Trump succeeds in increasing deportations by hiring military personnel to act as judges
A report shows that military lawyers issue deportation orders in 78% of the cases they judge, compared to 63% for immigration judges
The reform of immigration courts is one of the measures that has been undertaken by the Trump administration to expedite deportations, which are not occurring at the pace the U.S. president desires. In addition to instructing judges to close asylum cases without a trial, he has sought to replace judges he deemed too favorable to migrants with military lawyers. In recent months, the Republican has dismissed approximately 140 immigration judges and, in their place, hired 36 military lawyers to perform their duties. The initiative has already yielded results. Military judges are deporting people more quickly than traditional immigration judges.
This is demonstrated by a report conducted by Mobile Pathways, a California-based nonprofit organization, which analyzes cases resolved in November, the first month that military judges were active. During that period, immigration judges issued deportation orders in 63% of the cases they heard; meanwhile, military judges ordered the expulsion of 78% of the migrants whose cases they handled. The military judges examined 286 cases and issued rulings in 110, of which 86 migrants were expelled and 14 self-deported; 176 cases are still pending.
“The military is very good at following the rules. And it seems the order they’ve been given is to get them out of here,” says Bartolomiej Skorupa, co-founder of Mobile Pathways. “They’re stricter and apply the rules more rigorously,” he explains. In nine out of 10 cases, migrants whose cases were handled by military judges ended up being deported or self-deporting.
On October 24, the Department of Justice announced the hiring of 11 permanent and 25 temporary immigration judges. Most lack immigration experience, and those who do have it acquired it as prosecutors or through work for the Border Patrol or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agencies responsible for arrests and deportations. Among the temporary judges are military lawyers from the Marine Corps, Navy, Army, and Air Force.
One of them has already been removed from his post: Christopher Day, a lieutenant-colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve Military Lawyers Corps. Day closed 11 cases and issued only one deportation order. “From the migrants’ perspective, he acted like a hero,” Skorupa notes. Experts interpret his favorable rulings for migrants as having led to his dismissal.
Replacing immigration judges with military lawyers who lack experience in this area has sparked considerable controversy among migrant advocacy organizations. “This unprecedented move has raised concerns about fairness and due process, given the vast differences between U.S. military law and immigration law,” states a report from the Migration Policy Institute.
The new appointments replaced some of the judges Trump had fired without justification, all of whom had previously worked on immigration cases. Dozens of immigration judges were dismissed with a simple email, without explanation, sometimes even while in the middle of a hearing, which they had to suspend to leave the courtroom immediately. The dismissals further backlogged an already overwhelmed system, with more than three million pending cases and only 800 judges to hear them.
The replacement of immigration judges with military personnel began early last summer when the Pentagon authorized some 600 military lawyers to work for the Justice Department and modified the requirements to become a temporary immigration judge, eliminating the need for prior experience in immigration law. Mobile Pathways’ analysis is the first indication of some of the effects of that recruitment.
Democratic senators and representatives have expressed concern that using the military for this task could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the armed forces from performing law enforcement functions in the civilian sphere.
“Deportation judges” wanted
The shortage of immigration judges has led the Department of Justice to announce a job opening, which has been active on its website since last month. The job title, however, leaves no doubt about intentions. They are not seeking immigration judges, but rather “deportation judges” for 70 locations across the country.
Those hired for the first time as federal employees for New York City and several cities in California and Massachusetts will receive a 25% bonus. The offered salary ranges from $159,951 to $207,500. The job posting states that the successful candidate will be responsible for making “decisions with generational consequences; ensuring that only aliens with legally meritorious claims are allowed to remain.”
The replacement of judges is just one of the changes the Trump administration has introduced in the courts to further its anti-immigration crusade. In court, judges have been instructed to respond to the backlog of asylum applications by denying some without a hearing, leading to lawsuits alleging a lack of due process in deportations. In April 2025, the Executive Office for Immigration Review issued a policy memorandum instructing immigration judges to “dismiss,” or deny, asylum applications deemed “legally insufficient” without a hearing, though without specifying what was meant by insufficient.
In addition, the government canceled legal representation for minors and moved detainees to remote locations, including prisons outside of U.S. jurisdiction, shaping the immigration justice system to its liking.
Diversion of the Defense budget
The government’s plan to hire military lawyers as judges is part of a report submitted by 10 Democratic senators and three representatives denouncing the diversion of at least $2 billion from the military budget to immigration enforcement. The report criticizes the prioritization of hardline border initiatives and political maneuvering at the expense of the military’s ability to protect the nation and respond to emergencies.
“It is an insult to our military that Pete Hegseth (Secretary of Defense) and Kristi Noem (Secretary of Homeland Security) are using the defense budget as a discretionary fund for political maneuvering. Cutting military resources to advance a wasteful political agenda does not strengthen our armed forces or increase the security of Americans,” said Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, one of the lawmakers who signed the report.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition