The new populist president railed against the judiciary as they blocked his aggressive moves to restructure his country’s government and economy.

This was in Mexico, where former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador eventually pushed through changes that required every judge in his country to be elected rather than appointed. The reforms, and the promise of more by his successor, caused markets to lose confidence in his country’s reliability as a place to invest, which led its currency to weaken.

It was one in a series of assaults that populists around the globe have launched on the courts in recent years, and legal observers now wonder if the United States could be next.

As the courts deliver a series of setbacks to his dramatic attempt to change the federal government without congressional approval, President Donald Trump’s supporters are echoing some of the rhetoric and actions that elsewhere have preceded attacks on the judiciary.

Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, posted last week on X: “Under the precedents now being established by radical rogue judges, a district court in Hawaii could enjoin troop movements in Iraq. Judges have no authority to administer the executive branch. Or to nullify the results of a national election.”

Trump’s supporters in Congress have raised the specter of impeaching judges who have ruled against the administration. Elon Musk, the billionaire Trump backer whose Department of Government Efficiency has ended up in the crosshairs of much of the litigation, has regularly called for removing judges on his social media site, X.

On Sunday, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Chuck Grassley, reacted furiously to a Washington judge’s order briefly halting deportations under an 18th century wartime law that Trump invoked hours earlier.

“Another day, another judge unilaterally deciding policy for the whole country. This time to benefit foreign gang members,” Grassley wrote. “If the Supreme Court or Congress doesn’t fix, we’re headed towards a constitutional crisis.”

Activists contend it’s the administration that’s increasing the odds of a crisis.

“They don’t like what they’re seeing in the courts, and this is setting up what may very well be a constitutional crisis about the independence of the judiciary,” said Heidi Beirich, founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.

‘Threats against

constitutional

government’

Despite the rhetoric, the Trump administration has so far not openly defied a court order, and the dozens of cases filed against its actions have followed a regular legal course. His administration has made no moves to seek removal of justices or push judicial reforms through the Republican-controlled Congress.

Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University and voting rights expert who previously served in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said he’s no fan of Trump’s moves. But he said the administration has been following legal norms by appealing decisions it doesn’t like.

“I think most of this is bluster,” said Levitt, noting courts can imprison those who don’t obey orders or levy crippling fines that double daily. “If this is the approach the executive wants to take, it’s going to provoke a fight. Not everybody is going to be content to be a doormat the way Congress is.”

Even if no firm moves are underway to remove judges or blatantly ignore their rulings, the rhetoric has not gone unnoticed within the judiciary. Two Republican-appointed senior judges last week warned about the rising danger of the judiciary being targeted.

“Threats against judges are threats against constitutional government. Everyone should be taking this seriously,” said Judge Richard Sullivan, whom Trump in his first term appointed to the federal appeals court in New York.