Judges warn Congress that more money is needed for security at a time of escalating threats
The federal judiciary is warning that Congress is not providing enough money for judges' security, at a time of escalating threats and chilling efforts at intimidation.
More than five dozen judges handling lawsuits against the Trump administration are receiving 'enhanced online security screening" that typically includes scrubbing their personal information from the internet, two federal judges appointed by Republican presidents wrote on behalf of the judiciary in a letter to congressional appropriators.
President Donald Trump, senior aide Stephen Miller and billionaire Elon Musk have railed at judges who have blocked parts of Trump's agenda, threatening impeachment and launching personal attacks. Trump's call to impeach the judge who temporarily halted deportations using an 18th century wartime law prompted a rare quick response from Chief Justice John Roberts.
Roughly 50 people have been charged with crimes in connection with the threats, U.S. Circuit Judge Amy J. St. Eve and U.S. District Robert J. Conrad Jr. said. Trump appointed St. Eve to the federal appeals court in Chicago during his first term.
'In extreme cases, the U.S. Marshals Service has been required to take extraordinary measures to ensure the safety of judges," St. Eve and Conrad wrote.
Authorities have yet to make any arrests in hundreds of increasingly unsettling and unwanted pizza deliveries to the homes of judges and their children, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas said during an online forum on Tuesday.
The most recent deliveries, this week, have been sent in the name of Salas' late son, Daniel Anderl, who was shot dead at the family home by a disgruntled lawyer in 2020.
The message is unmistakable, Salas said. ''I know where you live, I know where your kids live, and do you want end up like Judge Salas. Do you want to end up like her son?'' she said.
Last month, a sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the victim of a bomb threat in Charleston, South Carolina, police said. No bomb was found, police said.
The judges' letter was sent last week, but posted online Friday by the judiciary. It calls the current funding levels unsustainable, nearly $50 million less than what the courts requested just for security.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump's epic four-word troll of Republican against his 'big beautiful bill' after claiming he was snubbed from White House picnic
President Donald Trump 's cheeky bite back to a Senate Republican at odds with his 'big, beautiful bill 'made waves across social media platforms Thursday morning. Kentucky Republican Rand Paul had previously told reporters Wednesday that the White House had disinvited him from the annual Congressional Picnic, set to take place there later Thursday evening. But Trump contradicted his own White House on Thursday, indicating that 'of course' Paul and his family could attend. 'He's the toughest vote in the history of the U.S. Senate, but why wouldn't he be? Besides, it gives me more time to get his Vote on the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill,' Trump wrote in a post on his social media site Truth Social on Thursday morning. 'It will help to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! I look forward to seeing Rand. The Party will be Great!' Trump concluded. Speaking to reporters out side of the Capitol Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) shared that his invitation to the President's Congressional picnic had been cancelled. 'I've just been told that I've been uninvited from the [ White House ] Democrat will be invited, every Republican invited, but I will be the only one disallowed. I just find this incredibly petty', Paul said. The Daily Mail is reaching out to Paul's office to see if the senator is choosing to take up the president's new invitation. Trump wrote in a post on his social media site Truth Social on Thursday morning that 'of course' Senator Rand Paul and his family could attend the White House Congressional picnic President Trump has had Paul in his crosshairs over the past few weeks, as the Senator has been opposing the president's 'big,beautiful' budget bill. Paul's primary opposition to the legislation has been over the projected new additions to the national debt. While he wants to see the President's 2017 tax cuts extended, Paul has portrayed the current $5 trillion in new debt as 'Biden spending levels.' 'This will be the largest increase in the debt ceiling ever in our history. We've never raised the debt ceiling without meeting the target,' Paul told Fox News earlier this month. 'I think it is a terrible idea to do this' Paul told Fox News earlier in June.' During another recent appearance on CBS' Face the Nation, Paul told host Margaret Brennan that the math in Trump's 'big beautiful bill' 'doesn't really add up.' 'One of the things this big and beautiful bill is, is it's a vehicle for increasing spending for the military and for the border. It's about $320 billion in new spending,' Paul said at the time. Trump has been attacking Paul on social media for weeks just as Senate Republicans have been grappling with the massive spending legislation. 'Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming. He loves voting 'NO' on everything, he thinks it's good politics, but it's not. The BBB is a big WINNER!!!' Trump wrote on Truth Social. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has also piled on. 'Well, anyone who votes against the one big, beautiful bill including Senator Rand Paul, will be voting for a tax hike of more than $4 trillion on the American people and their voters will know about it,' Leavitt warned earlier this month. Paul was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, long before Trump's foray into politics, and was easily reelected to a third term in 2022 during Joe Biden's presidency. Paul is not up for election again until 2028. Kentucky's other Senate seat is up as an open seat in the 2026 midterms election. The commonwealth's senior senator and former Senate leader Mitch McConnell - another running Trump nemesis -- is not running for another term.
