The primary target of Trump’s recent incitement is probably not Hillary Clinton. She is a hardened target surrounded by a security perimeter protected with countermeasures. However, federal and Supreme Court judges don’t have that sort of protection. Trump’s escalating incitement increases the possibility they might become targets of political violence.
In light of the enhanced risk posed by Trump’s recent incitement, it is appropriate to seriously consider the possibility some unhinged “Second Amendment Citizen” might be encouraged to do something unthinkable by voices on TV repeating what the voices in their head were saying. Until a reliable risk assessment can be made of the new threat environment posed by the presence of an increasingly incendiary and unmanageable national candidate who may be intentionally or otherwise inciting people to violence, it would be prudent for the president to increase security around judges at the federal level.
This sort of incitement from a person running for political office is virtually unheard of, certainly at the federal level. Current events are alarming because, historically, lethal violence against members of the judiciary has been rare. In the last 50 years, only a handful of federal or state judges have been murdered. No Supreme Court judge has ever been attacked. [Edit: No Supreme Court judge has ever been successfully attacked (h/t Musial in the comments)]. However, confrontations and threats are more common than people might suspect. One report from 2006 found that of the approximately 1,000 state judges surveyed, 25% reported being physically approached by a hostile individual, 1% were actually assaulted. The impact is felt much more broadly
...more disturbing—more than one third admitted that they had changed their judicial conduct as a result of the experience. Judges compelled to change their judicial conduct may sacrifice justice for security.
The risk extends beyond the individual jurists and goes directly to the ability of government at the state, local, or federal levels to ensure justice to its citizenry.
Attacks on the judiciary are assaults on the system of justice—one of the most crucial elements of democratic self government.
For those who might think this response to Trump’s escalating attacks on the judiciary is alarmist, it is sobering to recall Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot shortly after Sarah Palin engaged in this sort of incitement. Giffords was not the only victim that day. Five people were killed and over a dozen others wounded in the attack. Although there is no evidence that Federal Judge John Roll was an intended or primary target of that attack, he is still dead as a result of it. This recent history provides good reason to consider the following rationale for allocation of resources necessary to conduct a valid risk assessment:
1) The scenario is plausible. Not because it might happen, but because it has. That’s just one case chosen because it is recent. As mentioned, this is something judges actually worry about. One main reason they are at risk is they cannot fight back as the war of words escalates. This makes them particularly good targets for political attacks. Trump has already employed this tactic of inflaming public opinion by repeatedly targeting the media. Thus, this recent behavior represents a change in target not tactic.
2) The targets are well defined. We are talking about Supreme Court judges and judges at the federal level, particularly those who rule on matters relevant to the second amendment. This could be extended to judges ruling on matters relating to Trump directly. It’s important to note, the latest incitement was not an isolated incident. In additional to personally attacking a California judge, Trump has already singled out one Supreme Court Justice for public attacks. This latest incident represents an escalation of these previous attacks.
3) The time horizon of the threat is short. It is reasonable to expect Trump’s attacks to continue, if not escalate. That means this risk that will likely increase as the campaign heats up and the election nears. The threat may continue once Clinton becomes president, but that is outside the window of the current president’s authorization. Waiting until the election to manage this risks a catastrophic event occurring at a critical time in our political cycle.
4) Procedures exist for making reliable threat assessments. The Secret Service and the US Marshals Service have developed protocols for evaluating threat assessments in places like the one considered here. As developed by the Secret Service, threat assessment involves efforts to identify, assess, and manage individuals and groups who may pose threats of targeted violence.
The current Republican nominee for president may think his off the cuff remarks are cute, provocative and make for great ratings. But running for President of the United States is not a a reality TV show. There’s a reason 50 former national security professionals signed a letter stating he represents a “clear and present danger” to national and international security. They understand that actions have consequences. Some consequences are irremediable. When those consequences increase in probability, preventing them should be a high priority that gets the resources and response it deserves.
One incident of political violence against a federal judge would have a chilling effect on our republic. Sending resources and expertise now could well spare folks the agony of sending thoughts and prayers later.