WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats on Thursday evening advanced two impeachment resolutions against former President Donald J. Trump, citing what they describe as a pattern of escalating attacks on members of the federal judiciary. The filings — House Resolutions 415 and 537 — were entered within hours of new comments from Mr. Trump in which he suggested, during a televised interview, that a federal judge overseeing one of his pending cases was “corrupt” and “a danger to the country.”

Although the remarks were consistent with the rhetoric Mr. Trump has used for months, their timing — alongside several security advisories issued by judicial protection officials — prompted an unusually rapid legislative response. According to three senior aides familiar with the internal discussions, staff members on the House Judiciary Committee worked late into the night finalizing language that accuses the former president of “persistent efforts to intimidate federal officers” and of “knowingly increasing risks to judicial personnel.”

The resolutions point not only to Mr. Trump’s televised comments, but also to an accumulation of statements posted across his social media accounts. Several of those posts, which circulated widely on Thursday, included disparaging characterizations of the judge and the court’s staff. While impeachment measures targeting a former president are primarily symbolic, their introduction reflects the growing alarm among lawmakers and legal advocacy groups regarding what they describe as a deteriorating environment surrounding the judiciary.

Judicial associations have been documenting a rise in threats and harassment against federal judges over the past several years, with many incidents attributed by experts to political polarization and digitally amplified rhetoric. According to a recent memorandum from the U.S. Marshals Service, which oversees judicial protection, investigators have seen a “notable increase” in swatting events and online targeting that coincides with periods of heightened political attention on particular cases. Officials did not directly link the Thursday filings to any specific threat, but they noted that the trend “continues to pose operational challenges.”

Mr. Trump’s campaign responded by dismissing the impeachment resolutions as “performative” and “election-year theater,” arguing that Democrats are attempting to silence criticism of the legal system. A spokesperson insisted the former president has a First Amendment right to question judicial impartiality, adding that he intends to “continue speaking out against political prosecutions.”

Legal scholars, however, noted distinctions between protected speech and statements that could be perceived as undermining the safety of public officials. Some pointed to a 2022 bipartisan judicial security law — enacted after the fatal shooting of a federal judge’s son in New Jersey — as evidence that Congress takes such threats seriously. One constitutional law professor described the clash as “a test of how far political rhetoric can go before it collides with institutional safeguards.”

The latest developments also drew attention to Congress itself, where the narrow House majority has already faced challenges coordinating its internal agenda. While Republican leaders dismissed the resolutions, several conservatives privately expressed discomfort with Mr. Trump’s increasingly confrontational tone toward judges. One Republican legislator, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, said colleagues were “frustrated that every new outburst creates another legislative fire drill.”

Outside Washington, the political reverberations unfolded across social media, where clips from Mr. Trump’s interview circulated alongside commentary from both supporters and critics. Analysts noted that his remarks gained traction within minutes, amplified by influential accounts that either condemned the statements or framed them as justified critiques of judicial overreach. The speed with which the video spread highlighted the degree to which political moments now become national flashpoints almost instantaneously.

For their part, Democratic lawmakers described the impeachment filings as a necessary formal rebuke. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who has led previous inquiries involving Mr. Trump, said in a statement that the resolutions were intended “to reaffirm Congress’s commitment to the independence of the courts.” He added that the filings would “ensure a public record of conduct that undermines foundational norms.”

Whether the resolutions will advance beyond committee remains uncertain. With the House controlled by Republicans, a floor vote is unlikely. Yet several analysts suggested that the symbolic nature of the action is precisely its purpose: to document a pattern that future Congresses could revisit if political dynamics shift.

By evening, the controversy dominated political coverage on cable networks and online platforms. As clips from the interview continued to spread, legal experts debated the broader implications for judicial independence, while congressional aides worked to clarify language around the resolutions for upcoming committee briefings.

The events of the day ultimately illustrated the extent to which political rhetoric — and the response it provokes — has become a central battleground in the country’s legal and constitutional debates. For lawmakers, judges, and the public, the boundary between political expression and institutional vulnerability has rarely felt more contested.