Border crossings have plummeted to historic lows, yet some politicians can’t muster a single kind word for the man behind the change.
The Daily Caller reported that U.S. Border Patrol reported a jaw-dropping 93% drop in unauthorized crossings at the southern border, from 117,905 in May 2024 to just 8,725 in May 2025, following President Donald Trump’s return to the White House with a slate of hard-hitting reforms.
Upon reclaiming the Oval Office, Trump didn’t waste a second, rolling out executive actions and administrative changes to tighten border security.
He declared a national emergency, fast-tracked wall construction, leaned on Mexico to step up law enforcement, and issued directives to curb unauthorized entry. It’s a stark contrast to the chaos of the Biden years, which saw border security measures dismantled and a crisis spiral out of control.
Yet, not everyone is popping champagne over this turnaround. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut took to NBC’s “Meet The Press” to throw cold water on the achievement, refusing to give Trump an ounce of credit. Host Kristen Welker pressed him on the numbers, but Murphy wouldn’t budge.
“I don’t give them credit for that because border crossings are low because they’re violating the law every day,” Murphy declared.
Well, that’s one way to dodge the obvious—dismissing a 93% drop as mere lawbreaking rather than effective policy. It’s the kind of spin that could make even a seasoned gymnast dizzy.
Murphy doubled down, arguing that U.S. law permits those fleeing terror or torture to seek asylum here. He claims the Trump administration has completely halted the asylum process, blocking individuals from exercising that right.
Fair point on the legal principle, but ignoring the sheer scale of abuse in the system before these reforms feels like cherry-picking.
“The Trump administration has suspended that law,” Murphy insisted, painting the policy as an outright rejection of American values. But let’s unpack this—securing a border doesn’t mean abandoning compassion; it means ensuring the system isn’t gamed by those who don’t qualify.
“They are not allowing anybody to come here to apply for asylum,” he added. If true, that’s a serious charge, but it sidesteps the reality that unchecked crossings under prior policies led to overwhelmed resources and endless backlogs.
Murphy also pointed to a bipartisan bill from 2024, crafted to overhaul the asylum process by ensuring only qualified applicants proceed and speeding up border case reviews.
“We wrote that bipartisan bill last year to reform the asylum process,” he said, suggesting a better path was ignored. Yet, with border numbers now at rock bottom, one has to wonder if legislative gridlock forced a tougher hand.
“It’s true, there are very few people crossing daily, but that’s because the Trump administration is violating the law,” Murphy reiterated. Accusing an administration of lawlessness is a bold move, especially when the results speak for themselves—fewer crossings mean fewer risks, fewer costs, and more control.
He didn’t stop there, warning of broader implications. “This is becoming a lawless administration,” Murphy claimed, suggesting democracy itself hangs in the balance. That’s a dramatic leap from border policy to doomsday, and it risks overshadowing a legitimate debate with hyperbole.
“We are on a road to see our democracy after feats of the point that it will be unrecognizable,” he continued. Such rhetoric might rally the progressive base, but it alienates those who see border security as a practical, not ideological, issue.
Let’s be clear: the right to seek asylum is enshrined in law, and any policy must respect that framework. But the flip side is just as real—without order, the system collapses under its weight, helping neither genuine refugees nor American citizens.
Trump’s approach, while controversial, has delivered numbers that can’t be ignored, reversing what many saw as the worst border crisis in U.S. history during the Biden administration. Critics like Murphy have a point about legal fidelity, but dismissing the outcome feels like missing the forest for the trees.