Connect with us

Politics

Biden administration wants to speed up deportation for some migrants. How will it work?

Published

on

Biden administration wants to speed up deportation for some migrants. How will it work?

The Biden administration proposed a rule Thursday aimed at speeding up the deportation process for migrants who are already ineligible for asylum.

The change isn’t expected to have broad implications, but rather tighten existing rules. It comes as the White House and Democrats play offense on the border and immigration, one of the top issues ahead of the presidential election.

“The proposed rule we have published today is yet another step in our ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of the American public by more quickly identifying and removing those individuals who present a security risk and have no legal basis to remain here,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. “We will continue to take action, but fundamentally it is only Congress that can fix what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system.”

What would the new rule do?

Significant immigration court backlogs mean it can take years before migrants who cross the border without authorization are determined to be ineligible for asylum. The new rule would allow asylum officers to make that determination within days.

Advertisement

The rule would move up checks for mandatory bars to asylum, such as criminal history or terrorism links, to the initial stage of the process, allowing immigration officers to quickly reject and deport those who don’t qualify. It would not restrict more people from applying for asylum.

Migrants who intend to apply for asylum must first pass so-called credible fear interviews, which allows them to later make their case before an immigration judge. The regulation would allow asylum officers to check for public safety or national security risks during the credible fear screening.

A senior DHS official who spoke to reporters Thursday on the condition that he not be named said the agency is updating procedures to ensure available information, including information that is classified, is shared as early as possible in the immigration process. The rule allows the agency to save taxpayer money because those who are subject to asylum bars are detained throughout the lengthy immigration court process, the official added.

In 2020, the Trump administration implemented a rule similarly instructing asylum officers to apply asylum bars during credible fear screenings. That rule was blocked by a U.S. District Court in California.

But the Biden administration says this rule is different because it doesn’t require asylum officers to consider bars in all interviews. Instead, asylum officers “would only consider a bar in those cases where there is easily verifiable evidence available” and the officer “is confident that they can consider that bar efficiently at the credible fear stage,” the proposed rule states.

Advertisement

How many people could be affected?

The number of migrants subject to the bars is low, according to the proposed rule. For this fiscal year through April 23, federal records indicate that asylum officers flagged a potential bar in 733 cases. Last fiscal year, asylum officers flagged 1,497 such cases — 3% of all positive credible fear determinations.

When does it take effect?

Proposed rules can take months to finalize, and must go through a public comment period before implementation. That could make for a close timeline before the November election.

The DHS official said the agency will accept comments for 30 days starting May 13 and expects to issue the rule fairly quickly after that.

How are people reacting?

Immigrant rights advocates swiftly condemned the move, saying the change could slow down and weaken the credible fear process. But the DHS official said the rule won’t meaningfully increase the time it takes to interview someone.

Eleanor Acer, senior director for refugee protection at Human Rights First, said the rule would deny asylum hearings to people who could be eligible for protection.

Advertisement

“It is both unrealistic and unconscionable to subject people seeking refuge to legally and factually complex bars to asylum during initial fear screenings where they are not likely to be represented by legal counsel,” she wrote in a statement. “Some of the bars included in the proposed rule have long baffled legal experts and government lawyers, and ensnared people who are innocent of any wrongdoing.”

Meanwhile Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement that the rule doesn’t go far enough to properly vet migrants.

“This rule appears to be an unserious, politically motivated attempt to address a significant problem the Biden administration itself created,” Green wrote.

What else has the Biden administration done to curb border crossings?

Last year, the administration began disqualifying migrants from asylum if they enter the U.S. illegally without first requesting humanitarian protection in another country, such as Mexico, along the way. This effectively blocks most people from accessing asylum if they cross unlawfully.

At the same time, the administration expanded a phone app, CBP One, that lets migrants in Mexico schedule a time to be processed at official ports of entry. Officials also expanded a program that allows migrants from certain countries, such as Venezuela, fly directly to the U.S. if they have a sponsor.

Advertisement

On Wednesday, advocacy groups sued the federal government for records about its policies and practices related to the mobile app, calling it a barrier to asylum because of frequent glitches and months-long waits for an appointment.

What more is the administration considering?

The new asylum rule comes as the administration mulls how else to cut down on illegal border crossings ahead of the election.

