WASHINGTON – The Trump administration has systematically pressured the nation’s immigration judges, threatening them with disciplinary action if they do not deport more people and firing those seen as insufficiently supportive of the president’s aggressive enforcement agenda, a New York Times investigation has found.

The overhaul of the immigration courts has been far less visible than the militarized deportation raids that President Donald Trump scaled back after public protest. But the effort has helped reshape a hugely consequential, if little-known, corner of the government that the administration is harnessing to advance its mass-deportation policies.

Although they wear robes and are required by law to exercise “independent judgment,” immigration judges are not part of the judicial branch. Instead they work for the Justice Department, under Trump’s ultimate command, and can be fired. One of their main duties is deciding whether immigrants who lack legal status should be deported or granted a form of protection like asylum and be allowed to remain in the country.

So far, the Trump administration has dismissed more than 100 immigration judges out of about 750 in place when Trump returned to power, an unprecedented purge.

At the same time, the administration has reshaped the immigration bench, announcing the appointments of 143 permanent and temporary judges, including many who previously worked as immigration prosecutors for the Department of Homeland Security or as military lawyers.

By many measures, the administration is achieving its goals. The number of people being ordered deported has risen sharply, while judges have approved asylum claims in fewer than 10% of cases this year, the lowest rate for which data is available, the Times found.

In interviews, more than two dozen immigration judges who have served under the second Trump administration described feeling a consistent sense of pressure to deport immigrants or risk losing their jobs.

“All of us are looking over our shoulders,” said Holly D’Andrea, an immigration judge in Texas who was appointed during the first Trump administration. She spoke with the Times in her capacity as president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, a labor union.

The transformation of the courts reflects how the administration, under the watchful eye of Stephen Miller, a top White House adviser, has tried to fundamentally rewire an immigration system that Miller has long argued is too welcoming.

The effort stems from the administration’s view — as articulated by Miller — that many immigrants should no longer receive a constitutional right of due process as they seek legal status.

“The only process invaders are due is deportation,” Miller wrote on social platform X last year.

During Trump’s second term, White House and Justice Department officials have carefully monitored judges’ rulings, examining statistics showing how often they have granted asylum, according to two federal government employees with knowledge of the activity who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

The administration has instructed judges to stop granting bond to immigrants who crossed the border illegally, a change from decades of practice. The new policy has required people to remain in detention for extended periods even if they do not have a criminal record and have lived in the country for years.

Immigration lawyers say that many of their clients have agreed to leave the country rather than stay locked up. The Times found that the number of people in custody abandoning their cases has risen sharply.

Administration officials have expressed their expectations in stark terms, according to several current and former judges.

Last June, a senior Justice Department official published a memo accusing some judges of tolerating bias as long as it was “in favor of an alien” and against the government. The official warned that judges who favored one side “may be subject to corrective or disciplinary action.”

Other officials are said to have instructed judges to grant asylum only in the most extraordinary circumstances. In a previously unreported whistleblower letter to Congress, one fired judge quoted an official remarking on the standard for asylum: “Maybe if you were Jewish and escaping Nazi Germany in 1943, you should get it.” The whistleblower is a military lawyer who was detailed to serve as a temporary immigration judge and subsequently dismissed.

The administration has also made its priorities clear in recruitment ads, seeking applicants who wish to work as “deportation judges.”

Supporters and critics of immigration have agreed for years that the courts have become dysfunctional as more immigrants have entered the United States asking for asylum. Under President Joe Biden, claims piled up as his administration made it easier for asylum-seekers to cross the border, helping generate a total backlog of more than 3 million cases.

Last year, as judges resolved claims more rapidly under Trump, the backlog fell for the first time in at least two decades. It has continued to decline.

“Biden’s open border policies effectively turned the asylum system into a broken revolving door,” said Chad Gilmartin, a Justice Department spokesperson, adding that many entrants under Biden had “no legitimate claims of government persecution.”

The Trump administration, Gilmartin said, was conducting “reevaluations of personnel and processes to deliver a better system.”

In response to the whistleblower’s account, Gilmartin said the comment that asylum should be limited to people facing a crisis like Jews who fled Nazi Germany was “unverified.” He also said it “does not represent an official position of this DOJ.”

He did not explain how the Justice Department chose which judges to fire.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said that “the American people elected President Trump based on his promise to enforce federal immigration law.”

Presidents from both parties have tried to bring immigration court decisions in line with their policies. But typically no more than a few judges have been fired in a given year, according to interviews with union officials and immigration experts.

Trump started firing immigration judges almost as soon as he returned to offi ce, removing four top court officials, including the chief judge, on the day of his inauguration.

Over the following year, the Justice Department regularly fired waves of judges with little notice or stated reason. Some have sued, claiming discrimination or that their civil service protections were violated. Dozens of others have quit or retired.

The overhaul is unfolding in real time: More dismissals happened last week, while the administration announced 32 hires on Wednesday.

Some of the new hires have had little if any experience in immigration law, a change from past appointees.

One of the administration’s most significant changes has been denying bond to many immigrants, as those in custody are more likely to accept deportation.

Under Trump, immigration judges have been directed to not hold bond hearings for virtually everyone who entered the country illegally.

Immigration judges can still grant bond hearings to people who entered the country legally, such as those who overstayed visas.