By: Fern Sidman

In a forceful and highly charged rebuke of an unprecedented attack on the constitutional order, House Speaker Mike Johnson has publicly warned that Congress may wield its funding powers to rein in a rogue judiciary undermining the presidency of Donald J. Trump. Gateway Pundit reported on Thursday that in statements and interviews this week, Johnson signaled a dramatic shift in tone and strategy from GOP leadership, raising the possibility of defunding certain federal courts in response to what he and allies view as a legal insurrection led by radical leftist judges.

Since returning to the White House on January 20, 2025, President Trump has faced what Gateway Pundit described as a relentless legal offensive designed to cripple his administration before it can fully regain its footing. The article noted that in under two months, Trump has already been targeted by a staggering 137 legal challenges—more than double the number he faced during his first term. By contrast, during the entirety of his first administration, Trump was hit with 65 nationwide injunctions.

According to the information provided in the Gateway Pundit report, these legal maneuvers are not merely the work of overzealous attorneys or aggrieved political opponents; rather, they represent a coordinated campaign by far-left activist judges who seek to delegitimize and disable the Trump presidency from within the judicial branch.

Josh Hammer, Senior Counsel for the Article III Project, described the situation during an appearance on The War Room with Steve Bannon, stating bluntly that “this is not just judicial activism—it’s an outright judicial insurrection.” His warning echoes a broader concern expressed by conservative legal scholars and lawmakers who say the judiciary is now being weaponized to achieve political outcomes that could never be realized through the ballot box, as noted in The Gateway Pundit report.

Gateway Pundit reported that Johnson’s comments, made during a press briefing and cited by ABC News, mark a turning point in how congressional Republicans may respond to what they see as the escalating lawfare against Trump.

“We do have authority over the federal courts, as you know,” Johnson said. “We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act. So stay tuned for that.”

These remarks were widely interpreted as a direct threat to activist judges who are abusing their positions to obstruct the Trump agenda.

Despite the growing outcry, the U.S. Supreme Court has thus far refused to intervene in any meaningful way, according to Gateway Pundit. The report criticized the high court for standing by “shamefully” while lower court judges—many with activist credentials—issue rulings that disrupt executive authority.

The absence of a strong response from the judiciary’s highest level, conservatives argue, has created a dangerous vacuum—one that activist judges are now rushing to fill. This inaction, coupled with an aggressive stream of injunctions and challenges, has heightened frustrations among Trump’s supporters and congressional allies.

Adding fuel to the fire, Gateway Pundit cited a “shocking new report” revealing that one-third of Washington, D.C.’s district judges were not born in the United States. The report claims that many of these judges had no prior judicial experience before being appointed—further stoking concerns about qualifications and potential bias on the bench.

A revealing report from The Federalist, as cited and highlighted by Gateway Pundit, has sparked growing concern among conservatives and constitutional watchdogs over the composition of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. According to the report, one-third of the judges currently serving on the D.C. District Court were not born in the United States, raising questions about judicial qualifications, cultural alignment, and the potential political motivations of the bench overseeing some of the nation’s most sensitive legal cases—particularly those targeting President Trump.

The rhetorical question posed in the Gateway Pundit report—“What are we even doing here?”—captures a sentiment of deep alienation and concern among conservative leaders who believe the federal judiciary has been hijacked by ideological opponents of the Trump administration.

To critics like Johnson and Hammer, the solution lies not in pleading with the courts for fair treatment, but in aggressively asserting congressional authority to curb institutional overreach. Whether that means cutting funding to specific judicial districts or initiating broader structural reforms remains to be seen, but the message is clear: the gloves are coming off.

The D.C. District Court has emerged as a central battleground in what many conservatives, including those at Gateway Pundit, see as a concerted legal effort to obstruct President Trump’s second term. With multiple cases related to January 6, spending reforms, and executive actions being funneled through this jurisdiction, the makeup of this court holds significant weight.

There are currently 15 judges on the court, including Chief Judge James Boasberg. According to The Federalist, and as reported by Gateway Pundit, five of those judges were born outside the United States, representing a dramatic demographic and experiential shift from the bench’s composition in past decades.

Appointed in 2014 by then-President Barack Obama, Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan was born in Kingston, Jamaica, and moved to the United States by 1979. She later graduated from George Washington University and eventually became a partner at a prestigious law firm. However, as noted by Gateway Pundit, Chutkan had no prior experience as a judge before ascending to the federal bench.

She now presides over one of the most politically sensitive legal disputes—a challenge to Trump’s efforts to reduce bloated federal spending, an initiative championed by his Office of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Her rulings could significantly impact the pace and scope of reforms Trump has pledged to enact in his second term.

Also appointed by Obama, Judge Amit Mehta was born in Patan, Gujarat, India, and immigrated to the U.S. with his family when he was just one year old. Raised in Maryland, Mehta eventually climbed the legal ranks, though like Chutkan, he had no experience as a judge before his federal appointment.

Mehta has now been assigned to four civil cases stemming from January 6, each of which seeks to tie President Trump to injuries and damages resulting from the Capitol unrest. The Gateway Pundit report emphasized that these cases are widely perceived by conservatives as thinly veiled attempts to bankrupt Trump’s political apparatus and drain his resources ahead of the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections.

Three of the five foreign-born judges currently serving on the D.C. District Court were appointed by President Joe Biden, according to Gateway Pundit, with a spotlight on Judge Ana Cecilia Reyes, who joined the bench in 2021. Born in Montevideo, Uruguay, Reyes spent parts of her early childhood in Spain before her family moved to Louisville, Kentucky. As with Chutkan and Mehta, Reyes had no prior judicial experience before her nomination.

These appointments, taken together, have raised questions not only about qualifications but also about ideological leanings and potential biases when presiding over politically charged litigation.

That haunting question—“How is this even possible, and why is no one talking about it?”—resonates throughout the analysis provided by Gateway Pundit, reflecting a deep-seated frustration among conservative Americans who feel the judiciary is being reshaped into a tool of progressive dominance.

While the U.S. Constitution does not require federal judges to be born in the United States, critics argue that the dramatic shift in judicial appointments—especially of those with no bench experience—undermines the credibility and independence of the court.

The Federalist’s report, as amplified by Gateway Pundit, lays bare what many see as a judiciary that no longer reflects the values, backgrounds, or balance expected of such an essential institution. The fact that one-third of D.C.’s most powerful federal judges were not born in the United States, and that several had no prior experience as judges, has become a flashpoint in the ongoing battle over the soul of America’s legal system.

As the Trump administration continues to clash with the courts, scrutiny over who sits on the bench—and how they got there—is only expected to intensify.