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
It is politicians – not regulators – who must make sense of the supreme court's gender ruling
It's almost two months now since the UK supreme court ruling on what makes a woman in the eyes of the law, which was hailed as a turning point in the battle over transgender rights. Not long enough for wounds to heal, in other words, but long enough surely to hope for a bit more clarity about what this means for everyday life: which toilets trans people can use, what this means for your local women's running club or gym, how employers can handle sensitive situations at work without outing or humiliating trans staff in front of colleagues and customers. But instead, the waters are getting muddier with every passing week. On Wednesday, Kishwer Falkner, now in the final five months of her term as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) watchdog, was grilled by the women and equalities select committee about the detailed code of practice she is due to submit to ministers next month, translating the ruling into everyday life. Since years of turning this issue into a political football haven't helped anyone, in an ideal world MPs could now leave it all in the hands of a trusted neutral arbiter, and resist the urge to meddle. Unfortunately, by the end of the hearing it was clear meddling may be urgently required. Within hours of the original supreme court ruling in April that 'woman' means 'biological woman' for the purpose of the Equality Act, and to the surprise of some lawyers, Lady Falkner had effectively pronounced inclusiveness dead. The EHRC issued interim guidance saying that trans people should stop using the toilets, changing rooms or NHS wards of their preferred gender – though for trans men who look male enough to be potentially frightening to women in female spaces, that's not straightforward – and only play on the grassroots sports teams of their birth sex. But is that really what the court intended? The former supreme court judge Jonathan Sumption has already warned of the risks of overinterpreting the ruling, arguing that he took it to confirm that single-sex services are entitled to exclude trans people, but not obliged to if they don't want to. Falkner, however, is sticking to her guns. Suppose you wanted to start a women's walking group, the Labour MP Rachel Taylor asked her, but you actively wanted to include trans women. Is that allowed? No, was the eventual answer: of course you can let your trans friend join, but then you'd be a mixed not single-sex group, and would have to also accept any man asking to join or risk getting sued. What the biological women in this group actually want – where they'd draw their own boundaries, or what feels right to them – is irrelevant on this reading, a position that may yet end up being tested in the courts. How any of this might be enforced in real life, meanwhile, seems vague at best. Asked how this imaginary walking group should check that every new member was definitely biologically female, Falkner suggested they might make a judgment on sight, but that nobody was going to be walking around with badges on policing it. Similarly on toilets, EHRC chief executive John Kirkpatrick told the committee that employers would need to provide facilities securing women's privacy and dignity, but that what that meant would vary locally and could be worked out 'on the basis of trust and openness and honesty'. With a large dollop of goodwill and forbearance on all sides, you can see how that might wash – except on this issue, there's vanishingly little of either to be found. The most awkward question, meanwhile, is whether a battle-scarred veteran of the culture wars such as Falkner is now sufficiently trusted to write the peace settlement. Originally appointed by Liz Truss to shake up an organisation seen by the Tories as too close to Stonewall, Falkner survived both attempted mutiny inside her organisation and vicious personal abuse from outside, as she dragged it into line with what would later end up being the supreme court's settled position: that trans women are not, in law, quite the same as biological women. She wouldn't be human if she didn't feel vindicated, and she was visibly emotional when the gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield (who has been through something similar) reminded her about the placards reading 'the only good Terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] is a dead Terf' or when protesters in 2022 dumped 60 bottles of urine on her office doorstep. But the legacy of those brutal years is that, fairly or unfairly, many