Federal Judge Threats Surge As Media Links Trump to ‘Pizza Doxxing’ Wave
In a political climate increasingly charged by media narratives and establishment anxieties, the recent rash of so-called “pizza doxxings” targeting federal judges has become headline news. The latest reports claim an explosion in menacing pranks and harassment aimed at judges presiding over major policy disputes—especially those who have stood in the way of President Donald Trump’s conservative reforms. It’s a story tailor-made for anti-Trump punditry, and the facts warrant a closer look by America First patriots concerned with judicial transparency and media manipulation.
High-profile judges and activists claim that the uptick in threats and unwanted pizza deliveries began in earnest after Trump (Republican) resecured the presidency in 2024, restoring law and order and pulling government priorities away from the left. While judges at a rare public event described more than 400 threatening messages and dozens of phony pizza deliveries, many in the press quickly sought to implicate Trump and his rhetoric for the shift. Conveniently, this narrative overshadows broader threats against conservatives and paints the judiciary as blameless victims, regardless of their own conduct on the bench.
Organized by Speak Up for Justice, a self-described nonpartisan group with strong ties to legacy media, the public forum featured emotionally-charged testimonies from judges such as Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell and U.S. District Judge Esther Salas (who tragically lost her son to an unrelated criminal in 2020). The event’s sponsors decried what they allege is a national surge of harassment directly tied to President Trump’s robust criticism of judicial activism. Yet despite their emphasis on online hate and pranks, remarkably little attention was given to cases where judges themselves have injected partisanship into rulings, undermining respect for the courts.
“It’s unsettling because I’d like to go to work every day, even with the hardest case, just feeling like there’s no sense of intimidation,” commented Judge J. Michelle Childs, speaking at the event. “It’s really an unnecessary and an unfortunate threat to our security when we’re trying to be judicial officers in a very neutral position with respect to our cases.”
Nevertheless, even liberal-leaning press like The Washington Post were forced to admit that the Justice Department remains unable to pinpoint the actual origins of most pizza deliveries or online threats, and has largely declined to investigate specific incidents outside of routine protective measures. This calls into question just how coordinated, much less Trump-inspired, these activities really are.
Mainstream Media Spins Threats—But Downplays Judicial Activism and Political Fallout
What’s lost in the rush to frame conservative criticism as inherently dangerous is the history of overt activism from certain segments of the judiciary. The judges most frequently cited as victims—McConnell, Coughenour, Lasnik, Boasberg—have become public faces not for neutrality, but for their decisive rulings against Trump’s attempts to restore border security, fiscal responsibility, and law enforcement authority.
When District Judge John Coughenour (a long-tenured liberal in Washington state) ruled against President Trump’s bid to stop birthright citizenship abuse, he allegedly became the target of a ‘swatting’ hoax—another hazardous but increasingly common internet prank. Similarly, Judge McConnell drew attention for personally halting broad-based Trump budget cuts designed to streamline federal government spending, incurring a deluge of angry voicemails (reportedly topping 400). Yet the vast majority of such threats, by their own admission, were untraceable and lacked physical follow-through—a key fact that critics suggest is downplayed in stories designed to spark outrage rather than illuminate truth.
According to a recent Reuters report, the judicial branch tracked over 400 threats in the last fiscal year, with incidents involving harassment of family members—mostly adult children with independent lives. What media coverage tends to ignore is that judges, like all public officials, are subject to some level of public scrutiny, and that complaints against Trump-era judicial opponents aren’t all based on ideology—they often stem from deep frustrations with perceived overreach and double standards.
“The rhetoric coming from President Trump and conservative news outlets has been brutal,” one anonymous legal activist said in the coverage. “But people forget the level of contempt shown by the courts for legitimate executive powers.”
Media stories about doxxing and ‘pizza intimidation’—particularly when claims revolve around ordering in the name of a murdered judge’s child—certainly evoke sympathy. But those who know the modern culture war understand how such incidents become lightning rods, drawing legislative reaction and online activism in turn. America’s judicial system needs independent review and honest public discussion—yet mainstream outlets focus on a narrative that points fingers at Trump and conservatives for the very issues they themselves have helped to create.
The Hidden Reality: Security Flaws, Judicial Accountability, and the Real Threats to Rule of Law
In the broader historical context, America’s judiciary has faced far more direct and dangerous attacks throughout its existence—whether physical assaults during the Civil Rights era, the unrelenting threats during the mob trials of the 20th century, or the intimidation of conservative Supreme Court nominees in recent years. What sets the current moment apart is the level of media coordination and politicized messaging aimed at portraying any critique of the courts—especially by Trump (Republican) or his supporters—as tantamount to a threat on democracy itself.
As reported by Reuters’ investigative team, at least 11 federal judges (and their relatives) were doxxed or otherwise harassed following decisions seen as anti-Trump. But it’s no secret that the weaponization of doxxing, swatting, and menacing delivery pranks goes both ways in the political world—prominent conservatives and their families have faced identical, if not far worse, treatment after high-profile decisions or public statements. In fact,
the U.S. Marshals Service openly acknowledged that most perpetrators remain unidentified and that online platforms make tracking cyber pranks notoriously difficult, regardless of their supposed political inspiration.
The real question, then, is whether Congress or federal agencies should act to expand judicial secrecy and security powers beyond their already considerable scope. The push for greater “privacy” after these high-visibility incidents led to the passage of the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act in 2022, named for the slain son of Judge Esther Salas. It restricted access to personal information for judges and relatives, yet failed to meaningfully address the culture of judicial impunity or leftist activism from the bench that breeds public outrage. What about accountability for life-tenured judges who openly defy the elected executive, or legislative protections for citizens’ speech in criticism of public officials?
The legacy press refuses to examine how activist rulings, hand-in-glove relationships with media, and courtroom double standards—particularly when blocking voter ID, border security, or spending restraint—undercut the very faith in the judiciary they claim to defend. By wrapping the bench in a mantle of permanent victimhood, the left’s narrative only builds resentment against unaccountable courts and widens the rift between ordinary Americans and their supposed “independent” judiciary.
“You need a strong judiciary for the system to work. This is infringing on democracy generally,” acknowledged Judge Childs, president of the Federal Judges Association. Yet lost in these conversations is a robust defense of constitutional separation of powers—which President Trump (Republican) and his supporters have made their rallying cry since returning to office in 2024.
The reality is clear: threats and intimidation against any public servant are wrong and must be prosecuted. But blanket condemnation of rhetorical criticism or America First policy advocacy does a disservice to the rule of law. True safety and independence for the judiciary will not be achieved by targeting conservative speech or ignoring the responsibility judges have to uphold their own oaths of office.