President Trump has escalated his criticism of federal judges who ruled against his administration’s policies, framing their decisions as an overreach threatening presidential authority. This rhetoric follows two high-profile court rulings: one ordering the rehiring of thousands of fired federal workers and another blocking mass deportations under a rarely used 18th-century law.
A federal judge in San Francisco ordered six federal departments to immediately reinstate roughly fired in February, calling the mass terminations a “sham” strategy to bypass legal workforce reduction procedures. Judge William Alsup accused the Trump administration of lying by claiming the firings were based on performance reviews, noting some employees had outstanding evaluations. A second judge in Maryland later issued a similar ruling, prompting the administration to appeal both decisions. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the orders “absurd and unconstitutional,” arguing they infringe on executive hiring/firing powers.
The administration invoked the – previously used only during declared wars – to deport Venezuelans allegedly tied to the Tren de Aragua gang. After District Judge James Boasberg blocked the deportations, the administration continued flights carrying detainees, claiming the court order didn’t apply to planes already over international waters. This defiance drew warnings of a constitutional crisis, with immigration advocates accusing Trump of testing judicial authority.
Trump’s reference to “nearly 80 million votes” echoes his disputed claims about the 2020 election. Fact-checkers note vote totals fluctuate between elections due to shifting voter preferences, not fraud. While Trump won the 2024 election, experts emphasize this doesn’t validate earlier claims about 2020 irregularities.
The administration has appealed against its policies to the Supreme Court, arguing district judges wield disproportionate power. Legal experts warn Trump’s rhetoric mirrors authoritarian leaders who weakened judicial independence, though administration officials insist they’re following normal appeal processes. Meanwhile, Trump allies like Elon Musk and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele have encouraged confrontational tactics against judges.
These clashes reflect a deepening divide over the balance between executive authority and judicial oversight, with Trump framing the conflict as a defense of electoral mandates against unelected “activist judges”.
