Dozens of Democratic candidates running for U.S. House seats nationwide told Axios they either would not support House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) for party leader or were not prepared to commit to voting for him.
The responses suggest growing unease within some parts of the Democratic Party about its current leadership as the 2026 election cycle approaches, the outlet reported this week.
Since assuming the role of Democratic leader in 2022, Hakeem Jeffries has maintained unanimous support within his caucus. That unity, however, may be tested in the next Congress amid rising frustration from grassroots activists, particularly on the party’s left flank.
While Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has drawn much of the criticism from progressive circles this year, Jeffries is increasingly becoming a focal point of dissatisfaction as well, Axios noted.
Axios contacted nearly every Democrat running for a U.S. House seat considered potentially winnable for the party in 2026, receiving responses from 113 candidates through phone interviews or written statements.
Of those surveyed, 20 said they would not vote for Hakeem Jeffries as speaker or minority leader, while another five indicated they were likely to oppose him. Fifty-seven candidates declined to commit to supporting Jeffries, describing it as too early to decide or citing concerns over ideology, strategy, messaging, or leadership style.
Only 24 respondents said they would definitely back Jeffries, and seven more said they were likely to do so, the outlet said.
However, his office pushed back on the narrative that he’s lost support.
“Leader Jeffries is focused on battling Donald Trump, ending the Republican shutdown of the federal government and addressing the crushing GOP health care crisis,” Jeffries spokesperson Justin Chermol told Axios.
Many of the Democrats expressing skepticism toward Hakeem Jeffries are political outsiders or long-shot candidates, while several front-runners in key battleground races declined to respond to Axios’ inquiries. Still, a number of Jeffries’ critics and noncommittal candidates have credible paths to winning seats in Congress.
Among them are Daniel Biss and Kat Abughazaleh, two leading contenders in the Democratic primary to replace retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), both of whom stopped short of pledging to support Jeffries.
Other prominent challengers — including Luke Bronin, Donavan McKinney, Mai Vang, Saikat Chakrabarti, and Patrick Roath — have also withheld their support. Each is running well-funded campaigns aimed at unseating long-serving Democratic incumbents.
Heath Howard, a New Hampshire state representative running for an open U.S. House seat, told Axios regarding the Democratic leader: “I think we need to have a new type of leadership that’s … going to fight back significantly harder against the Trump administration.”
Abughazaleh, meanwhile, told Axios she will support a leader who is “taking actual action against this administration” and that the left should use “our leverage to demand progressive change.”
“We’ve got to see improvement, without question,” Amanda Edwards, who was a member of the Houston city council and is now running in a Texas special election, told the outlet.
Harry Jarin, a firefighter mounting a primary challenge to former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), told Axios: “The anger of the base right now is not being matched by Democratic leadership … and that is going to have to change one way or another.”
A recurring theme among candidates who declined to back Jeffries was his refusal to endorse socialist New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani — a decision that has also become a source of frustration among left-wing members of Congress.
“His refusal to endorse Zohran makes me nervous that, if I were to become the nominee in my race, he and the party would not support me,” noted Jacob Lawrence, who is set to challenged Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.).
Chakrabarti, when asked whether he would support for Jeffries, quipped: “What is it that Hakeem said about endorsing Zohran? ‘I’ll have conversations with him and see where it goes.’”
Washington, D.C. — A quiet yet consequential shake-up is underway in America’s immigration courts. With little warning and no press conference to mark the moment, roughly fifty federal immigration judges have been dismissed under the administration of President Donald Trump, signaling a sweeping effort to transform the way the U.S. handles one of its most politically charged issues: immigration.
The dismissals arrived through a short email — just three lines, without detailed reasoning or formal hearings. But the impact has been loud. Immigration courts, long criticized for delays, conflicting rulings, and alleged political bias, are now the stage for a clash between Trump’s determination to streamline deportations and his critics’ fears of executive overreach.
A System Under Pressure
The backdrop is staggering. By mid-2025, America’s immigration court system was facing an unprecedented backlog of more than three million cases. These ranged from asylum petitions to deportation appeals, with some applicants waiting years before even seeing a judge.
Critics across the political spectrum acknowledged that the system was overwhelmed. But while past administrations pursued gradual reforms, President Trump has chosen a more forceful path: cutting judges who, in his view, have obstructed immigration enforcement or bent the rules to favor undocumented immigrants.
In speeches during his campaign and early months of his return to the White House, Trump repeatedly promised to “end the judicial swamp” that, he argued, allowed activist judges to rewrite immigration law from the bench. Now, the dismissals appear to be the fulfillment of that pledge.
