Vance Warns ‘Rogue’ Federal Judges Taking Power From Executive Branch
Vice President JD Vance has once again cautioned "rogue" federal judges whom he believes are overstepping their authority to obstruct President Donald Trump’s leadership of the Executive Branch.
Up to this point, judicial rulings have hindered Trump’s initiatives to eliminate birthright citizenship, halt federal grants, and reform agencies such as USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This past weekend, another legal roadblock emerged when a federal judge issued a temporary order preventing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from accessing the Treasury Department’s vast federal payment system, which contains sensitive data on millions of Americans, as reported by ABC News.
Musk strongly criticized the judge, alleging corruption and calling for his immediate removal through impeachment.
Vance has also taken a firm stance against several judges whom he contends are improperly interfering with Executive Branch authority.
“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” Vance asserted over the weekend, according to ABC.
On Sunday, Trump was asked about Vance’s remarks and the judicial setbacks his administration has faced.
“When a president can’t look for fraud and waste and abuse, we don’t have a country anymore,” Trump told reporters. “So, we’re very disappointed, but with the judges that would make such a ruling. But we have a long way to go.”
“No judge should, frankly, be allowed to make that kind of a decision,” Trump added. “It’s a disgrace.”
Republicans have largely rallied behind the president. Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton denounced the judge who blocked DOGE’s Treasury access, labeling him an “outlaw.” Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, defended Musk’s actions on CNN Sunday, asserting that he was "carrying out the will" of the president who appointed him.
To that end, House Republicans are preparing to introduce articles of impeachment against at least two federal judges who have ruled against Trump’s initiatives, according to Axios.
These measures underscore an intensifying conflict between Republicans and the judiciary as Trump continues to push his "government efficiency" agenda. This week, Trump escalated the rhetoric during an Oval Office briefing with DOGE head Musk, declaring, “Maybe we have to look at the judges because I think that’s a very serious violation.”
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) is spearheading articles of impeachment against U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr., an Obama appointee and chief judge of the District of Rhode Island, who directed the administration to lift its federal spending freeze, Clyde’s office confirmed to Axios.
Posting on X this week, Clyde accused McConnell of being a "partisan activist weaponizing our judicial system to stop President Trump’s funding freeze on woke and wasteful government spending."
Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) has similarly stated his intent to introduce articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York, another Obama appointee, who blocked DOGE from accessing Treasury records on comparable grounds.
For Clyde and Crane’s impeachment efforts to succeed, they would require majorities in the House and two-thirds majorities in the Senate to convict the judges.
With only 53 Republicans in the Senate, achieving the necessary votes poses a significant hurdle, as noted by Axios.
Judicial impeachments are infrequent and generally occur in cases of corruption, perjury, or serious misconduct. The last federal judge to be successfully impeached was in 2010 for false financial disclosures, the outlet further noted.
Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law scholar at the University of North Carolina, commented to ABC News that Trump’s rhetoric is mostly "bravado," emphasizing that "judges are entitled to review the constitutionality of presidential actions."