What Story Gets Told?

The Role of Framing in Immigration Coverage

News framing plays a crucial role in shaping public understanding of complex political issues, particularly immigration policy. As one of the many polarizing topics in the U.S., immigration often becomes a focus point for the media, which can frame events in ways that emphasize legality, economics, security, or human impact. This paper examines how Fox News designs its coverage of immigration through specific framing strategies, often aligning with political narratives supportive of the Trump administration. Drawing on a series of articles published during and after Trump’s transition into office, the analysis explores how Fox News consistently prioritizes legal, economic, and security frames while minimizing human-interest views. These patterns are then contrasted with more balanced coverage from the Associated Press, highlighting the significance of language, source selection, and visuals in producing content bias. By comparing these approaches, the paper aims to uncover how framing decisions influence audience perception and can reinforce specific ideologies.

Framing Immigration: Economic, Legal, and Security Narratives

In examining Fox News’ framing of immigration policy, the article President-elect Trump’s deportation plan touted as a ‘cost savings’ opportunity for Americans (Penley, 2024) offers a clear example of economic rationality used to support deportation. This was one of the earlier articles to frame immigration during Trump’s transition period. It emphasizes former ICE Director Tom Homan’s argument that President-elect Trump’s deportation plan would lead to cost savings for Americans by reducing costs such as hotels, travel, education, and healthcare for migrants (Penley, 2024). Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is used to add additional narratives, linking immigration enforcement to long-term growth and reduced human costs (Penley, 2024). While simultaneously highlighting quotes like, “100,000 fentanyl deaths a year” and “increased crime” rates to the audience (Penley, 2024, para. 11). These arguments suggest financial benefits and security concerns around immigration, which in turn contribute to legal frames that portray immigration as a criminal issue or national threat.

Studies show that content bias occurs when news coverage favors one perspective over a balanced view (Entman, 2007). The article’s headline including Homan’s and Bessent’s endorsements of Trump’s plan highlights a positive perception, specifically choosing sources that support economic and security rationale. Although the American Immigration Council’s estimate is referenced, that mass deportation could cost nearly $1 trillion over ten years, this is swiftly countered by Homan’s claim that the plan will yield savings over time (Penley, 2024). This is reinforcing the main narrative of monetary gain, with lack of human storytelling. Famulari (2020) found that the economy frame was generally the least common across news outlets, though it appeared more often in The Wall Street Journal. In contrast, Fox News prioritized security and legal framing in its immigration coverage, often connecting migrants to criminal activity (Famulari, 2020). This framing is clear in the current article, where Bessent’s discussion of fentanyl deaths and crime supports Fox’s consistent story approach.

Patterns of Bias: Source Selection and the Absence of Human-Interest Frames

Beyond framing, the article consistently favors the viewpoints of Trump’s allies. Homan blames the Biden administration for large migrant-related costs (Penley, 2024), proving Famulari’s (2020) finding that Fox News disproportionately framed Democrats or migrants as responsible for immigration issues. Additionally, underscoring Entman’s (2007) point about journalistic decision bias, where certain positions are prioritized while others are excluded. Bessent, also founder of Key Square Capital Management, represents a private-sector stakeholder whose framing blends financial and safety concerns. He portrays Trump’s deportation strategy as not only fiscally responsible but also necessary to prevent societal harm. This type of doubling down furthers these frames and reflects Fox’s overall coverage style. Additionally, the article positions American taxpayers as the main beneficiaries, an example of sociotropic framing, which Entman (2007) defines as audiences concerned about collective national impact.

Notably absent from the article is the perspective of migrants themselves. They are discussed mainly in terms of the costs they impose and their association with crime, not as individuals with stories or rights. This exclusion pulls the article further away from the human-interest frame, which centers on personal stories and emotional resonance (Famulari, 2020). Fox News, Famulari (2020) found, rarely employed this frame while covering Trump’s zero-tolerance policy in 2018. Instead, visuals and language often showed migrants as a threat, such as images of large groups, adult males, or border confrontations, which ultimately constructed a narrative of danger and disorder (Famulari, 2020; Parrott et al., 2018).

