Trump allies are attacking the judicial system—and may now be targeting courthouses themselves

The Trump administration’s attack on the judicial system may be moving to a new front: the General Services Administration, the agency responsible for managing the federal government’s real estate and procurement. Since Donald Trump’s return to office, he and his administration, as well as allies in Congress like Speaker Mike Johnson, have launched broad attacks on the judiciary, including targeting specific judges who have ruled against the administration. And now, the administration may be targeting courthouses and court offices through the GSA, which could weaken the judiciary and further erode already imperiled checks and balances. 

Typically, GSA fills a non-policymaking role in the federal government, fulfilling other agencies’ requests for equipment and office space. Recent GSA activity, however, suggests that the Trump administration may be using the agency to assert more independent authority, targeting the judiciary in particular.

Since President Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025, more than 1,000 GSA employees across the country have been fired, including at least 600 employees of the agency’s Public Buildings Service (PBS) which manages federal buildings. These layoffs included firing all GSA staff in the state of Nevada, 40% of staff in GSA’s Pacific Rim Region and 90% of PBS staff in the Northwest Region. By gutting its regional staff, particularly PBS staff, GSA has severely diminished the workforce responsible for meeting the custodial, maintenance and other basic needs of federal buildings nationwide, increasing the likelihood that federal buildings, including courthouses, fall into disrepair or otherwise become temporarily or permanently unusable. That risk is particularly acute in Nevada, where all GSA staff have been fired despite the presence of four federal courthouses across the state.

In addition, GSA has made an accelerated push to sell or otherwise dispose of potentially hundreds of “non-core” federally-owned buildings. Disposing of surplus federal property is not unprecedented–the Biden administration did so as well–but both the scale and the process of the Trump administration’s effort are cause for concern. In March, GSA initially included at least ten federal courthouse buildings and one military courthouse on a list of 443 non-core properties it would seek to sell, despite assurances that courthouses are “core” properties. GSA quickly reduced the overall list by more than 100 properties, including the military courthouse, but did not remove any of the federal courthouse buildings until it removed the entire list from its website following backlash. GSA has since republished a new, much shorter list of properties that includes two courthouses, though the agency says it will continue to add new properties to the list.

The opaque, haphazard and contradictory manner in which GSA assembled and altered these lists suggests the possibility that, as Representative Steve Cohen recently noted with respect to the Odell Horton Federal Building in Tennessee, which was included on the first two versions of GSA’s non-core property lists, courthouses (and federal buildings containing courtrooms) may be closed by GSA with no replacement property in place. Without courthouses, litigants might have to travel long distances to access the justice system and affected federal courts may be unable to hear cases in an efficient manner, or otherwise properly perform the basic functions of the judiciary.

The mass firing of GSA staff and the potential sale of federal courthouses are not merely routine administrative changes. These developments could meaningfully hinder the ability of the federal judiciary to operate. If a hollowed-out GSA workforce cannot ensure the upkeep of courthouses across the country, those buildings could become practically unusable. And if courthouses are unusable, or if they are simply disposed of, courts will be left unable to effectively hear cases and provide relief to litigants, grinding the gears of the justice system to a halt. An internal memo from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, which handles the budgetary and administrative business of the federal judiciary, suggests that judiciary personnel are already concerned about the impacts of the GSA’s pause on contracting and inquiries into leased buildings on judicial business. Courthouse closures and further GSA firings would be, by comparison, even more drastic, and even more crippling for the judiciary.

These developments should be viewed within the context of the Trump administration’s longstanding hostility towards courts, judges and the rule of law. Since his return to office, President Trump and his allies have sharpened their attacks against a judiciary which has ruled against some of the administration’s most controversial policies. In March, President Trump publicly called for the impeachment of a judge who ruled against his administration (leading to a rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts). Speaker Mike Johnson suggested, before attempting to walk back his comments, that Congress might try to eliminate specific courts. Most alarmingly, the Trump administration arguably defied a court order to halt an ongoing deportation and has thus far failed to facilitate the return of a wrongly deported Maryland father as ordered by a unanimous Supreme Court. When viewed with that context, the closure of courthouses and the firing of staff who manage those courthouses are additional, subtle ways in which the Trump administration may seek to hamstring judges and make it more difficult for them to issue rulings in accordance with what the law demands, rather than based on political pressures.

These attacks undermine the independent federal judiciary, which is a necessary component of a healthy democracy. The federal court system must be available for people to vindicate their rights when the government infringes upon those rights. In order to carry out that vital constitutional role, judges must be free to rule against the government without the threat of impeachment or violence, and with confidence that the other branches of government must abide by court orders. In the absence of an independent judiciary, the executive and legislative branches would be free to trample on the constitutional and legal rights of everyday Americans without consequence or redress.

Maintaining that independence means that courts must be given physical space to operate with usable courthouses and offices that are sufficiently maintained and located in areas that litigants can meaningfully access. To deprive the judiciary of that basic necessity would be to deprive the American people of access to justice. Congress and the public must oppose unjustified or arbitrary courthouse closures and GSA layoffs and see them as another attack on an independent judiciary.