Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde, who earlier this month announced he was drafting articles of impeachment against a Rhode Island judge overseeing one of President Donald Trump’s legal challenges, condemned judges who continue to bar Trump’s agenda from being implemented. Clyde is working in conjunction with Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., who is also preparing impeachment articles against U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer. The Georgia Republican said the real victims of judicial pushback against Trump’s policies are the American people. "You’re not just hurting the president," Clyde told Fox News Digital. "You’re hurting the American people because they’re the ones who elected him, and they’re the ones who want him to do this – to exercise these specific authorities. And these judges are really denying the American people their rights."

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), along with Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), has taken a strong stance against federal judges who have been blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda. The two lawmakers are preparing articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, who has been presiding over one of Trump’s legal challenges. Clyde emphasized that the judiciary’s consistent interference with Trump’s policies is not only hindering the president but also undermining the will of the American people. He argued that the voters who elected Trump are being denied their right to see his agenda implemented. Clyde’s remarks highlight a growing frustration among conservatives with what they perceive as judicial overreach.

Clyde specifically criticized judges like U.S. District Judge John McConnell, who issued a restraining order against the Trump administration, temporarily blocking its efforts to pause federal grants and loans. McConnell has faced backlash from Trump supporters and conservatives after a 2021 video resurfaced in which he emphasized the importance of courts standing up against arbitrary and capricious actions by those in power. In the video, McConnell also highlighted the need for judges to consider the diverse backgrounds of individuals appearing before them, including women, Black individuals, transgender people, and those from various socioeconomic statuses. Conservatives have since accused him of being a "liberal activist" judge, claiming his rulings are politically motivated.

The legal challenges faced by the Trump administration have been numerous since the president took office in January. Over 70 lawsuits have been filed by activist and legal groups, elected officials, local jurisdictions, and individuals. These lawsuits target key policies such as Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) efforts to reduce unnecessary government spending, and the president’s removal of various federal employees. Clyde expressed confidence that Trump would ultimately prevail in these legal battles, citing the president’s authority under Article II of the Constitution. However, he criticized the judges who have issued restraining orders, arguing that their actions are preventing Trump from fulfilling his constitutional duties and addressing issues like government waste, fraud, and abuse.

Clyde also acknowledged that judges, like all individuals, have their own opinions. However, he stressed that judges should not allow their personal beliefs to influence their rulings in ways that create conflicts of interest or appear overtly political. He pointed to Judges Engelmayer and McConnell as examples of what he considers judicial overreach. Clyde called on his congressional colleagues to join him and Rep. Crane in holding these judges accountable, asserting that they cannot be allowed to unilaterally block the president from carrying out his duties. "They can’t just stop the president from doing what the Constitution gives him the authority to do, and the people have given him the authority to do," Clyde said.

The broader context of Clyde’s impeachment threat reflects a growing tension between the judiciary and the executive branch, particularly under the Trump administration. While legal challenges to presidential authority are not unusual, the sheer number of lawsuits and the direct involvement of lawmakers in targeting specific judges highlight the political polarization of the current legal landscape. Clyde’s efforts, alongside those of Rep. Crane, signal a coordinated attempt by some Republicans to push back against what they see as activists in robes. Whether these impeachment efforts gain traction remains to be seen, but they underscore the high stakes of the ongoing battles over Trump’s policies and the role of the judiciary in interpreting and upholding the law.