US Supreme Court justices plead for security funds as threats surge
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan testified before Congress for the first time since 2019, detailing personal toll of escalating threats and requesting a $20.5 million budget increase largely for protection.
The United States Supreme Court has asked Congress for a $228 million budget for the next fiscal year, a 10 percent increase driven almost entirely by a request for expanded personal security for the nine justices. In back-to-back appearances before House and Senate appropriations panels on Tuesday, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan described a threat environment that has intensified sharply since the 2022 leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, with the Supreme Court police reporting a 38 percent rise in threats last year and a further 25 percent increase the year before. The funding request includes $14.6 million to add six protective agents per justice, $6.5 million for an off-site visitor screening facility, and $2.3 million for cybersecurity hires.
Viewed from Capitol Hill, the justices’ testimony drew bipartisan expressions of concern. Representative Dave Joyce, the Republican chair of the House subcommittee, stated that judicial officers must be able to work without fear for their safety or their families’ safety, while Representative Steny Hoyer, the panel’s senior Democrat, agreed that Congress must provide sufficient funding to ensure the safety of all judicial personnel. However, Democratic lawmakers also pressed the justices on transparency and ethics practices, arguing that the court’s adoption of a code of conduct without an enforcement mechanism has contributed to an erosion of public trust. According to a Pew Research Center survey cited during the hearing, favourable views of the court have fallen from 70 percent in 2022 to 50 percent.
Justice Barrett recounted that around the time of the Dobbs leak, her security detail sent her home with a bulletproof vest, an object her 12-year-old son discovered and questioned. She also confirmed that six weeks ago she was the target of a swatting incident, in which a hoax emergency call drew a heavy police response to her home while her teenage son was present. Justice Kagan noted that when she joined the court in 2010, justices did not receive around-the-clock personal protection, but the threat landscape changed after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in 2016 and has since been compounded by the use of artificial intelligence to amplify cyber-attacks and by the sending of anonymous packages in the name of a murdered federal judge’s son. The U.S. Marshals Service reported 370 threats against federal judges in the current fiscal year, a 31 percent increase over the previous year.
The justices’ appearance, the first such testimony since 2019, comes as the court’s conservative majority has issued a series of high-profile rulings on presidential power, tariffs, and birthright citizenship, drawing sharp criticism from political figures. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a speech earlier this year, condemned personally directed hostility toward judges as dangerous. The budget request now moves through the appropriations process, with no vote yet scheduled, but the hearing signalled that lawmakers are likely to approve the security funding while continuing to debate the court’s broader accountability.
| Atlantic / Anglosphere press | 0.00 | neutral |
|---|---|---|
| Chinese press | −0.30 | critical |
| Latin American press | −0.20 | neutral |
The justices themselves speak through their testimony, presenting a unified front across ideological lines to secure funding for their safety. The narrative takes the side of the court's institutional needs, portraying the request as reasonable and urgent.
By foregrounding the human story of Justice Barrett's son and the bulletproof vest, the coverage creates empathy and depoliticizes the security request, making it harder to oppose.
The specific controversial rulings that triggered the threats, such as the Dobbs decision on abortion, are not mentioned, allowing the security issue to be presented as a non-partisan concern.
The Chinese report adopts a detached observer tone, but the selection of details—the bulletproof vest, the child's question—implicitly criticizes the US system for allowing such threats to arise. The side taken is that of a skeptical outsider.
By reporting the justices' own words without commentary, the article lets the facts speak for themselves, but the choice to highlight the most personal and alarming detail serves to underscore the dysfunction in US institutions.
The article omits the bipartisan nature of the request and the fact that both liberal and conservative justices are testifying together, which would complicate the narrative of US political decay.
The Brazilian report frames the security request as a consequence of the court's own controversial decisions, implying that the threats are a reaction to the justices' actions. The side taken is that of a critical observer linking the court's legitimacy to its rulings.
By explicitly mentioning 'decisões polêmicas' (controversial decisions) without specifying which ones, the article creates a causal link between the court's output and the security threats, suggesting the justices are reaping what they sowed.
The article omits the specific security measures requested and the budget numbers, focusing instead on the political context, which downplays the genuine safety concerns.
Broaden your view
US imposes 25% tariff on Brazilian imports, Brasília vows immediate reciprocity
3 languages · 14 outlets
From TechnologyNASA astronaut Anil Menon begins eight-month ISS mission aboard Russian Soyuz
3 languages · 9 outlets
From Science & HealthFirst true sugar detected in interstellar space, as deep-time studies reshape origins debate
4 languages · 5 outlets