Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich raised eyebrows Sunday night by suggesting the United States may need to eliminate a number of federal district courts to combat what he described as a growing “dictatorship by judge.” The comment came during an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Life, Liberty & Levin,” where Gingrich took aim at judicial activism and the barrage of legal rulings aimed at stalling President Trump’s second-term agenda.
Gingrich made his case by drawing a historical parallel to former President Thomas Jefferson’s actions in the early 1800s, when Jefferson repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 and eliminated 14 judgeships to reassert legislative authority. The strategy, Gingrich implied, may be necessary once again.
“These district judges may be the worst,” Gingrich told host Mark Levin. “There is no constitutional basis for a district court judge to think they can become an alternative president, and a lot of these decisions are absurd.”
Gingrich argued that many of the rulings coming from lower federal courts are not grounded in law but rather politics. He accused judges of acting as political operatives determined to undermine Trump’s presidency.
Jefferson’s precedent, Gingrich reminded viewers, didn’t involve impeachment—it was more direct. “He just eliminated the judgeships, and they went home,” Gingrich said. “We’re moving toward a point where we may have to eliminate a number of district courts just to communicate that we’re not going to tolerate dictatorship by judge.”
The explosive comments come at a time when Trump is facing major legal pushback from multiple district courts, particularly over his aggressive immigration enforcement measures, use of executive authority, and newly signed orders targeting bureaucratic overreach and foreign influence. Just in the last month, judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s deportation of gang members under the Alien Enemies Act and ending taxpayer-funded legal defense for unaccompanied minors in immigration proceedings.
Gingrich, who remains one of the former president’s most influential allies, said the judiciary has become corrupted by partisanship and that the American people are losing faith in government as a result.
“In a poll we do at America’s New Majority Project, over 80% of the American people believe the government is corrupt,” Gingrich said. “That’s really dangerous in a free society, and what Trump is doing is taking on the corruption.”
Gingrich said Trump’s fight against the deep state is exactly why opposition from within the system has become so intense. “A lot of the people that are so-called observers, in fact, are opponents. Their goal is to defeat Trump,” he warned.
Mark Levin, a former Reagan-era Justice Department official and constitutional scholar, did not push back on Gingrich’s proposal, instead appearing to agree that radical reform may be necessary to rein in judicial overreach.
Although eliminating federal courts would be an extraordinary and controversial step, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to structure the judiciary. Article III grants lawmakers the power to establish lower courts and control their jurisdiction, meaning Gingrich’s idea is legally plausible—though sure to ignite a political firestorm.
The idea of dismantling parts of the judiciary is likely to resonate among Trump supporters who believe the legal system has been weaponized against the president. Critics, however, will undoubtedly frame it as an attack on the rule of law and judicial independence.
Whether this signals a serious legislative push or a rhetorical warning shot remains to be seen. But Gingrich’s comments reflect a broader shift on the Right toward more aggressive constitutional remedies to what they view as systemic abuse by the administrative and judicial state.
With Trump’s second-term agenda facing legal obstacles at every turn, calls for bolder action against activist judges are growing louder—and Gingrich just put elimination of district courts on the table.