Biden said in a Univision interview last month that he is considering whether to invoke a sweeping presidential authority to more broadly restrict asylum without congressional authorization. The action would employ a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act called 212(f), which allows presidents to suspend entry of migrants when deemed detrimental to national interests.

Former President Trump used that authority to justify restrictions including travel bans against people from predominantly Muslim countries.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

Published

on

Video: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

new video loaded: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

transcript

transcript

Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

President Trump’s handpicked board of trustees announced that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would be renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center, a change that may need Congress’s approval.

Reporter: “She just posted on X, your press secretary, [Karoline Leavitt,] that the board members of the Kennedy Center voted unanimously to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center. What is your reaction to that?” “Well, I was honored by it. The board is a very distinguished board, most distinguished people in the country, and I was surprised by it. I was honored by it.” “Thank you very much, everybody. And I’ll tell you what: the Trump-Kennedy Center, I mean —” [laughs] “Kennedy Center — I’m sorry. I’m sorry.” [cheers] “Wow, this is terribly embarrassing.” “They don’t have the power to do it. Only Congress can rename the Kennedy Center. How does that actually help the American people, who’ve already been convinced that Donald Trump is not focused on making their life better? The whole thing is extraordinary.”

Advertisement
President Trump’s handpicked board of trustees announced that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would be renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center, a change that may need Congress’s approval.

By Axel Boada

December 19, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies

Published

on

Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a pro-Trump legal group seeking access to a trove of federal judiciary documents, including from a body overseen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts – putting an end to a protracted legal fight brought by Trump allies seeking to access key judicial documents. 

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee assigned to the case earlier this year, dismissed the long-shot lawsuit brought by the America First Legal Foundation, the pro-Trump group founded by White House policy adviser Stephen Miller after Trump’s first term; Miller, now back in the White House, is no longer affiliated with AFL.

McFadden ultimately dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, saying Thursday that two groups responsible for certain regulatory and administrative functions for the federal judiciary are an extension of the judicial branch, and therefore protected by the same exemptions to federal laws granted to the judiciary.

“Nothing about either entity’s structure suggests the president must supervise their employees or otherwise keep them ‘accountable,’ as is the case for executive officers,” McFadden said.

Advertisement

TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON VOTING BLOCKED BY FEDERAL JUDGES AMID FLURRY OF LEGAL SETBACKS

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are seen at the 60th inaugural ceremony on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Ricky Carioti /The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The lawsuit by AFL was first reported by Fox News Digital earlier this year. It named both Chief Justice Roberts in his capacity as the official head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, and Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and sought access to a trove of judicial documents from both bodies under the Freedom of Information Act.

AFL accused both groups of performing regulatory actions that the lawsuit argued exceeded the scope of the “core functions” of the judiciary, and which it argued should subject the groups to the FOIA requests as a result.

AFL cited recent actions the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office had taken in 2023 to “accommodate” requests from Congress to investigate allegations of ethical improprieties by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and subsequently to create or adopt an “ethics code” for justices on the high court.

Advertisement

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” AFL argued.

“The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,” and must therefore be overseen by the president, not the courts, they said.

GORSUCH, ROBERTS SIDE WITH LEFT-LEANING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IN IMMIGRATION RULING

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

McFadden disagreed, rejecting the group’s argument that “courts” under FOIA refers only to judges. He concluded that both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are components of the judicial branch and therefore exempt from FOIA.

Advertisement

“Indeed, if America First were right that only judges and ‘law clerks,’ who ‘directly report to the judge,’ count as part of ‘the courts,’ numerous questions arise, and senseless line drawing ensues,” he said in a memo opinion accompanying his order. “Rather, FOIA’s exclusion reflects that courts include a full range of ‘judicial adjuncts,’ from ‘clerks’ to ‘court reporters,’ who perform ‘tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.’” 

Plaintiffs for AFL, led by attorney Will Scolinos, had argued in their lawsuit earlier this year that the Judicial Conference’s duties are “executive functions” and functions they allege must be supervised by executive officers “who are appointed and accountable to other executive officers.” 

Courts “definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions,” the group had argued.

The U.S. Judicial Conference is the national policymaking body for the courts. Overseen by the chief justice, it issues policy recommendations and reports to Congress as needed.

