![\"Jeffries](\"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/574450961_1146673474334985_1180657142888450223_n-11.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The responses suggest growing unease within some parts of the Democratic Party about its current leadership as the 2026 election cycle approaches, the outlet\u00a0reported\u00a0this week.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s left flank.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Only 24 respondents said they would definitely back Jeffries, and seven more said they were likely to do so, the outlet said.<\/p>\n
However, his office pushed back on the narrative that he\u2019s lost support.<\/p>\n
\u201cLeader Jeffries is focused on battling Donald Trump, ending the Republican shutdown of the federal government and addressing the crushing GOP health care crisis,\u201d Jeffries spokesperson Justin Chermol told Axios.<\/p>\n
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\u2019 inquiries. Still, a number of Jeffries\u2019 critics and noncommittal candidates have credible paths to winning seats in Congress.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Other prominent challengers \u2014 including Luke Bronin, Donavan McKinney, Mai Vang, Saikat Chakrabarti, and Patrick Roath \u2014 have also withheld their support. Each is running well-funded campaigns aimed at unseating long-serving Democratic incumbents.<\/p>\n
Heath Howard, a New Hampshire state representative running for an open U.S. House seat, told Axios regarding the Democratic leader: \u201cI think we need to have a new type of leadership that\u2019s \u2026 going to fight back significantly harder against the Trump administration.\u201d<\/p>\n
Abughazaleh, meanwhile, told Axios she will support a leader who is \u201ctaking actual action against this administration\u201d and that the left should use \u201cour leverage to demand progressive change.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ve got to see improvement, without question,\u201d Amanda Edwards, who was a member of the Houston city council and is now running in a Texas special election, told the outlet.<\/p>\n
Harry Jarin, a firefighter mounting a primary challenge to former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), told Axios: \u201cThe anger of the base right now is not being matched by Democratic leadership \u2026 and that is going to have to change one way or another.\u201d<\/p>\n
A recurring theme among candidates who declined to back Jeffries was his refusal to endorse socialist New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani \u2014 a decision that has also become a source of frustration among left-wing members of Congress.<\/p>\n
\u201cHis 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,\u201d noted Jacob Lawrence, who is set to challenged Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.).<\/p>\n
Chakrabarti, when asked whether he would support for Jeffries, quipped: \u201cWhat is it that Hakeem said about endorsing Zohran? \u2018I\u2019ll have conversations with him and see where it goes.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
Washington, D.C. \u2014 A quiet yet consequential shake-up is underway in America\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
The dismissals arrived through a short email \u2014 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\u2019s determination to streamline deportations and his critics\u2019 fears of executive overreach.<\/p>\n
A System Under Pressure<\/p>\n
The backdrop is staggering. By mid-2025, America\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
In speeches during his campaign and early months of his return to the White House, Trump repeatedly promised to \u201cend the judicial swamp\u201d that, he argued, allowed activist judges to rewrite immigration law from the bench. Now, the dismissals appear to be the fulfillment of that pledge.<\/p>\n
Who Was Removed \u2014 And Why<\/p>\n
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. \u201cI had no disciplinary record, my reviews were strong, and I loved my work,\u201d Peyton told reporters. \u201cI was blindsided.\u201d<\/p>\n
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\u2019s immigration agenda.<\/p>\n
Durbin described the mass dismissals as an \u201cabuse of power,\u201d claiming that judges are being purged for political reasons rather than professional failings.<\/p>\n
But supporters of the move say otherwise. \u201cFor too long, immigration judges have acted as if they\u2019re policy makers instead of interpreters of the law,\u201d said a senior administration official. \u201cThis is not retaliation. This is accountability.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The Union Pushes Back<\/p>\n
The immigration judges\u2019 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. \u201cThe rest feel threatened,\u201d Biggs said, framing the dismissals as part of a campaign to silence dissent.<\/p>\n
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\u2019t align with the administration\u2019s policies.<\/p>\n
Activists and Critics Raise Concerns<\/p>\n
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\u2019s position. \u201cThe role of an immigration judge is to serve justice, not politics,\u201d said Maria Gutierrez, director of a legal aid nonprofit in Texas. \u201cThis purge is a clear message: rule against the administration, and you\u2019re out.\u201d<\/p>\n
Civil liberties groups are preparing lawsuits, arguing that the dismissals violate due process protections for federal employees and undermine judicial independence.<\/p>\n
The Administration\u2019s Case<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is not about silencing dissent,\u201d said Tricia McLaughlin, a senior DHS official. \u201cIt\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Trump himself has framed the dismissals as part of his broader campaign promise to restore \u201claw and order\u201d in immigration policy. In a recent press conference, he declared: \u201cWe are cleaning up the judicial swamp. These are people who thought they could run the system like their own activist law firm. Not anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Larger Picture: A Court in Transition<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Some legal scholars say the moment could spark a constitutional debate. \u201cImmigration judges are not traditional judges, but they function like them,\u201d explained Professor Laura Chen of Georgetown Law. \u201cThe question is whether dismissing them en masse for their rulings undermines the principle of judicial impartiality.\u201d<\/p>\n
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\u2019s priorities, process cases more quickly and cut down the backlog?<\/p>\n
What Comes Next<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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 \u2014 as Trump and his allies see it \u2014 is coming to an end.<\/p>\n
As the President put it in his blunt style: \u201cIf you break our laws and come here illegally, you don\u2019t get a free pass from activist judges anymore. The game is over.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":15733,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15734","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hot-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t