Who Was Removed — And Why
Among those let go was Judge Jennifer Peyton, an Obama-era appointee who had served since 2016. She says she was on vacation with her family when the email landed in her inbox. “I had no disciplinary record, my reviews were strong, and I loved my work,” Peyton told reporters. “I was blindsided.”
Peyton has suggested that her firing may have been linked to her political connections, including a tour she once gave to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the longtime Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and has been a vocal opponent of Trump’s immigration agenda.
Durbin described the mass dismissals as an “abuse of power,” claiming that judges are being purged for political reasons rather than professional failings.
But supporters of the move say otherwise. “For too long, immigration judges have acted as if they’re policy makers instead of interpreters of the law,” said a senior administration official. “This is not retaliation. This is accountability.”
Another dismissed judge, Carla Espinoza, who served a short term in Chicago, alleged discrimination based on her gender and Hispanic heritage. She pointed to one case in particular: her decision to release a Mexican national flagged by Homeland Security as a possible threat after accusations surfaced that he had made comments about the President. Espinoza dismissed the allegations as baseless and the detention as unfair. Weeks later, her contract was not renewed.
The Union Pushes Back
The immigration judges’ union, historically critical of Trump, has reacted sharply. Its president, Matt Biggs, confirmed that about fifty judges had been terminated, with another fifty either pressured into retirement or reassigned. “The rest feel threatened,” Biggs said, framing the dismissals as part of a campaign to silence dissent.
Union representatives argue that the independence of judges is critical to ensuring fair hearings, especially in cases involving asylum seekers or refugees fleeing persecution. They claim the firings will create a chilling effect, where judges fear retribution for rulings that don’t align with the administration’s policies.
Activists and Critics Raise Concerns
Immigrant rights groups have also condemned the shake-up, warning that vulnerable individuals could face unjust deportations if judges are pressured to favor the government’s position. “The role of an immigration judge is to serve justice, not politics,” said Maria Gutierrez, director of a legal aid nonprofit in Texas. “This purge is a clear message: rule against the administration, and you’re out.”
Civil liberties groups are preparing lawsuits, arguing that the dismissals violate due process protections for federal employees and undermine judicial independence.
The Administration’s Case
Administration officials, however, counter that immigration courts are not Article III courts like federal district or appeals courts. Instead, they fall under the Department of Justice and operate within the executive branch. That, they argue, means the President has broad authority to hire, reassign, or dismiss judges who fail to uphold immigration law.
“This is not about silencing dissent,” said Tricia McLaughlin, a senior DHS official. “It’s about ensuring that immigration laws passed by Congress are enforced as written. For years, certain judges openly flouted those laws by granting asylum at rates far above national averages or delaying deportations indefinitely. That era is over.”
Trump himself has framed the dismissals as part of his broader campaign promise to restore “law and order” in immigration policy. In a recent press conference, he declared: “We are cleaning up the judicial swamp. These are people who thought they could run the system like their own activist law firm. Not anymore.”
The Larger Picture: A Court in Transition
The firings represent one of the most aggressive shake-ups in the immigration system in decades. They also highlight the unusual status of immigration courts, which straddle the line between judicial independence and executive control.
Some legal scholars say the moment could spark a constitutional debate. “Immigration judges are not traditional judges, but they function like them,” explained Professor Laura Chen of Georgetown Law. “The question is whether dismissing them en masse for their rulings undermines the principle of judicial impartiality.”
The moves also raise practical questions. With millions of cases still pending, will fewer judges mean even longer delays for immigrants awaiting decisions? Or will a new crop of judges, aligned with the administration’s priorities, process cases more quickly and cut down the backlog?
What Comes Next
Already, reports suggest that the Department of Justice is working to rapidly appoint replacements, many drawn from backgrounds in law enforcement or immigration prosecution. Critics worry this could tilt the courts even more heavily toward the government, while supporters say it will restore consistency and order.
Meanwhile, dismissed judges are weighing legal challenges. Lawsuits could tie up the issue for years, adding yet another layer of complexity to a system already bogged down by bureaucracy and delay.
For now, though, one thing is clear: the Trump administration has no intention of backing down. By cutting dozens of judges in one sweep, it has sent an unmistakable message that the era of leniency in immigration courts — as Trump and his allies see it — is coming to an end.
As the President put it in his blunt style: “If you break our laws and come here illegally, you don’t get a free pass from activist judges anymore. The game is over.”