How Trump Transformed The Immigration Courts To Speed Up Deportations

Source: Daily Wire

The Daily Wire is an opinion-driven media company that repackages stories from traditional news organizations while adding a conservative slant, as noted in its Wikipedia entry. It openly states in its Google Play app description that it 'does not claim to be without bias' and is 'opinionated,' prioritizing commentary over neutral reporting. This self-acknowledged perspective raises questions about incentives tied to its founders' conservative activism, potentially prioritizing audience engagement over balanced fact presentation.

Source: Matthew Kolken

Matthew Kolken is a practicing immigration attorney and partner at Kolken Law in Buffalo, NY, with extensive experience in U.S. immigration law, including deportation defense and appellate practice before major courts. He is a long-time AILA member since 1997, holds the highest AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, and has received top honors like Lawyer of the Year from Best Lawyers in America. As a media commentator, he has appeared on FOX News, MSNBC, CNN, and provided fact-checks for the Washington Post.

Source: Dan Gividen

Dan Gividen is a Dallas-based attorney board certified in Immigration and Nationality Law with 10-17 years of experience in criminal, immigration, and federal litigation, including prior work as a government attorney. However, he was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison for aggravated identity theft, as announced by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, severely undermining his credibility on immigration law due to a conviction tied to fraudulent practices in his field. His incentives as a litigator handling ICE habeas petitions and appeals for noncitizens likely prioritize client acquisition over neutral analysis, especially post-conviction.

Source: Jennie Taer

Jennie Taer is a journalist with on-the-ground border reporting experience since 2018 from US, Mexico, and Guatemala borders, including being the sole New York Post reporter to witness a March 2024 migrant riot with a viral video. She holds a University of Arizona degree and contributes to NY Post, Daily Wire, Daily Caller, and Center for Immigration Studies, with exclusives on border data and ICE arrests. However, her enforcement-focused reporting and conservative outlet affiliations raise questions about selective sourcing incentives.

Source: Sirce Owen

Sirce Owen serves as Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) within the U.S. Department of Justice, confirmed in official EOIR documents and policy memos. Her memoranda, such as Policy Memo 25-33 dated June 27, 2025, function as binding directives for immigration judges. These have faced legal challenges, including National Association of Immigration Judges v. Sirce Owen (No. 23-2235, Fourth Circuit).

Source Credibility

Published by Daily Wire, a self-described opinionated conservative outlet, and authored by Jennie Taer, who consistently reports on immigration enforcement successes with affiliations to right-leaning publications.

Readers may assume neutral reporting, but the outlet's acknowledged conservative slant and author's focus on restrictionist narratives incentivize framing Trump policies positively without counterpoints.

Framing

Uses loaded language like 'pour over American borders,' 'get out of deportation free cards,' and portrays Biden policies as incentivizing illegal immigration while celebrating Trump's changes as transformative successes.

Creates a stark good-vs-evil contrast between lax Biden and efficient Trump eras, priming readers to view enforcement positively without nuance on policy tradeoffs like judge independence.

Source Credibility

Quotes Dan Gividen, a Texas immigration lawyer who stopped taking court cases due to low success rates, without disclosing his 24-month federal prison sentence for aggravated identity theft tied to immigration work.

Omits criminal history undermining his credibility, potentially misleading readers on the representativeness of his view as an objective legal expert.

Missing Context

Asylum grant rates began declining steadily from August 2023 (Biden era, 38.2% in Aug 2024) before Trump's inauguration, reaching 19.2% by Aug 2025, with the drop predating and continuing beyond the administration change.

Suggests the low rates are not solely due to Trump's transformations but part of a pre-existing trend accelerated by higher caseloads, altering perception of dramatic 'Trump effect.'

Missing Context

Despite a reduction of over 380,000 cases, the immigration court backlog remains over 3 million pending cases as of February 2026, with more than 2.3 million involving asylum applications.

Presents reduction as resolving the 'massive backlog' issue without noting the backlog is still historically high, exaggerating the scale of improvement.

Omission

No mention of legal challenges to EOIR memos (e.g., National Association of Immigration Judges v. Sirce Owen) or criticisms from left-leaning outlets framing firings as a 'purge' undermining judicial independence.

Source asymmetry: only pro-enforcement sources/impacts highlighted, omitting counter-evidence of controversy creates illusion of consensus on changes being unproblematic.

unverified_claim

Reports White House claim of asylum grants at 50% under Biden vs 7% now, but no evidence confirms 50% as recent Biden rate; TRAC data shows steady decline from 38.2% Aug 2024 (Biden) to 19.2% Aug 2025, predating Trump.

Inflates Trump's impact by implying abrupt change from his policies alone, when trend was ongoing, misleading on causation.

Missing Context

The Trump administration fired nearly 100 immigration judges in 2025, leading to staff shortages: over 400 clerks/staff lost, 12 courts lost 50%+ staff, some courts down to 1 judge despite 40k+ cases.

Highlights operational chaos and potential due process issues from firings, balancing the article's portrayal of efficient transformations.

Missing Context

EOIR memos faced legal challenges, e.g., National Association of Immigration Judges v. Sirce Owen (4th Cir. No. 23-2235) questioning judicial independence.

Omits controversy over whether memos undermine judge impartiality, presenting changes as uncontroversial.