Fox News personalities and guests made at least 113 individual claims attacking the legitimacy of court rulings against President Donald Trump from January 28, when a federal judge first halted the administration’s freeze of federal aid programs, through March 18. In at least 68 of those claims Fox News personalities and guests attacked judges; in 64, they accused courts of overstepping their constitutional authority; and in 3, they directly advocated for the administration to defy court orders.

Legal experts warn the Trump administration is provoking a constitutional crisis by failing to comply with court rulings, with Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck saying the country is seeing “an unprecedented degree of resistance, willful or otherwise, to judicial mandates against the federal government.”

Fox’s claims casting doubt on the legitimacy of court rulings spiked first on February 11, the day after a judge issued an order noting that the administration had failed to comply with his order unfreezing billions of dollars in federal grants, with at least 14 claims on that day alone. The network’s attacks spiked again from March 16-18 following a district court ruling blocking the president's order to deport migrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — a rarely invoked wartime law that was infamously used to justify interning Japanese Americans during World War II. Network guests and personalities made at least 42 claims undermining the judiciary over those three days.

Fox host Mark Levin spread the most attacks on the judiciary during the studied period, making at least 14 claims casting doubt on the legitimacy of court rulings. Network legal editor Kerri Kupec Urbahn and host Laura Ingraham trailed with at least 11 and 10 such claims, respectively. 

Fox's opinion shows made at least 76 claims in total that undermined the judiciary, with The Ingraham Angle (24) and Life, Liberty & Levin (20) leading the charge. The network's so-called “news-side” shows made at least 37 such claims, with America Reports (10) and The Faulkner Focus (7) featuring the most attacks.

Fox figures or guests directly attacked judges at least 68 times over the studied period — frequently by name, with photos, and at times calling for those judges to be impeached or to resign. Ingraham offered the most such attacks, with all 10 of her claims including rhetoric against judges.

In a long rant against “judicial tyranny” on March 16, Levin argued for impeaching judges who rule against Trump by claiming “they're rogue and they're grabbing power.” Later, when asked by Fox anchor Martha MacCallum why there were so many injunctions against the administration, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said, “They have Trump derangement syndrome. We are seeing it even in judges.”

Over the period studied, at least 64 claims included Fox personalities or guests accusing courts of overstepping their constitutional authority. Levin made at least 12 such claims, followed by Urbahn (9 claims) and Fox & Friends Weekend co-host Charles Hurt (6). 

Urbahn repeatedly said she was worried about judges — not the president — creating a “constitutional crisis,” while Levin declared that “left-wing Democrat lawyers in black robes … are making a complete mockery of the judicial system.”

Levin, Article III Project President Mike Davis, and Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) each made at least 1 claim on Fox advocating for the Trump administration to defy court orders. 

Appearing on The Ingraham Angle on March 17, Davis said “they need to ignore this lawless order,” while Levin cited controversial federal court rulings from the past — including Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott decision — to argue for the administration to defy court orders during his February 15 show.

On the February 11 edition of The Ingraham Angle, Roy said, “The president is going to beat this, in my opinion. Yes, I think he should take a page out of Andrew Jackson's playbook,” referring to the seventh president’s open defiance of the Supreme Court.

These claims reflect a broader pattern of right-wing media attacking judicial rulings against Trump’s actions, and they echo statements from multiple administration officials, individuals close to the White House, congressional Republicans, and Trump himself that have raised concerns about the administration's attempts to undermine the courts.

Media Matters searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original programming on Fox News Channel for any of the terms “Trump,” “president,” or “administration” within close proximity of any of the terms “court,” “SCOTUS,” “appellate,” “appeal,” “district,” or “lawfare” or any variations of any of the terms “judicial,” “judge,” “rule,” or “legal” and also within close proximity of any of the terms “action,” “executive,” “order,” “EO,” “effort,” or “motion” from January 28, 2025, when a federal judge halted President Donald Trump’s freeze on federal aid programs, through March 18, 2025.

We included claims, which we defined as instances of uninterrupted blocks of speech from a single speaker that discussed past or prospective court rulings in opposition to Trump administration actions. For host monologues, headlines, and correspondent reports, we defined a claim as the speech between read quotes and played clips. We did not consider the speech within read quotes or played clips unless a speaker in the segment positively affirmed said speech either directly before or after the quote was read or the clip was played.

We then reviewed the identified claims for whether they:

• Accused courts of overstepping their constitutional authority, including:
  • Suggesting that judges are overstepping their constitutional authority by ruling against Trump administration actions.
  • Suggesting that courts are interfering with presidential constitutional powers over executive agencies or employees.
  • Suggesting that the president's constitutional duty to enforce laws supersedes judicial rulings or interpretations or arguing that the executive holds ultimate authority regardless of court rulings.
• Attacked judges, including:
  • Suggesting that judges who rule against Trump are biased, radical, anti-Trump, or political or judicial activists.
  • Suggesting that judges are “rogue” or part of the “deep state.”
  • Suggesting that judges are legislating from the bench.
  • Suggesting that judges should retire or be impeached.
  • Suggesting that lawsuits are part of a bureaucratic effort to waste the Trump administration's time or taxpayer money.
• Advocated for the Trump administration to defy court orders, including:
  • Suggesting that the administration should disregard or circumvent court rulings.
  • Suggesting that court orders can be ignored pending Supreme Court reviews.