🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump does not usually take counsel, especially from international figures who frequently attempt to praise and admire the US president.

But, the Central American nation's authoritarian leader Nayib Bukele has adopted a distinct strategy by calling on the White House to emulate his actions in impeaching so-called “dishonest judges.”

His appeal for Trump to move against the US judiciary also garnered support from Trump allies, including an social media message by former close Trump ally Elon Musk, who has previously amplified the Salvadoran's demands to oust US judges.

Growing Risks to Court Autonomy

Experts say that Bukele's latest remarks occur of unprecedented dangers to judicial independence and specific justices in the United States, and during a period where the Trump administration is employing comparable strong-arm methods used by rulers in countries such as Türkiye, the European state, the Asian nation, and Bukele's own the Central American country to undermine democratic accountability.

The president's online statement last week was just the latest in a string of taunts and allegations he has leveled against the American judiciary, such as a spring assertion that the US was “experiencing a court takeover,” and ridicule of a court's order to halt deportation flights sending suspected undocumented individuals to his nation's harsh prison system.

Attacks on Oregon Justice

The Salvadoran's impeachment call was also made amid online attacks on the state's federal judge Judge Immergut by presidential advisor Stephen Miller, attorney general Bondi, Musk, and Trump himself in a latest media briefing.

The judge had issued restraining orders blocking the administration from mobilizing the national guard, initially in the state then in the West Coast state. Trump has been eager to send troops into Portland, which the president has described as “war-ravaged” based on small, non-violent protests outside the city's homeland security facility.

History of Targeting Justices

The advisor, Bondi, and the entrepreneur have a history of attacking judges who have ruled against presidential directives or in other ways impeded the government's political agenda. Prior to resuming office this year, Trump urged his followers against judges presiding over his legal cases, who were then inundated with intimidation and harassment.

Monitoring groups, law enforcement agencies, and judges themselves have pointed to a heightened atmosphere of threats and coercion in the period since he returned to the White House.

Rising Threat Statistics

According to data collected by the federal agency, in the current year through the third quarter, there were 562 threats to 395 US justices, leading to 805 investigations. 2025 has already eclipsed the first recorded year, and last year, and is likely to exceed 2023's high of 630 reported incidents.

The dangers are not only happening at the federal level. Information by the university's Bridging Divides Initiative shows that there have been at least fifty-nine instances of threats, harassment, surveillance, or physical attacks committed against judges on the state and municipal levels in 2025.

Expert Insights on Threat Sources

Specialists state that the threats are a result of the rhetoric coming from senior administration figures.

In May, the watchdog group published a detailed report alleging that “harmful and reckless statements from Trump administration members and allies coincide with rising aggressive posts on online platforms.” It recorded “a fifty-four percent increase in demands for removal and violent threats against judges across digital networks from January to February 2025, the initial period of the president's term.”

Heidi Beirich, the founder of the organization, said: “The president's warnings against judges have definitely fueled online vitriol at judges and calls for impeachment. Targeting the judiciary is another move in the administration's march towards strongman rule.”

International Authoritarian Tactics

That march towards authoritarianism has been common in the past decade in multiple nations, including by the Salvadoran.

In 2021, right after starting a second term in the face of legal bans, the president's parliamentary loyalists voted to remove the country’s attorney general and five justices on the supreme court. The justices, who had provoked his ire by ruling against coronavirus measures, were replaced by replacements hand picked by the leader.

The action echoed the Hungarian leader's remodeling of the nation's judiciary in 2018; the Turkish president's judicial purges in 2019; and attempts at comparable actions in Israel and the European country.

Undermining Judicial Independence

Analysts say that the intimidation and verbal assaults in the US can be seen as attempts to undermine court autonomy in a structure that provides no simple method for the executive to remove judges the administration disapproves of.

Meghan Leonard, an associate professor at Illinois State University who has studied democratic decline in democracies, said the White House had taken cues from the examples set by authoritarians overseas.

“The administration 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 the advisor's relentless claims of nearly limitless presidential authority, she noted: “They openly criticize the courts by repeating over and over that it is not a equal branch in the government structure.

“They persist in redefine the discussion by repeating their argument that the president has more power than this other co-equal branch, which is not how checks and balances work.”

The professor said: “Judges' sole safeguard is public trust in the authority of their capacity to make those rulings. Personal intimidation on top of eroding institutional legitimacy may make judges think twice about decisions that go against the sitting government, which is, of course, massively problematic for court oversight and for the political system.”

Coercion Methods

Kim Lane Scheppele, academic of sociology and international affairs at the Ivy League school, has documented the use of “autocratic legalism” by the such as Orbán and the Russian, and has warned about rising threats to judges in the US.

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

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

“Federal judges are protected by the Secret Service and the federal police. And these are specialized police units that are placed institutionally inside the federal agency. And Pam Bondi has been leading the criticism on justices.”

Administration Aims

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