Immigration Judges Raise Alarm Over Trump Deportation Drive

Published: 09 May 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A growing number of current and former immigration judges in the United States are warning that political pressure inside the immigration court system is threatening judicial independence and undermining confidence in the rule of law during President Donald Trump’s second administration. As mass deportations intensify and the White House pushes for tougher immigration enforcement, judges at the centre of the system say they are being forced into an increasingly difficult position: comply with political expectations or risk losing their jobs.

The concerns emerge amid a sweeping overhaul of America’s immigration courts, where more than 100 judges have reportedly been dismissed, reassigned or pressured into accepting buyouts since early 2025. Critics argue the changes are part of a broader effort to align immigration courts more closely with the administration’s aggressive deportation agenda. Supporters of the policy insist the reforms are necessary to restore order to a system they say was overwhelmed by years of uncontrolled migration and legal delays.

For many judges who served within the system for years, however, the developments represent something far more troubling than administrative restructuring. Several former judges describe an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, where decisions once guided by legal standards are increasingly shaped by concerns over political consequences.

Among them is former immigration judge David Koelsch, who resigned from the bench months before federal authorities intensified operations against undocumented migrants. Koelsch, who previously worked as a supervisory asylum officer investigating terrorism-related immigration matters, said he became deeply unsettled by what he viewed as the growing militarisation of immigration enforcement and pressure on judges to conform to enforcement priorities.

His concerns intensified after witnessing federal immigration agents in tactical gear confronting civilians during unrest in Minneapolis following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal officers. Koelsch said the experience left him physically shaken and emotionally disturbed, particularly because he once shared the same oath of office as the agents involved.

Having served nearly eight years as an immigration judge in Baltimore, Koelsch said he originally intended to retire normally. Instead, he chose to leave early as dismissals of judges accelerated across the country. He feared his comparatively high rate of granting asylum claims could eventually make him a target for removal.

According to several judges interviewed about the ongoing changes, asylum approval rates have become an increasingly sensitive issue under the Trump administration. Some judges who granted protection more frequently than the national average reportedly found themselves under scrutiny, particularly in courts handling large numbers of asylum applications.

One of the most controversial cases involved immigration judge Jeremiah Johnson in San Francisco. Johnson, appointed during Trump’s first administration, was dismissed in late 2025 alongside several colleagues after years on the bench. He said he learned about the firings while sitting with another judge before abruptly losing access to the court system after opening his termination notice.

Johnson’s dismissal came during a broader restructuring of California’s immigration court system. The San Francisco immigration court, once staffed by more than 20 judges, was effectively dismantled as cases were transferred elsewhere despite an enormous backlog exceeding 100,000 unresolved immigration proceedings.

The administration has denied targeting judges based on their legal backgrounds or asylum decisions. However, many former judges believe the firings reflect an effort to replace experienced immigration specialists with individuals more aligned with the administration’s enforcement philosophy.

Tensions escalated further after a policy memorandum circulated within the Executive Office for Immigration Review accused some judges of displaying bias “in favor of an alien and against the Department of Homeland Security.” The document warned judges against allowing personal policy preferences to influence decisions and suggested that those unwilling to comply should consider alternative careers.

Critics argue the language created a chilling effect inside the courts. Judges who remain on the bench reportedly fear disciplinary action if they approve bond requests, delay deportations or grant asylum in politically sensitive cases. Some former judges describe colleagues now second-guessing ordinary legal decisions due to fears over retaliation or dismissal.

Former judge Carmen Maria Rey Caldas, who immigrated to the United States from Spain as a child and later became an immigration judge after nearly two decades practising immigration law, said the current atmosphere undermines the principle of neutral adjudication. Rey Caldas worked in some of the country’s toughest detention facilities and received strong performance evaluations before eventually being terminated.

She and other dismissed judges have challenged the legality of the removals through the courts, arguing that judges cannot be dismissed arbitrarily without explanation or due process. Although the government has largely characterised the dismissals as personnel matters, critics say the broader pattern points to an unprecedented politicisation of immigration adjudication.

At the same time, the administration has launched a recruitment drive for new judges using language that some observers view as highly politicised. Job advertisements inviting applicants to become “deportation judges” have alarmed legal experts who argue that immigration judges are supposed to function as impartial decision-makers rather than enforcement agents.

One of the most contentious developments has been the increased use of military lawyers to fill vacancies in immigration courts. Under authorisation from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, hundreds of Judge Advocate General Corps attorneys became eligible for temporary immigration judge assignments despite lacking traditional immigration law experience.

The move has drawn criticism from bar associations and immigration experts, who warn that replacing experienced immigration specialists with military personnel risks weakening legal standards and due process protections. Supporters of the policy, however, say it is necessary to address staffing shortages and reduce an immigration court backlog that has grown to more than three million pending cases nationwide.

The administration’s immigration crackdown has coincided with a dramatic increase in deportations. Government figures indicate that more than 600,000 people have been deported since Trump returned to office, with officials openly targeting annual removals exceeding one million individuals. Refugee admissions have also been sharply reduced, while asylum approval rates have reportedly fallen to historic lows.

The strain on the court system has intensified alongside these enforcement goals. Current and former judges describe mounting pressure to approve deportations, reject bond requests and facilitate removals to third countries where migrants may have little or no personal connection.

Some judges fear the implications extend far beyond immigration law. They warn that if political influence over judicial outcomes becomes normalised within immigration courts, similar practices could eventually spread into other parts of the American legal system. Several noted that immigration courts operate under the authority of the Department of Justice and ultimately the executive branch, leaving judges more vulnerable to political control than federal judges appointed under the constitution.

For critics of the administration, the issue is no longer simply about immigration policy but about the integrity of democratic institutions. They argue that when judges begin fearing professional retaliation for legal decisions, the foundation of judicial neutrality itself becomes unstable.

Despite these concerns, the Trump administration maintains that its actions are lawful and necessary to restore immigration enforcement after years of border instability. White House officials continue to blame previous administrations for allowing millions of migrants to enter the country and insist that stricter policies are required to uphold federal law and protect national security.

Yet inside the immigration court system, many judges describe a profession increasingly consumed by anxiety and moral conflict. Some say colleagues are struggling with the emotional burden of balancing ethical obligations against the fear of losing careers, income and professional reputations.

As legal challenges continue and immigration courts undergo rapid transformation, the battle over judicial independence within America’s immigration system may ultimately become one of the defining constitutional debates of Trump’s second presidency. For many current and former judges, the question now extends beyond immigration itself and touches the broader future of American democracy and the rule of law.