One of the most satisfying outcomes of the Trump era has been the marginalization and coming demise of the hyperpartisan, shamelessly dishonest corporate media.
The president’s relentless criticism of the Fourth Estate has pulled back the curtain on their practices, and public trust in establishment media is at record lows.
Despite this, the Trump-described “enemy of the people” media still has some ability left to influence the nation, primarily through polling and framing issues with a hard-left, partisan lens. This has been evident by its recent bending of public opinion on Trump’s signature issue: immigration enforcement.
A February Reuters/Ipsos survey found that a majority of Americans disapprove of the administration’s aggressive tactics, with broad support for deporting illegal aliens but qualms over the methods. Similarly, a Washington Post poll from the same month revealed 62% opposing the aggressive tactics of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Even Fox News, hardly a bastion of liberal sentiment, reported in January that 59% of voters view ICE’s efforts as “too aggressive,” up 10 points from mid-2025.
These headlines dominate the airwaves, fueling narratives of purported ICE overreach and cruelty. What many don’t know is that poll results can often be predetermined based on how questions are asked. This media fixation on perceived “aggressiveness” by ICE is a classic case of selective media issue-framing, while completely ignoring the tangible benefits that have come from robust enforcement: plummeting border crossings, restored rule of law, and safeguards for American communities and economies.
The media bias on immigration is pervasive and often outrageous. The most recent example is Abby Phillip of CNN’s patently false representation of a failed terrorist bomb thrower in New York City as an attack on Mayor Zohran Mamdani by pro-MAGA protestors. The bomb was actually thrown by the son of Afghan immigrants against the protesters. Phillip’s mea culpa got a fraction of the attention her disgraceful claim did. In an alternate universe of media accountability, Phillip would be cleaning out her desk at CNN and updating her resume. In our universe, she faced no consequences.
Throughout each news cycle, the media ignores nuance on the extremely complex issue of immigration. A Politico survey from January showed that doubts about immigration enforcement exist even among Trump voters, with 43% of non-MAGA supporters backing the campaign but 17% calling it insufficiently aggressive. Yet, The New York Times noted in February that a vast majority of Republicans still endorse the president’s approach. Contrary to media framing, many Americans are only opposed to Trump’s immigration enforcement plan in that they believe it isn’t going far enough.
Now, consider the hard data on enforcement’s impact. Under Trump, deportations have surged. The Department of Homeland Security reported that by early 2026, nearly 3 million illegal aliens had left the U.S., including over 675,000 formal deportations and an estimated 2.2 million self-deportations in 2025 alone.
ICE detentions have ballooned from a daily average of 39,000 at the start of Trump’s second term to nearly 70,000 by January 2026. NBC News tracks show ICE arrests doubling, with detention at all-time highs.
The real triumph, however, lies at the border. Migrant encounters have cratered to historic lows. DHS touted nine straight months of zero releases by February 2026, with January marking the fourth consecutive decline in apprehensions.
This isn’t happenstance, but the direct result of strong leadership. Remember the claims by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris – parroted as gospel by media talking heads – that control of the border could only be achieved by a sweeping congressional bill that sounded tough but would only slightly lessen the tidal wave of illegal crossings at best? It turns out no such heavy lifting on Capitol Hill was needed, just resolve and action.
The media gave no acknowledgement of this; they just keep hammering the narrative. Stories fixate on family separations or “aggressive” raids, ignoring how reduced inflows ease strains on social services, housing and wages. Fewer unauthorized workers mean better opportunities for Americans, countering inflation and bolstering growth. Public safety benefits as well, as fewer unchecked entries mean lower risks from cartels and trafficking.
Of course, no policy is flawless. Violence and loss of life were inevitable as the anti-borders left deployed its cult-like followers to disrupt ICE operations made necessary by unconstitutional sanctuary policies. Painting enforcement as inherently cruel is editorial, not reporting. Americans deserve an objective view: polls may show public wariness, but data proves the policies are working.
As border crossings hit rock bottom and deportations climb, the real story is one of success. The voters asked for this in the last presidential election, the president has implemented it, and it is having the intended effect. That’s democracy in action. If only the press reported it, they might retain what’s left of their credibility.
