Judges who have ruled against former President Donald Trump are facing significant harassment and threats, which have drastically altered their lives. Reports indicate that over 100 pizzas were delivered to the homes of these judges and their families, with some deliveries suspected to involve foreign actors. The U.S. Marshals Service is investigating these incidents as part of a broader trend of intimidation against judges.

One notable case is that of District Judge John Coughenour, who has taken the unusual step of retrieving a gun he had stored at a courthouse for personal safety after experiencing threats following his rulings against Trump’s policies. Coughenour has been targeted by "swatting" incidents—false reports made to law enforcement that can lead to dangerous confrontations—and expressed concern about the impact of political rhetoric on judicial safety.

Similarly, Judge Stephen Bough reported receiving unsolicited pizza deliveries late at night after ruling against an administration policy. He described these actions as intimidation tactics and emphasized the need for increased security measures in response to such threats.

Judge Esther Salas has also been vocal about security concerns following a tragic incident in 2020 when her son was murdered by an individual connected to her professional role. Salas revealed attempts to deliver pizzas in her name as well.

The number of threats against judges has reportedly tripled over the past decade, with 564 recorded in fiscal year 2025 alone. This increase raises alarms among those within the judicial system regarding future implications for judicial independence and public service roles in law. Judges are adapting their lifestyles due to heightened risks while calling attention to the need for greater protections amid increasing hostility toward those who challenge political authority through legal rulings.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (judges) (harassment) (entitlement)

The article discusses the harassment and threats faced by judges who have ruled against former President Donald Trump, highlighting specific incidents and the broader implications for judicial safety. Here’s an evaluation based on the criteria provided:

Actionable Information: The article does not provide clear steps or actionable advice for readers. While it details incidents of harassment, including unsolicited pizza deliveries and threats, it does not offer any guidance on how individuals can protect themselves or respond to similar situations. There are no resources mentioned that a reader could utilize.

Educational Depth: The article presents factual information about the increase in threats against judges and specific cases of intimidation. However, it lacks deeper analysis or context regarding why these threats are occurring or how they relate to broader societal issues. It mentions statistics from the U.S. Marshals Service but does not explain their significance in detail.

Personal Relevance: The information primarily concerns a specific group—judges—and their experiences with harassment. While this may be relevant to those interested in judicial safety or political climate, it has limited relevance for the average person unless they are directly involved in legal matters or concerned about judicial independence.

Public Service Function: The article recounts serious issues regarding judicial safety but fails to provide public service guidance or warnings that would help readers act responsibly in light of these events. It lacks context that would empower individuals to understand their role in supporting judicial integrity.

Practical Advice: There is no practical advice given within the article that an ordinary reader could realistically follow. It focuses on reporting events rather than offering solutions or strategies for dealing with similar forms of intimidation.

Long-Term Impact: The discussion centers around immediate incidents without providing insights into long-term implications for society, democracy, or individual behavior regarding civic engagement and support for judiciary independence.

Emotional and Psychological Impact: While the article highlights serious threats faced by judges, it may evoke fear without offering constructive ways to cope with such feelings. It presents a troubling picture of hostility towards judiciary figures but lacks reassurance or methods for addressing such fears constructively.

Clickbait Language: The language used is straightforward without overt sensationalism; however, there is a focus on dramatic elements like "swatting" which might draw attention without adding substantial value to understanding the issue at hand.

In summary, while the article raises important concerns about judicial safety and intimidation tactics against judges, it ultimately offers little actionable guidance, educational depth, personal relevance beyond its immediate context, public service function, practical advice for readers' lives, long-term planning benefits, emotional support strategies, or avoidance of sensationalism.

To add real value beyond what was presented in the article:

Individuals can assess risk by staying informed about local news related to civic issues and understanding how political climates can affect community safety. If you feel threatened personally due to your opinions on sensitive topics like politics or law enforcement actions against officials (like judges), consider enhancing personal security measures at home—such as installing security cameras and ensuring good communication with local law enforcement about any concerns you may have. Engaging with community organizations focused on civil rights can also provide support networks that promote dialogue around these issues while contributing positively toward maintaining democratic values within your community.

Judges who have ruled against former President Donald Trump report experiencing significant harassment and threats that have altered their lives. The phrase "significant harassment and threats" uses strong language that evokes fear and urgency, which may lead readers to feel sympathy for the judges without providing specific details about the nature of these threats. This choice of words can create an emotional response while leaving out concrete examples, making it seem like a widespread issue without fully explaining it.

Over 100 pizzas were delivered to the homes of judges and their families this year, with some deliveries suspected to be linked to foreign actors. The mention of "foreign actors" introduces a sense of danger and conspiracy without clear evidence or specifics about which countries might be involved. This wording can lead readers to form a negative association with foreign influence in domestic matters, even though no direct proof is provided.

