The Trump administration has recently removed 20 “midnight” immigration judges that the Biden administration had attempted to appoint in its final days, according to The Washington Times. This move involved the dismissal of 13 immigration judges appointed in late December and early January, as well as seven assistant chief immigration judges, all of whom were ousted on Friday, a Justice Department source revealed.

In a development that mirrors the earlier actions taken by the Biden administration upon its assumption of power in 2021—when it removed a number of last-minute Trump-appointed immigration judges—the Trump Justice Department has now undertaken a similar purge. Among those dismissed was Kerry Doyle, whose career trajectory is particularly notable. Previously a vocal critic of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Doyle was later appointed as ICE’s principal legal adviser. During her tenure, she championed policies that favored a more lenient approach toward illegal immigrants. However, when the Biden administration attempted to convert her political appointment into a regular civil service position, it ultimately proved controversial.

As of Friday night, Doyle’s name remained on the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) court roster. EOIR, which has long been considered a politically neutral body responsible for overseeing immigration judges, has seen significant changes under the Biden administration. By 2023, the administration had removed six of the ten senior executive positions within EOIR, further signaling its intent to reshape the organization according to its policy priorities. Additionally, more than ten immigration judges appointed during the Trump era were either dismissed at the end of their probationary periods or opted to resign rather than face termination.

A senior official at the Trump Justice Department explained that the recent dismissals were consistent with a precedent established by the Biden administration. “The Biden administration set a precedent by terminating numerous immigration judges during their term or trial periods for the first time in EOIR history. So, it’s not surprising that EOIR is following that precedent,” the official stated.

It is important to note that immigration judges, unlike those in the traditional judicial system, are employees of the EOIR. The judges and assistant chief judges who were recently dismissed had not yet undergone their full training programs or presided over any cases. Their removal appears to be part of a broader effort to recalibrate the agency’s leadership and operational standards during a period of intense political transition.

These firings come just weeks after the Trump administration removed the leadership team appointed by President Biden at EOIR. In January, the acting director, the chief immigration judge, the general counsel, and the head of policy were all ousted by the Trump Justice Department. This series of actions underscores a fierce and ongoing battle over the direction and independence of the agency, as both administrations vie to shape immigration enforcement in line with their respective ideologies.

President Trump ran on an aggressive immigration enforcement platform that included promises of “mass deportations”—a stance that continues to resonate with a significant portion of the American public. Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reveals that border crossings have fallen dramatically, with a reported 90 percent decrease compared to the same period last year. According to The New York Post, CBP processed an average of only 359 illegal migrants per day, suggesting that the nation is on track to record the lowest monthly border crossings in at least 25 years. Should this trend persist, the total number of illegal migrants could soon reach levels not seen since 1968—a period nearly 60 years ago.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, remarked that the current figures represent the lowest levels of border crossings in “almost a lifetime.” For example, data through February 11 indicates that only 3,953 illegal migrants have been encountered at the southern border. If these numbers continue, the monthly total could approach 10,000—a benchmark that has remained elusive since CBP began tracking data in 1999. In contrast, the closest the nation came to this figure was in April 2017, during President Trump’s first term, when monthly crossings just exceeded 11,000. Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center noted that last year, southern border crossing encounters averaged around 4,850 per day.

This comprehensive sequence of dismissals and administrative maneuvers reveals much about the current state of U.S. immigration policy and the broader political landscape. In what follows, we provide an in-depth analysis of these developments, exploring their historical context, legal implications, and potential long-term effects on both the EOIR and the nation’s immigration enforcement apparatus.

---

I. Background: The Role of Immigration Judges in the U.S.

A. The Function of EOIR and Its Judges

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is a critical component of the U.S. Department of Justice, responsible for adjudicating immigration cases. Unlike traditional judges in the federal court system, immigration judges are not appointed for life but serve as employees of the EOIR. They preside over removal proceedings, asylum claims, and other immigration-related cases, playing a central role in determining the fate of individuals seeking to remain in or be removed from the United States.

