Asylum Claims Plummet Under Trump Administration’s Reforms

President Donald Trump’s administration has dramatically decreased the approval rate for asylum claims made by migrants, bringing it down to five percent. This is a stark contrast to the much higher approval rate seen under President Joe Biden.

For migrants without legal representation, the success rate has dropped to just over one percent, down from 20 percent during Biden’s presidency. This troubling statistic comes from federal data published by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

According to a report on October 20 from the Immigration Accountability Project (IAP), the pace of reform concerning immigration policies has not slowed even after two years in office. They noted that changes being implemented by the Department of Justice, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review are essential for upholding a fair and efficient asylum process.

These reforms appear to be closing the gaps in the asylum process that many migrants exploited during Biden’s more open approach, which allowed them to enter American workplaces and communities.

The backlog of pending asylum cases has now reached 2.3 million, a figure that contrasts sharply with the situation during Biden’s administration, which had significantly expanded this backlog while allowing more migrants into the U.S. labor market.

Since October 2025, roughly 514,000 cases have been accepted by the Justice Department’s 700 immigration judges, including those in asylum courts. This has culminated in nearly one million processed cases overall, a significant leap compared to the approximately 200,000 cases handled annually prior to 2021.

Although some establishment media outlets downplay the efficiency of Trump’s reforms, focusing instead on individual stories of migrants and judges, the reality of the situation remains complex.

For instance, the Washington Post highlighted a judge who resisted the pro-citizen reforms, portraying her as a heroic figure committed to the legal system.

Having grown inspired by the ideals of justice from a young age, she envisioned a career in law after reading “To Kill a Mockingbird” in high school, further motivated by her upbringing as the daughter of Ecuadorian immigrants.

A former immigration judge voiced concerns about the current changes, warning of a potential threat to judicial independence.

Media narratives also tend to favor the stories of those who have been deported after unsuccessful asylum claims. A recent feature on the CBS show, 60 Minutes, illustrated the poignant case of Moussa Diawara, who had been sent back to Ghana, separated from his family in the U.S.

It’s noteworthy, however, that Diawara had previously claimed persecution based on his sexual orientation, a detail underscored by James Percival, the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

His situation has been showcased as an example of wrongful deportation, but there’s a serious concern regarding the nature of his asylum claim, illustrating the broader issue of immigration fraud.

Most asylum seekers are not genuinely fleeing government persecution; rather, they are seeking better economic opportunities in the U.S. A survey conducted in summer 2025 showed that only one in 27 border migrants indicated they met the criteria for political asylum.

The IAP posited that the ongoing absurdity of the U.S. asylum system has been overlooked for too long:

Many applicants acknowledge they’re seeking economic improvement. Instead of being turned away, the system has instead adapted to accommodate those who clearly do not qualify, resulting in lengthy court processes surrounded by flimsy claims.

With cartels capitalizing on these loopholes, they marketed their services to help migrants reach the U.S., promising them the ability to stay indefinitely upon arrival. Swift processing of claims could disrupt that narrative.

Trump’s administration has also made significant changes, including a massive turnover of around 300 pro-migration judges and regulatory adjustments by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which are now reflected in new case precedents aimed at expediting the dismissal of frivolous claims.

In a report from October 20, the IAP outlined these reforms:

New precedents were established to transform the asylum system, emphasizing efficiency and early identification of non-viable claims, including measures to deny claims from individuals from democratic countries.

• Matter of B-S-A-N-, which denies asylum claims from migrants from free nations;
• Matter of M-R-I-, which states that those who travel to the U.S. while claiming asylum have abandoned their claims;
• Matter of G-R-B-, allowing judges to reject obviously baseless asylum claims;
• Matter of A-K-R-, which aims to cut down delays for securing lawyer representation;
• Matter of S-S-F-M-, reinstating precedents established during Trump’s first term.

The reforms introduced by the Trump administration are viewed quite differently by pro-migration groups.

One report criticized these actions for undermining the independence of the immigration court system and threatening the rights of individuals seeking refuge in the United States.

Concerns have been raised by watchdogs about the far-reaching implications of these changes on due process, particularly in California’s immigration courts.

Some assert that the current asylum court proceedings resemble a harrowing cycle, pointing to the operational flaws within the system.

Interestingly, as asylum fraud appears to decrease, there are signs that rent levels have stabilized and wages are gradually rising in certain sectors like construction and elder care.