On September 2, 2025, President Donald Trump escalated his criticism of federal judges, labeling them “activist” for blocking his immigration policies, including expedited deportations and birthright citizenship restrictions. Trump’s call to remove such judges, echoed by allies like Attorney General Pam Bondi, has sparked a firestorm. Supporters argue that judges like Jia Cobb, who halted Trump’s nationwide fast-track deportation plan, overstep their authority, undermining the president’s mandate to secure borders. Cobb’s August 30 ruling cited due process violations, arguing the policy risked wrongful removals. Similarly, judges in California and New Hampshire blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship order, citing constitutional conflicts.
Critics, including the ACLU and legal scholars like Claire Finkelstein, warn that targeting judges threatens judicial independence, a cornerstone of democracy. They argue that courts are upholding the Constitution against executive overreach, noting Trump’s policies often lack congressional backing. The Supreme Court’s recent curb on nationwide injunctions has shifted battles to class-action lawsuits, yet Trump’s team insists judges are obstructing voter will. Bondi’s DOJ has appealed multiple rulings, accusing courts of impeding immigration enforcement. However, experts like James Sample of Hofstra University call attempts to remove judges “fanciful,” though harassment of judges’ families, as seen with Judge Boasberg, raises concerns about intimidation. The clash, intensified by Trump’s mass deportation agenda, tests the balance of power as legal battles mount.