EOIR has long prided itself on being a politically neutral body that ensures fair and impartial decisions. However, the political winds have shifted dramatically in recent years. With successive administrations attempting to imprint their policy preferences on the agency, the role of immigration judges has become increasingly politicized.

B. Political Appointments and Their Implications

Under the Trump administration, numerous immigration judges were appointed in the final days of the presidency—a practice often referred to as “midnight” appointments. These judges, while qualified, were seen as representatives of the outgoing administration’s hardline policies. When the Biden administration took office in 2021, it embarked on its own purge, removing many of these judges as part of its effort to reorient immigration policy toward a more humane and flexible approach.

Now, the Trump administration’s recent actions represent a reversal of this trend. By dismissing 20 immigration judges and assistant chief judges that the Biden administration had attempted to install at the very end of its term, the Trump Justice Department appears to be asserting a continuity of its own immigration enforcement agenda. The removal of these judges, along with the ouster of senior leadership at EOIR, highlights the intense partisan struggle over the control of immigration policy in the United States.

---

II. The Recent Dismissals: A Closer Look at the Numbers

A. The Scope of the Purge

According to a Justice Department source, 13 immigration judges appointed in late December and early January were dismissed on Friday. In addition, seven assistant chief immigration judges were also removed. This combined action affects a total of 20 judicial employees at EOIR, representing a significant shake-up within the agency. The fact that these judges had not yet completed their training or presided over cases suggests that the purge was swift and far-reaching.

B. The Case of Kerry Doyle

Among the dismissed judges was Kerry Doyle, whose career trajectory had been particularly notable. Once a vocal critic of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Doyle later served as ICE’s principal legal adviser. During her tenure, she was known for advocating lenient policies toward illegal immigrants—a stance that generated both support and controversy. The Biden administration, recognizing her unique position, attempted to transition her from a political appointee to a permanent civil servant within ICE. Despite these efforts, Doyle was among those removed by the Trump Justice Department.

At the time of her dismissal, Doyle’s name remained on the EOIR court roster. Her case underscores the complex interplay between political ideology and the administrative processes that govern immigration adjudication. Her removal has been cited as evidence of the ongoing effort by both administrations to shape EOIR according to their respective policy priorities.

C. Comparison with Biden’s 2021 Purge

The recent dismissals by the Trump administration mirror similar actions taken by the Biden administration during its early days in office. In 2021, the incoming administration removed a number of immigration judges appointed by Trump, arguing that the judges did not align with the new policy direction. By drawing a parallel between the two purges, a senior official at the Trump Justice Department noted, “The Biden administration set a precedent by terminating numerous immigration judges during their term or trial periods for the first time in EOIR history. So, it’s not surprising that EOIR is following that precedent.”

This comparison reveals a broader pattern in which each administration, upon taking office, seeks to recalibrate EOIR in line with its own immigration policy goals. The pendulum of change swings from one extreme to the other, reflecting the deep-seated partisan divide over how immigration should be managed in the United States.

---

III. Legal and Institutional Considerations

A. The Nature of “Midnight” Appointments

“Midnight” appointments refer to those made in the final days of an outgoing administration. These appointments are often controversial, as they can be seen as an attempt to cement a particular policy direction before the transition of power. The judges appointed by Trump during this period were widely perceived as champions of a strict immigration enforcement policy. Consequently, the Biden administration’s efforts to remove these judges were met with both political and legal challenges.

The recent dismissal of 20 immigration judges and assistant chief judges is a continuation of this pattern. It reflects an ongoing struggle over whether immigration judges should be politically appointed or whether they should be insulated from political influence altogether. The debate touches on fundamental questions about the independence of the judiciary and the role of political ideology in the administration of justice.

B. The Role of EOIR in U.S. Immigration Policy

EOIR plays a vital role in the implementation of U.S. immigration policy by adjudicating cases related to deportation, asylum, and other immigration matters. The judges and administrators within EOIR make decisions that can have profound effects on the lives of millions of people. As such, ensuring that these decisions are made fairly and impartially is of paramount importance.

