Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday described rhetoric employed by President Donald Trump and other political figures as both unhelpful and 'dangerous' to the high court. Their remarks came during testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, where the justices were advocating for an increase in the Supreme Court's budget.

During the hearing, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island pressed the justices about a rise in threats and the impact of public statements made by President Trump regarding the court's rulings. Reed cited Trump's public comments, made on social media and in person, which he characterized as 'outrageous.'

Reed specifically read aloud Trump's remarks following a 6-3 ruling that invalidated the president's tariff regime. In his statement, Trump had criticized the court, asserting that the justices 'ransacked' the country with their decision. Reed described such behavior as 'very dangerous,' given the attention commanded by the president.

Justice Kagan responded directly, stating, 'Wherever these statements come from, and you know, whatever political figure says them… Statements like that are really unhelpful.' She further elaborated that while justices are subject to criticism, 'intimidation is a different thing entirely.' Kagan emphasized that when political figures attempt to 'intimidate judges and justices to do things that they like rather than the things that they don't,' they have 'crossed the line.'

The justices' testimony comes as the Supreme Court is seeking approximately $225 million in funding for the upcoming fiscal year, a nearly 30 percent increase from 2026. A significant portion of this requested increase is attributed to the need for enhanced security measures for justices, including personnel and cybersecurity.

Justice Barrett also testified, focusing on the necessity of increased security funding. While the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the justices' statements, the exchange highlights concerns about rhetoric impacting the judiciary.