FnF News
“President-Envy”: Trump Allies Blast Federal Judges Amid Escalating Legal Battles
By Khadija Khan | FNF News | May 29, 2025
PALM BEACH, FL — Former President Donald Trump and his allies are once again sharpening their attacks on the U.S. judiciary, this time targeting the nation’s 677 district court judges. In a fiery statement released via Truth Social on Tuesday, a Trump campaign surrogate accused federal judges of harboring “president-envy,” suggesting they are overstepping their bounds by ruling on matters that, in Trump’s view, belong to the executive branch.
“Each of the 677 district court judges who have president-envy should raise $1 billion, run for the office of President of the United States, and win,” wrote Trump-aligned attorney and campaign spokesman Alina Habba. “Unless and until they do this, they should not poach on the territory of the President of the United States.”
The statement, while not directly authored by Trump himself, closely echoes the former president’s growing pattern of lashing out at the judiciary as he faces multiple federal and state criminal indictments, civil fraud judgments, and gag orders.
Legal experts and political observers say the rhetoric represents an escalating effort by Trumpworld to delegitimize the court system ahead of key 2024 and 2026 legal and electoral events.
Courts Under Fire from Trump Camp
The aggressive posture toward the judiciary is not new for Trump, who has long portrayed himself as a victim of a “weaponized” legal system. But the “president-envy” attack introduces a new, almost mocking tone — one that attempts to frame federal judges as failed or jealous political actors rather than impartial arbiters of the law.
“This kind of rhetoric is not just irresponsible, it’s dangerous,” said Neal Katyal, former acting U.S. Solicitor General, in an interview with MSNBC. “It undermines public confidence in the rule of law and endangers judges who are just doing their jobs.”
Trump has been indicted in multiple jurisdictions, including:
- Manhattan criminal court for falsifying business records related to hush money payments,
- Federal court in Florida for mishandling classified documents,
- Federal court in D.C. for attempting to overturn the 2020 election,
- Fulton County, Georgia, where he and 18 co-defendants face RICO charges tied to election interference.
All these cases have required Trump to appear before federal or state judges — several of whom have imposed limited gag orders or ruled against him in pre-trial motions.
A Pattern of Escalation
This week’s “president-envy” jab comes on the heels of Trump’s intensified focus on U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over his January 6-related federal case in Washington, D.C. Trump has repeatedly attacked her as “biased,” “anti-Trump,” and “Obama’s judge” — ignoring warnings from his own lawyers that such statements could impact the proceedings or invite stricter gag orders.
“He’s not fighting legal battles anymore — he’s fighting to delegitimize the entire judicial system,” said Barbara McQuade, former U.S. Attorney, speaking to CNN. “Calling judges ‘jealous’ of the president is part of that strategy.”
Judge Chutkan isn’t alone in facing heat. In Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon — who was appointed by Trump himself — has been criticized from the left for allegedly slow-walking the classified documents case. But despite favorable rulings in that case, even she hasn’t been immune from veiled Trump warnings about “consequences” for disloyalty.
Dangerous Rhetoric, Real-World Risks
Federal judges and judicial watchdogs warn that Trump’s attacks aren’t just rhetoric — they have consequences. According to a 2024 report by the U.S. Marshals Service, threats against federal judges have risen 231% since 2018, much of it driven by political grievances and conspiracy theories spread online.
“Judges are not politicians. They don’t campaign. They don’t raise $1 billion. They apply the law,” said retired U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner during a panel hosted by the Brennan Center for Justice. “Trump’s statements invite violence and erode public trust in a foundational institution of American democracy.”
Following Trump’s Truth Social posts targeting Judge Arthur Engoron — who oversaw Trump’s New York civil fraud trial — the judge and his staff received hundreds of threats, according to court filings. Security has been ramped up around multiple courthouses where Trump is scheduled to appear.
Republican Silence — and Complicity?
Despite the inflammatory rhetoric, few Republicans have spoken out against Trump’s attacks. In fact, some appear to be adopting similar language.
Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH), a staunch Trump ally and possible 2028 contender, recently said on Fox News:
“These judges are behaving like unelected kings, not public servants. Maybe some of them do want to be president.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) took it even further in a post on X:
“These activist judges think they’re above the President of the United States. They’re not. The American people see what’s happening.”
Critics argue that such statements are not only enabling Trump’s attacks but emboldening a broader Republican war on institutions — one that began with the press, expanded to the FBI and intelligence community, and now appears centered on the judiciary.
Legal Community Pushes Back
The Federal Judges Association, a nonpartisan group representing Article III judges, issued a rare public statement this week in response to the “president-envy” remarks.
“Judicial independence is a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution,” said FJA President Roslynn Mauskopf. “Personal attacks on judges — especially those rooted in false or inflammatory claims — threaten the very system of checks and balances designed by our founders.”
Even some conservative legal figures expressed unease. Former Attorney General Bill Barr, once Trump’s ally, called the attacks “childish and destructive.”
“Judges don’t need to run for office to do their jobs,” Barr told CBS News. “That comment about raising $1 billion and running for president? It’s beneath the dignity of any serious legal or political discourse.”
Framing the Judiciary as an Opponent
Trump’s team appears to be following a calculated playbook: frame every legal setback as a political assault, and every judge as part of a “deep state” vendetta.
The language of “president-envy” reinforces that framing — transforming judges from neutral arbiters into thwarted rivals in Trump’s narrative. Analysts say it’s part of a broader populist strategy that turns legal accountability into political persecution.
“It’s classic demagoguery,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian of authoritarianism. “You delegitimize any authority that constrains you. That includes courts.”
And with Trump all but certain to be the GOP nominee in 2024 despite his legal challenges, that strategy may soon have national implications far beyond the courtroom.
Democrats Sound the Alarm
Democrats are increasingly vocal in warning that Trump’s rhetoric is laying the groundwork for a potential constitutional crisis.
“He’s not just defying the courts. He’s trying to break them,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). “Every time Trump loses in court, he claims the court is illegitimate. It’s not a coincidence. It’s a blueprint.”
President Joe Biden, who has mostly stayed silent on Trump’s legal woes, briefly addressed the issue at a fundraiser in Chicago:
“We believe in the rule of law — not the rule of one man’s ego.”
A Dangerous Precedent
As Trump barrels toward the 2024 election under a cloud of indictments, the fight over judicial independence is likely to intensify. With trials looming and public opinion split, his “president-envy” attack may seem absurd to legal scholars — but it could be politically potent among his base.
The question now is whether the judiciary, and the country, can withstand another chapter in Trump’s war on institutions.
Sources:
- U.S. Marshals Service – Judicial Security Report 2024
- Truth Social – May 27, 2025
- Brennan Center for Justice
- MSNBC – Interview with Neal Katyal, May 2025
- CBS News – Bill Barr Interview, May 2025
- CNN – Legal Panel, May 2025
- Federal Judges Association Statement – May 28, 2025