The dismissals and restructuring at EOIR highlight the tension between political influence and judicial independence. When administrations attempt to reshape the agency by removing judges or altering its leadership structure, they risk undermining the credibility and neutrality of the institution. Such actions can lead to broader questions about the integrity of the immigration system and whether it is being used as a tool to further partisan objectives rather than to administer justice.

C. The Broader Debate on Judicial Appointments

The controversy over the removal of immigration judges is part of a larger debate about how judges are appointed and retained in the United States. Unlike federal judges who are appointed for life, immigration judges are appointed through a process that is often influenced by political considerations. This system has led to frequent purges and turnover when administrations change, as each new administration seeks to align EOIR with its policy objectives.

Critics argue that this politicization of judicial appointments can compromise the fairness of immigration proceedings, while supporters contend that it is necessary to ensure that judges are in step with current policy directions. The ongoing battle over immigration judges at EOIR is a vivid illustration of these broader issues and underscores the challenges inherent in balancing the need for judicial independence with the demands of political accountability.

---

IV. The Political Context: Immigration Policy in a Divided Nation

A. Trump’s Hardline Immigration Platform

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump made immigration a central pillar of his platform, promising mass deportations and stringent enforcement measures. His policies on immigration resonated with many Americans, and his administration implemented a series of hardline measures aimed at curbing illegal immigration. The appointment of judges who were aligned with these policies was an integral part of his strategy to enforce a strict immigration regime.

The recent dismissal of immigration judges can be seen as a continuation of that legacy. By removing judges that the Biden administration attempted to install, the Trump administration is reinforcing its commitment to a tough immigration policy. This move is likely to be welcomed by those who favor a strict approach to immigration enforcement and who view the previous appointments as essential to maintaining order at the border.

B. The Shifting Landscape Under the Biden Administration

When President Biden took office, he sought to shift U.S. immigration policy toward a more lenient and humane approach. One of his early actions was to purge EOIR of many judges appointed by the previous administration, signaling a departure from the Trump-era policies. The Biden administration’s efforts to remove last-minute Trump-appointed judges were driven by a desire to reshape the agency in line with its own vision of immigration reform.

However, the Trump administration’s recent actions complicate this narrative. By dismissing 20 immigration judges that the Biden administration had tried to install at the last minute, the Trump Justice Department appears to be challenging the Biden administration’s efforts and reasserting its own policy priorities. This tug-of-war over EOIR reflects the deep partisan divide over immigration policy and the role of judicial appointments in shaping enforcement practices.

C. Public Opinion and Border Statistics

Immigration policy remains a hot-button issue in American politics, and recent statistics highlight the ongoing challenges at the southern border. According to Customs and Border Protection data, the number of illegal border crossings has fallen dramatically, with only 359 illegal migrants processed each day—a figure that represents a 90 percent decrease from the same period last year. This decline has positioned the U.S. to record the lowest monthly border crossings in at least 25 years. Analysts have noted that if this trend continues, the total number of illegal migrants could soon reach levels not seen since the late 1960s.

These statistics have become a point of contention, with some viewing them as evidence that strict immigration policies are working, while others argue that such low numbers might indicate other systemic issues at the border. Regardless of one’s perspective, the data underscores the significance of immigration policy in the current political debate and provides context for the broader actions being taken by the Trump administration regarding EOIR.

---

V. Comparing Administrative Purges: Biden vs. Trump

A. The Biden Administration’s Early Actions

In the wake of President Biden’s inauguration in 2021, his administration embarked on an aggressive purge of immigration judges appointed during the Trump era. This effort was intended to realign EOIR with the new administration’s priorities and to remove judges whose views were seen as incompatible with a more humane immigration policy. The purge involved dismissals and resignations, with more than ten Trump-appointed immigration judges leaving the agency either at the end of their probationary periods or by choosing to resign rather than be fired.

These actions were met with mixed reactions. Supporters of the Biden administration argued that the purge was necessary to overhaul an institution that had long been politicized, while critics contended that it disrupted the stability and impartiality of EOIR. The removal of judges was viewed as a significant step in the broader effort to reshape U.S. immigration policy, setting the stage for the dramatic developments that followed.

