The Dictatorship
Trump crosses new line, calls for judge’s impeachment, escalating fight with judiciary
As a matter of course, journalists contact the U.S. Supreme Court for comment with some regularity, though the results are nearly always the same: The justices and their offices generally decline to weigh in.
There are, however, very rare exceptions.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a highly unusual statement on Tuesday morning, for example, that read, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
It’s worth appreciating what precipitated these rather pointed comments.
In the run-up to Election Day, Donald Trump invested a fair amount of time condemning those who criticize judges — conveniently ignoring his own record of criticizing jurists who’ve dared to rule in ways he disagreed with. Six months ago, the Republican went so far as to eventually declare“These people should be put in jail the way they talk about our judges.”
To a degree, the president’s line hasn’t changed. As recently as Friday, Trump delivered unhinged remarks at the Justice Department, where he defended U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump-appointed conservative who helped dismiss his classified documents case. Referring to her many critics, the president told the law enforcement officials in the audience, “It’s totally illegal what they do.”
Four days later, Politico reported on the president calling for a different federal district court judge’s impeachment.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for the impeachment of the federal judge who ordered a two-week halt to his efforts to remove Venezuelan migrants using extraordinary war powers that haven’t been invoked for decades. Trump’s call to remove U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, D.C. — is the first time since taking office for his second term that he’s asked Congress to seek a judge’s removal, joining increasingly pointed calls by his top donor and adviser Elon Musk and a segment of his MAGA base.
Apparently furious about Boasberg’s handling of the Alien Enemies Act litigation, the president published an especially enraged item to his social media platform, referring to the federal district court judge as a “Radical Left Lunatic,” a “troublemaker” and an “agitator.” After a series of all-caps claims about the fact that the jurist isn’t an elected official — in this country, federal judges aren’t chosen by voters — Trump concluded, “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”
If this talk sounds at all familiar, it’s not your imagination. As Jay Willis recently summarized at Balls and Strikes, Elon Musk has been “posting incessantly, calling for the impeachment of ‘fake,’ ‘corrupt,’ ‘activist’ judges for ‘violating the will of the people.’ His timeline … is littered with conspiratorial screeds about the dastardly ulterior motives that these judges must have had for preventing an unelected billionaire from assuming the power of the legislative and executive branches all for himself.”
Similar talk has become relatively common on Capitol Hill. Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, for example, recently posted a message to social media that read, “Corrupt judges should be impeached. And removed.” It came on the heels of a similar message Lee published earlier this month that read, “This has the feel of a coup — not a military coup, but a judicial one.”
In the U.S. House, a handful of Republican members have introduced four separate impeachment resolutions targeting sitting federal judges, and that total is likely to grow: Republican Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee recently hosted an online “impeachathon” eventdisplaying a poster of 11 judges he and his far-right colleagues are focused on. The far-right congressman appeared alongside a caption that read “Woke Judge Hunter.” (A clip of the event was promoted by Musk.)
While Boasberg wasn’t part of the 11, Republican Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas announced this week that he plans to file articles of impeachment against this judge in the coming days.
This campaign, however, has been largely relegated to the fringe. There are over 250 GOP lawmakers across the House and the Senate, and the total number of Republicans talking about impeaching federal judges is, as a quantitative matter, fairly small. Few, if any, credible observers have predicted that the impeachment push would ever be taken seriously on Capitol Hill.
But it’s against this backdrop that the sitting Republican president has decided to throw his weight behind an impeachment effort — not because Boasberg committed high crimes or abused his office, but because the judge is handling an important case in a way Trump doesn’t like.
The White House has been engaged in an intensifying fight with the judicial branch, and there’s been growing speculation about whether the administration might consider defying court rulings that the president doesn’t like. With his impeachment call, Trump just took that fight to a new level.
This post has been updated to include Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ comments.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an BLN political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.
In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.
Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.
In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”
A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.
Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.
Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.
In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.
It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.
On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
The Dictatorship
The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring
About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.
All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.
The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.
The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.
The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
The Times summarized the broader context nicely:
Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.
Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.
In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.
The article added:
Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.
Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.
This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.
* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”
* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.
* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.
* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.
* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.
* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?

