide counsel. Without the federal defenders, prosecutions can’t go forward under the Constitution. You see, everything breaks down when the federal defenders are not able to do their jobs. And that’s the cliff the judiciary is headed towards without the requisite funding.” 

Donald Trump keeps losing in court, so Republicans in Congress are targeting judges and undermining the independence of the judiciary to help Donald Trump win in court. 

• Ranking Member Raskin said: “Some of my Republican colleagues have suggested that the only way the judiciary will get the funding it needs is if judges change how they rule on decisions important to the White House. Punchbowl News recently reported about the controversy over threats to judges. For example, when asked about increased funding for judicial security in light of the skyrocketing threats to federal judges, my friend Chairman Jordan told a reporter, ‘I don’t know that there’s going to be a lot of people excited about giving them an increase.’ Another colleague reportedly suggested that the judiciary “should stop screwing everything up” if they want more security funding. Checks and balances only work under the Constitution when the three branches of our government respect each other’s essential independence of action and decision. To withhold the means of guaranteeing the safety of a judge or their family is to compromise that independence.”
   
• Trump and Congressional Republicans are attempting to paint principled judges upholding the law as “communist radical-left judges” for ruling against the Trump Administration.Rep. Joe Neguse asked Judge Scudder if he bought these characterizations that the “federal judiciary is ‘politically compromised.’” Judge Scudder replied, “I don’t. My experience in the 7th Circuit and with my colleagues all around the country is very much in keeping with the comments and the observations that Rep. Raskin made with respect to the seriousness with which judges take their oath and approach each case or controversy that comes before them, to look at the facts and the law to try to get it right.” Judge St. Eve agreed, saying, “I’ve been a judge for 23 years now, and I feel the exact same way that Judge Scudder does.” Even Trump-appointed judges reject the MAGA smear campaign against the courts.