B. The Trump Administration’s Response

The Trump administration’s recent dismissal of 20 immigration judges and assistant chief immigration judges is a direct response to the Biden purge. A senior Justice Department official explained that the Trump administration was following the precedent set by Biden, noting that it was not unprecedented to terminate immigration judges during their trial periods. By removing these judges, the Trump administration is effectively attempting to reestablish its own vision of immigration enforcement—a vision that prioritizes strict measures and a tough stance on illegal immigration.

This tit-for-tat approach highlights the intense partisan battle over EOIR. Each administration’s actions reflect deeply held ideological differences regarding how immigration laws should be enforced, how judges should be appointed, and what role the EOIR should play in the broader national security framework.

C. The Legal and Institutional Ramifications

The ongoing purge of immigration judges raises critical legal and institutional questions. The frequent turnover of judges—often driven by political considerations—can have a destabilizing effect on EOIR and, by extension, on the fairness and consistency of immigration adjudications. As administrations come and go, the constant reshuffling of personnel undermines the perception of neutrality and professionalism within the agency.

This instability is particularly concerning given the vital role that immigration judges play in determining the fate of individuals seeking asylum, facing deportation, or contesting removal orders. A politicized and unstable EOIR risks compromising the integrity of the immigration system, potentially leading to inconsistent rulings and a loss of public trust in the judicial process.

---

VI. The Broader Implications for U.S. Immigration Policy

A. Policy Shifts and Their Long-Term Effects

The dismissal of these “midnight” immigration judges is not merely a procedural adjustment—it signals a broader shift in U.S. immigration policy. Under the Trump administration, immigration enforcement has been characterized by a strict, hardline approach that emphasizes border security and mass deportations. By contrast, the Biden administration initially sought to pivot toward a more humane and measured strategy, though it too engaged in its own form of purge.

The current actions by the Trump Justice Department suggest that the pendulum of immigration policy may continue to swing back and forth between these extremes. Such volatility in policy direction can have long-lasting effects on the lives of millions of immigrants, as well as on the broader social and political fabric of the nation. Consistency and fairness in immigration adjudication are crucial for upholding the principles of justice and equality, and any disruptions in the functioning of EOIR risk undermining these values.

B. The Role of Political Appointments in Shaping Immigration Outcomes

Immigration judges, unlike their counterparts in other areas of the judiciary, are appointed through processes that are often influenced by political considerations. This reality means that shifts in administration can lead to rapid and significant changes in the composition of EOIR. The removal of judges who were seen as sympathetic to one approach to immigration policy—and the appointment of those aligned with another—can have a direct impact on the outcomes of immigration cases.

This dynamic creates a scenario in which the fate of immigrants is, in part, determined by the political leanings of the judges who preside over their cases. It raises important questions about the balance between political influence and judicial independence, and whether the current system adequately safeguards against partisan bias in the adjudication of immigration matters.

C. Public Perception and the Human Element

Beyond the legal and institutional implications, the ongoing political maneuvering within EOIR has significant ramifications for public perception. Immigration is a deeply emotive issue that touches on fundamental questions about national identity, human rights, and the rule of law. When the public observes that key personnel within the immigration system are subject to political purges, it can erode confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the process.

Moreover, the frequent turnover of judges and the overt politicization of the appointment process serve to reinforce negative stereotypes about the administration of immigration law. For immigrants and advocacy groups, this instability is not merely an abstract concern—it affects real lives, determining who is allowed to remain in the country and who is sent back. In this way, the current controversies at EOIR have a direct, tangible impact on the nation’s most vulnerable populations.

---

VII. Responses from Across the Political Spectrum

A. Republican Support for the Dismissals

Among Republicans, there has been considerable support for the Trump administration’s decision to dismiss the Biden-appointed immigration judges. Many conservative lawmakers view the purge as a necessary corrective measure—a way to ensure that the judges overseeing immigration cases are aligned with a strict enforcement agenda that prioritizes national security. For these supporters, the removal of judges who might favor leniency is seen as an affirmation of the hardline immigration policies that were central to Trump’s campaign promises.

