Judges in the United States who have ruled against former President Donald Trump are experiencing increased harassment and threats, significantly impacting their lives. This year, over 100 unsolicited pizzas were delivered to the homes of these judges and their families, with some deliveries suspected to be linked to foreign actors. The U.S. Marshals Service is investigating these incidents amid a reported rise in threats against judges.

One notable case involves Judge John Coughenour, an 84-year-old federal judge who retrieved a firearm from storage for personal protection after facing threats following his rulings against the Trump administration. He described being "swatted," where false emergency reports led police to his home under dangerous pretenses. Other judges, including Judge Stephen Bough, have also reported similar experiences of intimidation through unsolicited pizza deliveries at odd hours.

Judge Esther Salas has been particularly vocal about security concerns following the murder of her son by a disgruntled lawyer in 2020. She revealed that there were attempts made this year to deliver pizzas in her name as part of ongoing harassment.

The U.S. Marshals Service reported over 564 threats against judges in fiscal year 2025 alone, indicating a troubling trend of increasing hostility toward the judiciary over the past decade. Judges are concerned that such threats may deter future candidates from pursuing judicial positions due to safety fears.

Cybersecurity experts suggest that some harassment incidents may involve foreign interference aimed at destabilizing trust in the judicial system, with potential links identified between these activities and groups sympathetic to Russian causes.

Overall, federal judges are adapting by enhancing security measures and altering their daily routines amid growing fears for their safety and that of their families. The situation raises concerns about judicial independence and public service within the legal system amidst heightened political tensions surrounding judicial rulings that conflict with government agendas.

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

The article discusses the harassment and threats faced by judges who have ruled against former President Donald Trump, highlighting specific incidents and broader trends. However, it lacks actionable information for a normal person. Here’s a breakdown of its value:

First, the article does not provide clear steps or instructions that readers can take in response to the issues it raises. While it describes the harassment judges face, there are no suggestions on how individuals can protect themselves or advocate for judicial safety. It primarily recounts events without offering practical advice or resources that could be utilized by an ordinary reader.

In terms of educational depth, while the article presents some statistics regarding increased threats against judges, it does not delve into the underlying causes or systems at play. The mention of foreign involvement is intriguing but remains unexplained; readers are left without context about how this impacts them directly or why these details matter.

Regarding personal relevance, the information primarily affects a specific group—judges—and while it highlights serious issues within the judiciary system, it does not connect to everyday concerns for most people. The implications of judicial safety may resonate with those interested in legal processes but do not impact daily life for most readers.

The public service function is limited as well; while there is an acknowledgment of threats to judges and calls for greater protections, there are no warnings or guidance offered to help individuals act responsibly in their own lives regarding safety or civic engagement.

Practical advice is absent from this article. Readers cannot realistically follow any steps because none are provided. The discussion remains at a high level without offering tangible actions that could be taken by those concerned about similar issues.

Long-term impact is minimal since the article focuses on current events without providing insights that would help individuals plan ahead or improve their understanding of related issues over time.

Emotionally, while some might feel alarmed by reports of intimidation against judges, the piece does not offer clarity or constructive thinking on how to address these fears effectively. Instead of empowering readers with knowledge and tools to navigate such situations thoughtfully, it risks creating feelings of helplessness regarding political tensions and personal safety.

There are also elements reminiscent of clickbait; phrases like "over 100 pizzas were delivered" draw attention but do little to enhance understanding beyond sensationalism.

Lastly, missed opportunities abound in teaching readers about civic responsibility and engagement with judicial matters. For instance, discussing ways citizens can support judicial independence through advocacy could have added value.

To provide real value that was missing from the original article: individuals should consider familiarizing themselves with local laws regarding harassment and intimidation so they can recognize when such behaviors occur in their communities. Engaging with local representatives about judicial protection measures can also foster community awareness and support for judiciary independence. Additionally, practicing general safety principles—such as being cautious about sharing personal information online—can help mitigate risks associated with harassment in any form. Encouraging open dialogues within communities about respect for legal institutions may also contribute positively toward reducing tensions surrounding political disagreements over court rulings.