TRUMP IS THREATENING TO ‘FEDERALIZE’ DC WITH NATIONAL GUARD AND MORE. HERE’S HOW THAT COULD PLAY OUT 

Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, D.C. ((Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty))

The Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, meanwhile, operates under the guidance and supervision of the Judicial Conference. Its role is to provide administrative support to the federal courts on certain administrative issues and for day-to-day logistics, including setting budgets and organizing data, among other things.

The news comes as President Donald Trump, in his first year back in the White House, has relied heavily on executive orders to advance his agenda — a strategy that has accelerated implementation of campaign promises but also prompted a surge of legal challenges.

 

Trump’s actions sparked hundreds of federal lawsuits this year alone, sending tensions skyrocketing between the executive branch and the courts, including federal judges who have blocked or paused some of Trump’s biggest priorities in his second term. 

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy

Published

on

Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy

The holidays have arrived once again. You know, that annual festival of goodwill, compulsory spending and the dawning realization that Santa and Satan are anagrams.

Even in the best of years, Americans stagger through this season feeling financially woozy. This year, however, the picture is bleaker. And a growing number of Americans are feeling Grinchy.

Unemployment is at a four-year high, with Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, declaring, “The U.S. economy is in a hiring recession.” And a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds that 70% of Americans say “the cost of living in the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all.”

Is help on the way? Not likely. Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring, and — despite efforts to force a vote in the House — it’s highly likely that nothing will be done about this before the end of the year. This translates to ballooning health insurance bills for millions of Americans. I will be among those hit with a higher monthly premium, which gives me standing to complain.

President Trump, meanwhile, remains firmly committed to policies that will exacerbate the rising cost of getting by. Trump’s tariffs — unless blocked by the Supreme Court — will continue to raise prices. And when it comes to his immigration crackdown, Trump is apparently unmoved by the tiresome fact that when you “disappear” workers, prices tend to go up.

Advertisement

Taken together, the Trump agenda amounts to an ambitious effort to raise the cost of living without the benefit of improved living standards. But if your money comes from crypto or Wall Street investments, you’re doing better than ever!

For the rest of us, the only good news is this: Unlike every other Trump scandal, most voters actually seem to care about what’s happening to their pocketbooks.

Politico recently found that erstwhile Trump voters backed Democrats in the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia for the simple reason that things cost too much.

And Axios reports on a North Carolina focus group in which “11 of the 14 participants, all of whom backed Trump last November, said they now disapprove of his job performance. And 12 of the 14 say they’re more worried about the economy now than they were in January.”

Apparently, inflation is the ultimate reality check — which is horrible news for Republicans.

Advertisement

Trump’s great talent has always been the audacity to employ a “fake it ‘till you make it” con act to project just enough certainty to persuade the rest of us.

His latest (attempted) Jedi mind trick involves claiming prices are “coming down tremendously,” which is not supported by data or the lived experience of anyone who shops.

He also says inflation is “essentially gone,” which is true only if you define “gone” as “slowed its increase.”

Trump may dismiss the affordability crisis as a “hoax” and a “con job,” but voters persist in believing the grocery scanner.

In response, Trump has taken to warning us that falling prices could cause “deflation,” which he now says is even worse than inflation. He’s not wrong about the economic theory, but it hardly seems worth worrying about given that prices are not falling.

Advertisement

Apparently, economic subtlety is something you acquire only after winning the White House.

Naturally, Trump wants to blame Joe Biden, the guy who staggered out of office 11 months ago. And yes, pandemic disruptions and massive stimulus spending helped fuel inflation. But voters elected Trump to fix the problem, which he promised to do “on Day One.”

Lacking tangible results, Trump is reverting to what has always worked for him: the assumption that — if he confidently repeats it enough times — his version of reality will triumph over math.

The difficulty now is that positive thinking doesn’t swipe at the register.

You can lie about the size of your inauguration crowd — no normal person can measure it and nobody cares. But you cannot tell people standing in line at the grocery store that prices are falling when they are actively handing over more money.

Advertisement

Pretending everything is fine goes over even worse when a billionaire president throws Gatsby-themed parties, renovates the Lincoln Bedroom and builds a huge new ballroom at the White House. The optics are horrible, and there’s no doubt they are helping fuel the political backlash.

But the main problem is the main problem.

At the end of the day, the one thing voters really care about is their pocketbooks. No amount of spin or “manifesting” an alternate reality will change that.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending