Vance Warns ‘Rogue’ Federal Judges Taking Power From Executive Branch
Vice President JD Vance has once again issued a strong warning to "rogue" federal judges whom he believes are overstepping their authority in attempts to hinder President Donald Trump’s leadership of the Executive Branch.
To date, courts have obstructed Trump’s initiatives to eliminate birthright citizenship, halt federal grant distributions, and restructure federal agencies such as USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Over the weekend, the administration encountered another legal hurdle when a federal judge temporarily prevented Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from gaining access to the Treasury Department’s comprehensive federal payment system. This system contains sensitive financial data on millions of Americans, according to ABC News.
Musk reacted strongly, accusing the judge of corruption and demanding his immediate removal from the bench.
Vance, echoing similar frustrations, has been vocal about judges who he believes are interfering with the powers of the Executive Branch.
“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 stated over the weekend, as reported by ABC.
On Sunday, Trump was asked about Vance’s remarks and the repeated judicial roadblocks 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,” he continued. “It’s a disgrace.”
Republicans have largely rallied behind the president. Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton condemned the judge who restricted DOGE’s access to Treasury data, labeling him an “outlaw.” Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan defended Musk’s actions on CNN Sunday, insisting that Musk was simply “carrying out the will” of the president who appointed him.
In response, House Republicans are preparing to introduce articles of impeachment against at least two federal judges who have obstructed Trump’s policies, Axios reported.
These impeachment efforts are part of a broader, intensifying struggle between Republicans and the federal judiciary, as Trump pushes to advance his "government efficiency" agenda. During an Oval Office press briefing alongside DOGE head Musk, Trump escalated his stance, declaring, “Maybe we have to look at the judges because I think that’s a very serious violation.”
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) is drafting articles of impeachment against U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr., the chief judge of the District of Rhode Island and an Obama-era appointee. McConnell recently ordered the administration to lift its freeze on federal spending. Clyde’s office confirmed these impeachment plans to Axios.
Taking to social media, 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."
Similarly, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) has announced his intention to introduce impeachment proceedings against U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York, another Obama appointee, who ruled against DOGE’s attempt to obtain Treasury records.
For Clyde and Crane’s efforts to succeed, they would need a majority in the House to impeach and a two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict.
Given that there are only 53 Republicans in the Senate, securing the necessary votes presents a significant challenge, according to Axios.
Judicial impeachments are rare, typically occurring in cases of corruption, perjury, or other serious ethical breaches. The most recent successful impeachment of a federal judge occurred in 2010 due to false financial disclosures, as noted by the outlet.
Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law scholar from the University of North Carolina, explained to ABC News that much of Trump’s rhetoric on this issue is likely "bravado," emphasizing that “judges are entitled to review the constitutionality of presidential actions.”