Republican voices have argued that the dismissal of these judges is justified by the need to maintain strong borders and to enforce immigration laws effectively. They point to the significant drop in border crossings, as reported by Customs and Border Protection, as evidence that strict enforcement policies are working. In their view, ensuring that judges have a clear mandate to enforce the law is critical for preserving the rule of law and safeguarding American security.

B. Democratic Criticism and Legal Challenges

Conversely, many Democrats have strongly criticized the dismissals as politically motivated and as an example of executive overreach. Democratic lawmakers have expressed concern that such actions undermine the independence of the immigration judicial system and set a dangerous precedent for the politicization of judicial appointments. They argue that the removal of judges on the basis of political alignment, rather than any documented misconduct, compromises the integrity of the EOIR and endangers the principle of impartial justice.

Legal experts and advocacy groups have also weighed in, suggesting that the frequent turnover of immigration judges due to partisan purges could lead to inconsistencies in the adjudication of cases and a loss of public confidence in the system. For these critics, the current administration’s actions represent a troubling trend, one that prioritizes short-term political victories over the long-term health of the immigration judiciary.

C. Media Coverage and Public Discourse

The media has played a crucial role in amplifying the debate over these dismissals. Conservative outlets have highlighted the need for accountability and the importance of maintaining a judiciary that is committed to strong immigration enforcement. In contrast, liberal media have focused on the potential dangers of politicizing the judicial system, emphasizing the risks to fair and impartial decision-making.

Public discourse on social media has been equally polarized. Hashtags and trending topics reflect the intensity of opinions on both sides of the aisle. While many supporters see the purge as a necessary step to uphold national security, critics warn that such actions could undermine the foundational principles of democratic governance. The debate underscores the complex and deeply contentious nature of immigration policy in today’s America.

---

VIII. Looking Ahead: The Future of EOIR and Immigration Policy

A. The Need for Reform in Judicial Appointments

The controversies surrounding the dismissal of these “midnight” immigration judges highlight a broader need for reform in the way judges are appointed to EOIR. The current system, which is heavily influenced by political considerations, leaves the agency vulnerable to rapid shifts in policy direction with each change of administration. Many experts argue that establishing more objective criteria for judicial appointments could help stabilize the system and ensure that immigration judges are able to operate with the independence necessary for fair adjudication.

Proposals for reform include implementing standardized performance reviews, enhancing training programs, and creating clear guidelines for the tenure and removal of immigration judges. Such measures could help mitigate the effects of political purges and ensure that the agency remains a reliable and impartial arbiter of immigration law.

B. Balancing National Security and Judicial Independence

A key challenge for future administrations will be balancing the need for robust national security with the imperative of judicial independence. The recent dismissal of judges based on their perceived alignment with specific policy agendas underscores the tension between these two priorities. As the debate over security clearances for former presidents and the politicization of the EOIR continues, it will be essential for policymakers to find a middle ground that upholds the principles of justice while also addressing legitimate concerns about national security.

This balancing act will likely require a reevaluation of existing policies and the implementation of new safeguards to protect the integrity of the immigration judiciary. The goal is to create a system that is both resilient and responsive—one that can adapt to changing political climates without sacrificing the fundamental rights of individuals seeking justice.

C. The Role of Public Accountability and Media Oversight

In today’s highly connected world, public accountability and media oversight play a critical role in shaping government actions. The intense media scrutiny of the recent dismissals has underscored the importance of transparency in government operations, particularly in areas as sensitive as immigration policy. As the Trump and Biden administrations continue to clash over EOIR, the role of the media in holding public officials accountable cannot be overstated.

By bringing these issues to light, the media helps ensure that decisions affecting the lives of millions are made in a transparent and accountable manner. This oversight is essential for maintaining public trust in the institutions that govern our nation, and it serves as a check against potential abuses of power. In the case of the immigration judges, sustained media attention may spur further reforms and encourage lawmakers to take a closer look at the processes that govern judicial appointments.