Judges who have ruled against former President Donald Trump are described as facing "increased harassment and threats that have significantly impacted their lives." This wording suggests a direct connection between the judges' rulings and the harassment they face, which could lead readers to believe that the threats are a direct consequence of their decisions. The phrase "significantly impacted" is emotionally charged, implying severe consequences without providing specific details. This framing may evoke sympathy for the judges while portraying those opposing Trump as dangerous.

The text mentions that "over 100 pizzas were delivered to the homes of these judges and their families," which serves to illustrate a bizarre form of intimidation. However, this detail could be seen as trivializing more serious threats by focusing on an unusual method of harassment rather than discussing broader issues of safety for judges. The choice to highlight pizza deliveries might distract from more severe forms of intimidation or violence that could be occurring.

The article states that Judge John Coughenour experienced being "swatted," where false emergency calls led police to his home under dangerous pretenses. This description uses strong language like "swatted" to evoke fear and urgency, emphasizing the severity of the threat he faced. By focusing on this dramatic incident, it may lead readers to feel heightened concern for Coughenour while overshadowing other relevant factors or contexts surrounding judicial safety.

When discussing Judge Esther Salas, who has been vocal about needing greater protections after her son's murder, the text emphasizes her personal tragedy without providing context about systemic issues affecting all judges. This focus on her individual story can create a narrative that centers emotional appeal over broader discussions about judicial safety and security measures needed for all judges facing similar threats.

The mention of cybersecurity experts suggesting links to "Russian-affiliated activities aimed at destabilizing trust in judicial processes" introduces speculation without concrete evidence presented in the text. This phrasing implies foreign interference in domestic matters but does not provide specific examples or data supporting this claim. Such language can lead readers to adopt a fearful mindset regarding external influences on American institutions without clear justification.

Finally, stating that “the number of threats against judges has tripled over the past decade” presents a striking statistic but lacks context regarding what factors contributed to this increase. Without additional information or comparisons over time, this claim may mislead readers into thinking there is an unprecedented crisis solely linked to recent political events rather than considering historical trends or other contributing factors in judicial safety concerns.

The text conveys a range of meaningful emotions that shape the reader's understanding of the serious situation faced by judges who have ruled against former President Donald Trump. One prominent emotion is fear, which is evident in the descriptions of harassment and threats experienced by judges. Phrases like "increased harassment and threats" and "being 'swatted'" highlight a sense of danger that these judges feel in their daily lives. The strength of this fear is significant, as it illustrates not only personal safety concerns but also broader implications for judicial independence. This fear serves to evoke sympathy from readers, prompting them to recognize the vulnerability of those tasked with upholding justice.

Another strong emotion present in the text is anger, particularly directed at the tactics used to intimidate judges, such as unsolicited pizza deliveries. The mention that these actions represent a "new method" of intimidation underscores an unsettling shift in how dissent is expressed against judicial decisions. This anger can inspire readers to reflect on the erosion of respect for judicial authority and may lead them to advocate for stronger protections for judges.

Sadness emerges through Judge Esther Salas’s experience following her son's murder by a disgruntled lawyer. Her vocal call for greater protections emphasizes not just her personal loss but also highlights systemic issues within judicial safety measures. This sadness deepens readers' emotional engagement with her story, fostering empathy and a sense of urgency regarding the need for reform.

The text also hints at worry concerning foreign involvement in these harassment tactics, suggesting links to destabilizing activities aimed at undermining trust in U.S. institutions. By incorporating cybersecurity experts’ insights about potential foreign influence, the writer amplifies feelings of concern among readers about national security and integrity within democratic processes.

These emotions collectively guide reader reactions by creating sympathy for judges facing intimidation while simultaneously inciting worry about broader societal implications. The use of emotionally charged language—such as “threats,” “harassment,” “murder,” and “intimidation”—serves to paint a vivid picture that elicits strong responses rather than neutral observations.

In terms of persuasive techniques, repetition plays a role when similar experiences among different judges are highlighted; this reinforces the idea that such intimidation is widespread rather than isolated incidents. Personal stories about specific judges like John Coughenour or Esther Salas humanize abstract concepts surrounding judicial threats, making it easier for readers to connect emotionally with their struggles.

Overall, through carefully chosen words and evocative storytelling techniques, the writer effectively steers attention toward urgent calls for action regarding judicial safety while fostering emotional connections that compel readers to consider both individual experiences and collective consequences within society’s legal framework.