On February 25, 2025, tech billionaire Elon Musk renewed his calls for judges to be impeached, hours after the Trump administration suffered three consecutive legal defeats in courts across the country. The string of rulings temporarily blocked several of President Donald Trump’s recent executive actions.
In a span of just 90 minutes, judges in Washington, D.C. and Seattle issued orders on Tuesday, blocking the administration’s directive to freeze federal grants and loans, reinstating funding for foreign aid contracts with the U.S. Agency for International Development, and temporarily halting the president’s executive order that paused the refugee admissions program.
Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the Trump administration, took to his social media platform X to express his frustration with the American judicial system.
“The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges. No one is above the law, including judges,” Musk wrote, omitting the president from his statement about who should not be above the law.
Musk continued his critique by comparing the United States to El Salvador, writing: “That is what it took to fix El Salvador. Same applies to America.” This reference points to El Salvador’s controversial 2021 decision when its assembly, under the control of President Nayib Bukele, voted to remove the top five Supreme Court judges and the attorney general—actions that prompted international criticism, including from the United States.
Bukele himself responded to Musk’s comments with support, posting on X: “If you don’t impeach the corrupt judges, you CANNOT fix the country.”
Constitutional experts and legal scholars were quick to point out that the impeachment of federal judges in the United States requires specific circumstances and cannot be based solely on disagreement with their rulings. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, only 15 federal judges have been impeached throughout U.S. history.
The process requires the House of Representatives to impeach with a simple majority, followed by a trial in the Senate where a two-thirds majority is needed for conviction and removal. This high bar has historically limited impeachments to cases involving serious misconduct rather than policy disagreements.
An hour after his initial post, Musk escalated his rhetoric: “If ANY judge ANYWHERE can block EVERY Presidential order EVERYWHERE, we do NOT have democracy, we have TYRANNY of the JUDICIARY.”
Musk’s calls found support from some Republican lawmakers, including Utah Senator Mike Lee, who wrote: “Corrupt judges should be impeached and removed. Pass it on if you agree.”
However, legal experts countered that the appropriate response to disagreeable court rulings is to appeal them, not remove the judges. Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on federal courts, said on X that you don’t impeach judges just because you disagree with their decisions. You have the right to appeal the decisions.
This is not the first time Musk has demanded judicial impeachment. Earlier this month, after a federal judge temporarily blocked the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing the Treasury’s payment systems following a lawsuit by 19 states against President Trump and the Treasury Department, Musk called the judge “corrupt” and insisted he needed to be impeached “NOW!”
Vice President JD Vance has also expressed skepticism about judicial authority, stating on X that it would be illegal for a judge to dictate how a general conducts a military operation or to direct the attorney general’s prosecutorial discretion. According to Vance, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
The ongoing tension between the Trump administration and the judiciary has raised concerns about the constitutional separation of powers. Critics argue that the rhetoric from Musk and administration officials represents an unprecedented challenge to the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution.
Constitutional law experts believe this conflict is likely to persist throughout Trump’s second term. The administration has signaled its intention to appeal these recent rulings, setting the stage for potential Supreme Court involvement in determining the boundaries of executive power.
The judiciary’s role in reviewing executive actions is a fundamental aspect of American governance, designed to ensure that presidential decisions remain within constitutional boundaries. However, the Trump administration’s position appears to be that the president’s electoral mandate provides broad authority to implement his agenda without judicial interference.
As these legal battles continue, the debate over the proper relationship between the executive and judicial branches remains at the forefront of American political discourse, with implications that could reshape the balance of power in the federal government for years to come.
