Conservatives across the country are raising red flags after yet another Trump-related case has landed in the lap of a known liberal activist judge. Judge James Boasberg—the same judge who once tried to block President Trump from deporting violent Venezuelan gang members—has now been assigned to oversee the high-stakes “Signal-Gate” case. The coincidence hasn’t gone unnoticed, and critics are calling foul.
The case revolves around the alleged use of the Signal encrypted messaging app by senior national security officials—some of them Trump allies—to discuss classified military operations, including the recent U.S. airstrikes on Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen. While the case is still developing, its political implications are massive. And now, with Boasberg on the bench, many conservatives say the fix is already in.
The controversy exploded on March 26 when conservative insider Nick Sotor broke the news on X, formerly Twitter. “🚨 WTF?! Judge Boasberg, the activist judge BLOCKING Trump from deporting violent gang members, intentionally DELAYED the release of Hillary Clinton’s emails until after the 2016 election. He’s also now ‘coincidentally’ presiding over the Signal case. This is RIGGED!” Sotor posted.
He’s not alone in his outrage.
Judge Boasberg has long been viewed by many on the right as a partisan in robes. He gained notoriety for a head-scratching decision in which he blocked President Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport dangerous illegal immigrants with gang ties—effectively shielding MS-13 and Tren de Aragua members from justice. As internet sleuths later uncovered, Boasberg’s own daughter works for a pro-illegal immigration nonprofit that has defended gang members in court. If that’s not a conflict of interest, what is?
Conservative legal expert Tom Renz weighed in, stating, “The courts are NOT following the law. The appearance of impropriety is the foundation for credibility in our justice system, and it is being abjectly ignored. Judge Boasberg is a case study in judicial bias. If the judges don’t follow the law, then how are they in a position to tell us to?”
Even lawmakers are stepping in. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) didn’t hold back: “You’re right, it’s supposed to be random. But Judge Boasberg could recuse himself from this case if there’s a potential for bias—and I think there’s more than enough evidence here.”
Jordan went on to list Boasberg’s history of anti-Trump rulings, including his infamous time on the FISA court during the Russiagate debacle. “This is the guy who said, ‘turn the flight around, bring all the hardened criminals back to America.’ And let’s not forget, he was right there on the FISA court rubber-stamping the warrants that allowed the Obama-Biden DOJ to spy on President Trump’s 2016 campaign.”
The pattern, Jordan argued, is crystal clear. “There’s a history there—one that should disqualify him from presiding over anything involving President Trump or his allies. But here we are again.”
Critics are demanding transparency in how these high-profile cases are assigned and are calling for serious judicial reform. If judges with political agendas are allowed to steer the legal system, the consequences for democracy could be dire. The American people deserve judges who uphold the law, not ones who bend it to fit their ideology.
As for Judge Boasberg, conservatives aren’t expecting fairness. But they are watching—and they’re not staying silent.
