President Donald Trump's recent call for Congress to impose harsh penalties on judges as "repeat offenders" marks a dangerous escalation in the administration's war on the judiciary, according to a former Biden White House counsel. Speaking at a National Republican Congressional Committee event earlier this year, Trump urged lawmakers to pass a tough crime bill targeting judges—a move that critics say threatens both judicial independence and the safety of court personnel.
Phil Brest, who served as senior counsel in the White House Counsel's Office under President Joe Biden and previously worked on judicial nominations in the Senate, argues that such rhetoric is not merely political theater but a direct assault on the rule of law. "Judges—federal and state, at the trial and appellate levels—are, at this moment, the vanguard of safeguarding democracy," Brest writes. He notes that scrutiny of judges has become increasingly dangerous, targeting not just their decisions but their families and personal security.
GOP Escalation Against the Courts
Brest points to multiple examples of the Trump administration and its congressional allies targeting judges. Trump has attacked specific judges by name, including calling several Supreme Court justices "a disgrace to our nation" after they ruled against his tariff policies. Right-wing lawmakers have introduced articles of impeachment against federal judges who issued opinions they disagreed with, even though such efforts are doomed to fail. The Department of Justice has reportedly urged U.S. attorneys to collect information on judges that could form the basis of impeachment referrals—a misuse of taxpayer funds, Brest argues.
These actions, Brest contends, are designed to intimidate judges into compliance with the administration's agenda. "Statements and actions like this pose a grave danger to our constitutional order, threatening to undermine the independence of our judiciary and make judges think twice before issuing decisions that may go against the interests of this administration and its allies," he writes.
The threats are not abstract. From 2017 to 2025, Brest worked on judicial nominations and witnessed firsthand the dangers judges face. In 2020, while in the Senate, he worked with a Republican counterpart to redact a nominee's financial disclosure form that risked revealing which schools his children attended—even though the nominee was a high-profile Trump pick. During the Biden administration, Brest counseled nominees as they weighed threats against themselves and their loved ones, listening to alarming voicemails and reading personal attacks rooted in religion, ethnicity, or national origin.
Brest acknowledges that criticism of judicial decisions is legitimate in a democracy. He himself believes cases like Citizens United, Dobbs, Shelby County, and Janus were wrongly decided. But he draws a sharp distinction between principled disagreement and the current campaign of intimidation. "We can and should continue to criticize judicial decisions that undercut core freedoms," Brest writes. "But we must recommit to a form of more principled disagreement, which does not threaten the integrity of our courts or the security of our frontline judicial personnel."
The article also highlights a broader pattern of political attacks on institutions, as seen in the recent trend of Americans actively avoiding Trump-related news, which reflects growing polarization. Meanwhile, the administration's push against judges echoes other aggressive policy moves, such as reshaping Latin America through counter-China initiatives.
Brest concludes with a call to action: "Attacks on the independence and safety of judges, whatever the source, must stop now."