John Coughenour, an 84-year-old federal judge, retrieved a gun he had stored at a courthouse for personal protection after facing threats following his rulings against Trump’s policies. The detail about Coughenour's age adds an emotional element that may evoke pity or concern from readers. By emphasizing his age alongside the mention of threats, it suggests vulnerability and reinforces the idea that judges are under attack due to their decisions.

Following one such ruling on birthright citizenship, Coughenour experienced "swatting," where false emergency calls led police to his home under dangerous pretenses. The use of the term "swatting" is charged language that implies serious danger and criminality but does not explain how this incident relates directly to his rulings against Trump’s policies. This framing can mislead readers into thinking there is a direct correlation between judicial decisions and violent acts against judges.

Other judges have also reported receiving unsolicited pizza deliveries as intimidation tactics. The phrase "intimidation tactics" suggests deliberate malice behind these actions but does not provide context or evidence linking these deliveries directly back to any organized group or individual supporting Trump. This vague accusation could foster distrust towards those opposing judicial decisions while lacking substantiation.

Esther Salas highlighted ongoing threats against judges and called for greater protections following her experiences. By stating she has faced severe personal tragedy when her son was murdered by a disgruntled lawyer in 2020, the text shifts focus from broader issues affecting all judges to her individual experience. This shift can evoke strong emotions but may also detract from discussing systemic problems affecting judicial safety as a whole.

The U.S. Marshals Service noted an increase in threats against judges over the past decade, with 564 recorded in fiscal year 2025 alone. While this statistic appears factual, presenting only one year's data without historical context may mislead readers into thinking that current conditions are unprecedentedly worse than before when they might not be aware of previous trends or comparisons over time.

Judges express concern over how these threats may deter future candidates from pursuing judicial roles due to safety fears. The statement implies that current conditions are so dire they could prevent qualified individuals from entering public service roles like judiciary positions; however, it lacks specific examples or evidence showing how many potential candidates have been discouraged by these events specifically related to Trump's administration versus other factors influencing career choices in law today.

The overall climate of hostility towards the judiciary is viewed as detrimental not only to individual judges but also to the integrity of democracy itself. Phrasing it as “the integrity of democracy” elevates the stakes significantly by suggesting that attacks on individual judges threaten democratic principles broadly; yet this claim lacks detailed explanation regarding how such intimidation impacts democratic processes directly beyond personal safety concerns for those involved in legal proceedings.

The text conveys a range of emotions that reflect the serious and distressing situation faced by judges who have ruled against former President Donald Trump. One prominent emotion is fear, which is evident when judges like John Coughenour feel compelled to retrieve a gun for personal protection after receiving threats. This fear is underscored by the mention of "swatting," where false emergency calls create dangerous situations, amplifying the sense of vulnerability among these judges. The strength of this emotion is significant, as it highlights not only individual safety concerns but also raises alarms about broader implications for judicial independence and security.

Another strong emotion present in the text is sadness, particularly in the case of Esther Salas, whose son was murdered by a disgruntled lawyer. Her tragedy serves as a poignant reminder of the real-life consequences that can arise from hostility towards judges. This sadness evokes sympathy from readers and emphasizes the urgent need for greater protections for those in judicial roles. By sharing her personal loss, Salas effectively illustrates how deeply these threats can affect individuals and their families.

Anger also permeates the narrative, especially regarding the harassment tactics employed against judges, such as unsolicited pizza deliveries described by Judge Stephen Bough. This form of intimidation not only disrupts their lives but also represents a broader attack on judicial authority and integrity. The anger conveyed through phrases like "new form of harassment" serves to rally readers against such actions and fosters a sense of injustice.

The combination of these emotions—fear, sadness, and anger—guides readers toward feelings of concern about judicial safety and democracy itself. The text aims to inspire action by highlighting how these threats could deter future candidates from pursuing judicial roles due to safety fears. By painting a vivid picture of intimidation tactics and their impact on individuals’ lives, it encourages readers to consider the implications for justice in society.

The writer employs several persuasive techniques to enhance emotional impact throughout the piece. For instance, using specific examples like Coughenour's retrieval of his gun or Salas's tragic loss creates powerful imagery that resonates with readers on an emotional level. Additionally, phrases such as "significant harassment" or "ongoing threats" amplify feelings surrounding these issues rather than presenting them neutrally; this choice in language evokes stronger reactions from audiences.

Moreover, repeating themes related to safety concerns reinforces urgency while drawing attention back to individual stories that illustrate larger societal problems—such as hostility toward judiciary members undermining democracy itself. These writing tools serve not only to engage readers emotionally but also encourage them to reflect critically on how such behaviors threaten fundamental principles within society.

In summary, through careful selection of emotionally charged language and compelling narratives about individual experiences with fear, sadness, and anger regarding threats against judges post-Trump rulings—the text effectively shapes reader perceptions while advocating for increased awareness around judicial safety issues.