---

IX. Historical Perspectives and Lessons Learned

A. Past Precedents for Judicial Purges

The practice of appointing and then dismissing immigration judges in the final days of an administration is not entirely new. Historical analysis reveals that both the Trump and Biden administrations have engaged in similar practices, each seeking to shape the EOIR in line with their respective policy goals. The “midnight” appointments made by Trump, and the subsequent purge by Biden in 2021, reflect a longstanding tension between political expediency and the need for an impartial judiciary.

Understanding these past precedents is crucial for contextualizing the current dismissals. They offer insight into the cyclical nature of political appointments and the inherent instability of a system that is too susceptible to partisan shifts. This historical perspective can inform future efforts to reform the appointment process, ensuring that immigration judges are selected based on merit and competence rather than political allegiance.

B. The Impact on Immigrants and the Justice System

The frequent turnover of immigration judges has direct consequences for the millions of immigrants whose cases are heard by EOIR. When judges are dismissed or replaced due to political purges, it can lead to delays, inconsistencies in rulings, and a general erosion of trust in the system. For individuals facing deportation or seeking asylum, the uncertainty surrounding the adjudication process is not just an abstract policy issue—it is a matter of life and death.

By stabilizing the appointment process and ensuring that judges are insulated from political interference, the government can help safeguard the rights of immigrants and promote a more just and reliable immigration system. This is an area where reform is urgently needed, and the current controversies may serve as a catalyst for long-overdue changes.

C. Broader Lessons for Democratic Governance

The disputes over EOIR and the dismissal of immigration judges are symptomatic of larger challenges facing American democracy. They raise fundamental questions about the role of executive power, the independence of federal institutions, and the importance of maintaining a system of checks and balances. When political considerations overshadow the principles of fairness and justice, the entire democratic system is at risk.

The ongoing debate serves as a powerful reminder that democratic governance requires constant vigilance. It is essential for citizens, lawmakers, and the media to hold public officials accountable and to demand that decisions affecting the public interest are made transparently and impartially. The lessons learned from these controversies can help guide future reforms and ensure that our institutions remain robust and resilient in the face of political pressures.

---

X. Conclusion: Charting a Course Toward a More Stable Future

In summary, the recent dismissal of 20 “midnight” immigration judges by the Trump administration, in an effort to counter moves made by the Biden administration, is a multifaceted issue that touches on everything from national security to the integrity of our judicial institutions. These actions, which include the removal of 13 immigration judges and seven assistant chief immigration judges, are part of a broader partisan battle over the direction of U.S. immigration policy and the politicization of the EOIR.

The controversy has ignited fierce debates among lawmakers, legal experts, and the public. On one side, supporters argue that these dismissals are necessary to enforce a strict immigration policy and to maintain national security. On the other, critics contend that such moves undermine the impartiality of the immigration system and set dangerous precedents for executive overreach. At the heart of the issue lies a complex interplay between political ideology, legal processes, and the human consequences for millions who depend on a fair and stable immigration system.

Looking to the future, it is clear that reform is needed. The process of appointing and dismissing immigration judges must be insulated from partisan whims, ensuring that those who hold the power to decide the fate of immigrants are selected on the basis of merit and integrity. At the same time, policymakers must address the broader challenges of national security and public trust, balancing the need for strong enforcement with the principles of fairness and due process.

As we navigate these turbulent political waters, the lessons learned from the current controversies will be invaluable. They serve as a stark reminder that the health of our democracy depends on the careful stewardship of power and the unwavering commitment to the rule of law. By fostering transparency, accountability, and independence within our institutions, we can build a more resilient future—one that honors the values of justice and equality for all.

In this new era of political accountability, the decisions made by administrations on both sides of the aisle will have lasting implications for the way we govern, the way we enforce the law, and the way we treat the individuals who seek justice through our immigration system. The story of these recent dismissals is not just about a political purge; it is about the ongoing struggle to uphold democratic ideals in a complex and rapidly changing world.

Ultimately, the path forward requires a commitment to reform, a willingness to learn from the past, and a collective effort to ensure that our institutions remain strong, independent, and true to the principles that define our nation. As the debate over immigration policy and judicial appointments continues, it is imperative that all stakeholders work together to create a system that is both fair and effective—one that respects the rights of immigrants, maintains national security, and upholds the ideals of justice for future generations.