Congress Isn’t Just Standing By As Trump Abuses His Power. It’s Doing Something Far Worse.

Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

One of the bleak ironies of our ongoing constitutional crisis is that federal courts are attempting to do a job that would, ideally, be performed by Congress—and rather than show gratitude, congressional Republicans are furious at them. As Donald Trump breaks the bounds of his legal authority and collapses the constitutional separation of powers between ostensibly co-equal branches of government, time after time it is the judges who’ve stepped in to impose limits. A functioning Congress should be thanking these judges for performing the basic oversight duties that fall, first and foremost, to the legislative branch. Instead, Republican leaders are now openly threatening imminent revenge.

Indeed, several recent efforts by members of Congress go far beyond the proper bounds of regulation and look like pretty blatant efforts to destroy the independent authority of the judicial branch—for the sin of enforcing constitutional limits on the executive. Their ominous warnings made for a troubling split screen this past week, alongside the administration’s defiance of a court order and contemptuous cover-up of its misdeeds. This mob-style shakedown of the judiciary may not play as a constitutional crisis for pundits on cable news, but it’s emphatically a different variation on the same themes. Last week saw congressional efforts at impeachments for the mere exercise of judicial authority; an amped-up congressional threat to do away with nationwide injunctions; and an overt promise by the House majority to defund the judicial branch. While everyone’s eyes are on the Trump administration’s open contempt for judicial orders, many of us are ignoring congressional efforts to do precisely the same thing.

Rep. Eli Crane, of Arizona, introduced articles of impeachment last month against the New York–based federal judge who temporarily blocked the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing critical Treasury Department payment systems. Rep. Andy Ogles, of Tennessee, decided to follow suit with an impeachment resolution against the District of Columbia’s U.S. District Judge John Bates, after Bates ordered federal health agencies to temporarily reinstate online datasets that had been taken down as part of the Trump administration’s executive order targeting “gender ideology.” (Bates is a right-leaning George W. Bush appointee.) Ogles concluded that Bates’ penning a decision he didn’t like meant that the judge had somehow committed a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

After Judge James Boasberg attempted to halt a series of rendition flights carrying Venezuelans to a work camp in El Salvador, Trump called for the judge’s impeachment and removal. In a post on social media on March 18, the president urged that “this judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!” Rep. Brandon Gill, of Texas, promptly filed articles of impeachment against Boasberg, alleging on social media that he “is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.” Five Republicans signed on as co-sponsors.

Resolutions have also been introduced against U.S. District Judges Paul Engelmayer (who limited DOGE’s access to sensitive Treasury data) and Amir Ali, who ordered the government to pay out $2 billion for foreign aid work already completed. As if to identify the next target for members of Congress, the Justice Department has also filed a complaint against Ana Reyes, a district judge in Washington who blocked the administration’s ban on trans service members. In response to that ruling, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth questioned whether Reyes was a real judge and instructed her to report to a military base for duty.

This past week, Rep. Andrew Clyde, of Georgia, announced that he had also introduced articles of impeachment against U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell, who issued an injunction blocking the Trump administration’s sweeping federal-spending freeze. And Ogles announced yet another impeachment article, this time against U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang, who last week blocked Elon Musk and DOGE from further dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development and restored email access for current USAID employees. Chuang found that, among other things, the closure of USAID—an agency established and funded by Congress—violated the separation of powers. Hilariously, the basis Ogles offered for impeaching Chuang was that the judge had—you guessed it—engaged in his own “patent violation of the separation of powers.” Enforcing the Constitution is now itself unconstitutional.

Congress has voted to impeach judges only 15 times in its history, and there’s no real chance these efforts will pass; if House Republicans do drag any impeachments across the finish line, there is no way the Senate will convict and remove its targets. But Musk is using the impeachment cosplay as a litmus test for which primaries he will fund, last week donating the maximum allowable campaign contributions to seven Republican members of Congress working to impeach judges. So even if this is just a fundraising stunt, it’s certainly rewarding the craziest of the crazy.

Republicans are also taking legislative aim at nationwide injunctions, including a proposal from Rep. Darrell Issa, of California, that would limit the power of any district court judge to issue injunctions with sweeping national implications. The House will vote on that bill next week, while Josh Hawley has introduced companion legislation in the Senate. The bill would bar district courts from handing down injunctive relief orders that apply to any parties not involved in the case. It has an exception for certain cases brought by multiple states. Although there are legitimate questions over the exact scope of a district court’s jurisdiction, conservative judges spent Joe Biden’s presidency issuing relentless federal blocks against his policies—moves that congressional Republicans frequently celebrated and defended. (Hawley, for instance, signed a brief in support of a single district court’s nationwide restrictions on medication abortion.)

Finally, not to be outdone with his members’ attacks on individual jurists, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson raised the possibility of defunding or eliminating U.S. federal district courts altogether, telling assembled reporters on Tuesday: “We do have authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can—we can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts, and all these other things. But, um, desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act.”

Johnson later walked back this palpable threat, insisting that he meant only to illustrate Congress’ “broad authority” over the “creation, maintenance and the governance” of the courts. There’s no putting the genie back in the bottle, though: It sure sounded as if the speaker were saying that the Constitution gives Congress the power to shutter the lower courts, and that the legislative body, if pushed to the limit, should use it. That’s certainly the message the federal courts will receive. And it is yet another bitter irony that, after howlingly condemning Democratic consideration of court reform under Biden, Republicans are now floating the idea of shutting down altogether the courts that might rule against Trump.

Consider, for a moment, the alleged evils that these courts are engaged in. Preserving agencies created by Congress. Mandating the payment of funds that have been appropriated by Congress. Blocking DOGE from thwarting the administration of federal programs expressly set up by Congress. Ordering the administration to comply with immigration and deportation laws enacted by Congress. Do you sense a common theme here? In a better world, Congress itself would be at the forefront of this battle, holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, hauling witnesses before committees, and strengthening statutory language to clarify that its laws and appropriations are not voluntary. Each chamber could even sue in court to vindicate its stolen prerogatives.

Under Republican control, however, Congress has done no such thing. Its inaction has forced the states and groups of private plaintiffs to step into the void, pleading with judges to restore the constitutional order. And rather than applaud the very judges who have done so, congressional Republicans are threatening and targeting them. We keep telling ourselves that a supine Congress is partly responsible for the meltdown of checks and balances, but the truth is far more devastating: A petty and captured Congress is now actively engaged in eroding whatever check or balance still remains.