trans people no longer trust the EHRC to defend their rights (as it's mandated to do for all protected groups). Falkner brushed off the committee's questions about that, saying she didn't see why people 'should become so fearful' when they haven't lost any rights (technically speaking, the court merely defined what the limits of those rights were). Yet where people do and don't feel welcome in society is determined by social norms as well as rights, and the former have swung from one extreme to the other in recent years; you don't have to disagree with the supreme court's ruling to see how that could be wildly disorienting. Though Falkner suggested it would be 'wise for space to be given to the regulator' to handle this – in other words, that parliament should back off – some Labour MPs are rapidly reaching the opposite view. A law that doesn't work in real-life scenarios is a law that doesn't work, full stop. On this evidence, parliament should prepare to roll up its sleeves. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
China strikes cautious tone after Trump claims trade deal is 'done'
China will "always honour its commitments" when it comes to negotiating trade disagreements with the US, according to a spokesperson for the Chinese government. But when pushed by Sky News, he refrained from confirming what those commitments are. The reluctance is at odds with President Trump, who declared on his Truth Social account that "our deal with China is done", while also claiming that China has agreed to supply rare earth metals to the US"upfront", and to a 55% tariff rate on its goods. The comments follow high-stakes talks between delegations from the two countries in London aimed at stabilising the relationship amid an escalating trade and supply chain war. China's refusal to confirm these details has raised speculation that, contrary to what the US side is claiming, there may still be significant disagreements and some details yet to be worked out. The continued silence comes after two days of negotiations between delegations from the US and China in the UK. While both sides confirmed that they had agreed a "framework" to implement the "consensus" reached at previous talks in Geneva last month, as well as during a phone call between President Xi and President Trump on 5 June, the delegations were supposed to be taking the agreement to their respective leaders for sign-off. When asked by Sky News if any of the details in Trump's Truth Social post reflected what China understood to be in the deal, Lin Jian, China's foreign ministry spokesperson said "the two sides achieved new progress in addressing the concerns on economic and trade issues". "We always honour our commitments. Since we've reached common understandings, the two sides need to follow them." 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 When pushed by Sky News on whether China agrees with Trump's Truth Social assessment that the US-China relationship is "excellent", Lin declined to agree, saying simply: "Our position on relations with the United States has been consistent and clear". Such lukewarm language is not uncommon in China but there will likely be significant displeasure at the way Trump is unilaterally publishing details that may not yet have been officially signed off. It is in stark contrast to China's communication landscape which is highly scripted and controlled, and if it was designed to force China into an agreement it could well backfire. Indeed, if everything in Trump's Truth Social post is true it would represent quite a coup for the US, and that feels a little unlikely given the valuable bargaining chips China has, particularly over rare earth metals. 0:54 This will likely have been a crunch point in negotiations. China has the vast majority of the world's rare earth metals which are vital in the production of everything from cars to weaponry, and recent export controls imposed in response to Trump's tariffs have brought some production lines to the brink of standstill. In response, the Trump administration imposed extra export controls on high-tech chips, chip development technology and parts needed to make jet engines, as well as moving to revoke student visas for Chinese nationals. President Trump indicated in his Truth Social post that the measures to revoke visas will be rowed back. When pushed by Sky News, Lin refrained from commenting on whether Trump's communications on this matter have undermined the relationship more broadly, but the stakes remain enormously high, with the unfolding supply chain war set to do significant damage to the economies of both nations.
