Fact check: How have immigration courts and deportation rates changed under the Biden administration compared to the Trump administration?

1. How each side frames “fixing” the courts — staffing versus overhaul

Analyses show the Biden administration has focused on rebuilding court capacity by appointing new immigration judges—340 new judges cited as an affirmative step to reduce backlog and restore adjudicative capacity—while critics of the previous administration emphasize its more disruptive approach, including mass firings and replacement strategies that relied on nontraditional adjudicators ^[1]. The Trump-era actions described include authorization of over 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges and hiring of temporary judges to push cases forward, portraying a philosophy that prioritizes expedited removals over continuity of judicial experience ^{[1] [2]}. Observers note these staffing choices carry implications for perceived judicial independence and expertise ^[5].

2. Performance metrics and the concern over rushed justice

Multiple analyses report that the Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) under the Trump administration introduced new performance metrics focused on speed, which some immigration attorneys and former judges say incentivize faster hearings at the expense of fairness and thorough adjudication ^[5]. The metrics reportedly coincided with compressed timelines and hiring of temporary judges, prompting concerns about whether such measures produce efficient justice or merely a higher throughput of removals. Accounts emphasize skepticism from practitioners who experienced the new expectations firsthand, framing the reforms as procedural and tonal shifts rather than purely administrative tweaks ^{[2] [5]}.

3. Scale of removals: government claims versus data scrutiny

Enforcement-focused analyses attribute massive removal figures to the Trump administration, with officials claiming roughly 400,000 deportations plus 1.6 million self-deportations for a total near 2 million removals in under 250 days, and projections of 600,000 formal deportations in a year ^{[3] [4]}. High-level statements from enforcement leadership echoed the 600,000 target and reported 548,000 removals at one point ^[6]. These numbers are presented as historic and rapid; however, sources within the set also imply concerns about data accuracy and transparency, suggesting enforcement tallies and definitions (removals vs. self-deportations) require closer verification before treating them as definitive indicators of policy success ^[6].

4. Court capacity trends: judge counts and workload pressures

Reported counts show a notable reduction in career immigration judges during the transition described: from 735 judges in 2024 to fewer than 600, attributed in part to mass firings, creating heavier caseloads for remaining judges and raising alarms about system strain ^[6]. The Biden response—appointing hundreds of judges—frames itself as corrective to that shrinkage, aiming to relieve backlogs. Conversely, the prior administration’s hires of temporary judges and military lawyers are presented as stopgap measures to sustain removal pace but also as factors that may have degraded institutional knowledge and independence ^{[1] [6]}.

5. Economic and labor-market spillovers that change the debate

Analysts link aggressive deportation and court strategies to labor-market consequences, arguing that large-scale removals are already contributing to labor shortages in sectors like agriculture and healthcare, and dissuading skilled immigrants, potentially driving wage and price pressures ^{[7] [8]}. These accounts situate immigration policy effects beyond legal institutions and into economic outcomes, suggesting that enforcement-heavy approaches carry downstream costs for employers, consumers, and industries reliant on immigrant labor. The sources treat these impacts as observable and material to assessing the tradeoffs inherent in rapid removal strategies ^{[7] [8]}.

6. What’s missing and why it matters — transparency, definitions, and longitudinal view

The set of analyses highlights important gaps: consistent definitions (removal vs. self-deportation), public data transparency, and longitudinal comparisons are frequently absent or questioned, limiting straightforward comparison between administrations ^[6]. Performance metrics and temporary adjudicator use are described but not uniformly evaluated against independent outcome measures like appeal rates, error rates, or long-term backlogs. The combination of administrative turnover, hiring practices, and contested removal tallies means that headline figures may mask process changes that materially affect fairness and system resilience ^{[5] [6]}.

7. Bottom line: converging facts, diverging interpretations

Taken together, the materials show clear factual differences: the Biden administration focused on replenishing judge ranks while the Trump administration pursued rapid removal goals and structural changes in adjudicator composition, producing contested removal totals and practitioner alarm about due process and capacity ^{[1] [3] [6]}. The evidence supports both a measurable uptick in enforcement activity and concurrent institutional disruption; resolving whether the tradeoffs improved immigration outcomes requires more transparent, standardized data on removals, court performance, and post-decision impacts than the current analyses provide ^{[5] [6]}.