Overall, the article shows how framing choices, especially the economy and security frames, can shape public perception of immigration policy. By prioritizing cost-saving narratives and overlooking migrant perspectives, it shows patterns of selectiveness and content bias consistent with both academic research and Fox News’ documented coverage practices.

A similar framing strategy appears in, Detained migrants given 12 hours to contest deportation under Alien Enemies Act: ICE (Margolis et al., 2025), which uses a legality and security frame centering on the technical aspects of deportation under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). It details legal basics such as habeas petitions, due process rights, ICE documentation, and relevant Supreme Court rulings (Margolis et al., 2025). References to “Venezuelan criminals” further reinforce the association between immigration and criminality, a pattern observed in both Fox reporting during Trump’s administration and prior scholarly research (Margolis et al., 2025, para. 4). While the article presents different legal views, such as attorneys criticizing the notice period, ICE, and the Heritage Foundation supporting it, the focus stays on enforcement measures rather than the impact on people (Margolis et al., 2025). Migrants are primarily depicted through the legal lens, with their voices represented only through their attorneys’ arguments (Margolis et al., 2025). No individual stories or emotional narratives are presented, and visuals consist only of stock images of ICE officers (Margolis et al., 2025). This absence of the human-interest frame supports Famulari’s (2020) conclusion that Fox News rarely applied this approach in its immigration reporting. As Parrott et al. (2018) adds, this omission can reduce empathy by excluding narratives that humanize migrants.

The Trump administration’s role in enforcing the AEA is crucial, with ICE portrayed as the executive arm distributing the 12-hour notice policy (Margolis et al., 2025). The article presents ICE’s position, that the timeframe is reasonable, with little to no criticism. Judicial powers such as the Supreme Court and federal judges are included as institutional actors influencing the policy’s legality and public discourse (Scheufele, 1999). Yet commentary from sources like John Yoo, who frames judges as “rogue” (Margolis et al., 2025, para. 4), shifts the tone toward criticizing judicial checks. This selective inclusion of voices defending the administration, while framing the judges negatively, proves content bias through source choice. This aligns with Entman’s (2007) theory on journalistic decision making in politics which claims that journalists frame issues based on their choices of which facts to highlight or downplay, influenced by institutional pressures, ideological biases, and the need to maintain audience engagement.

Again, migrants are discussed exclusively in terms of their legal status and as objects of law enforcement (Margolis et al., 2025). Descriptions include words like “detained” or “criminal”, which frame them as security threats rather than individuals with personal experiences. Their concerns about deportation are examined through legal lenses, not direct statements. As Famulari (2020) observed, this approach ignores the human-interest frame and instead emphasizes crime and legality, which can shape public perception by minimizing empathy. Fox News’ visual strategies, such as showing enforcement agents rather than the people affected, further reinforce this portrayal and contribute to a framing narrative that positions migrants primarily as a threat.

Building upon the previous articles, Fox News also published What does due process look like for migrants facing deportation? (Chi-Sing, 2025), which continues to prove patterns of bias within the network’s approach to immigration coverage. The focus is on operational aspects of deportation, stressing the legal procedures and governmental authority involved (Chi-Sing, 2025). This supports Famulari’s (2020) argument that Fox News often prioritizes legality and security frames in immigration discussions, frequently connecting immigration to issues of crime and national security. By centering on these frames, the article reinforces the portrayal of immigration primarily as a law enforcement and public safety concern.

The piece predominantly features voices from government officials and legal experts who support the administration’s policies, while offering limited representation of opposing viewpoints (Chi-Sing, 2025). This contributes to a biased narrative that favors the government’s stance on immigration enforcement. As Entman (2007) described, source selection can shape public perception by highlighting certain views while marginalizing others. Consistent with previous articles, it lacks human-interest elements that would provide emotional context to the experiences of migrants facing deportation. This, along with the absence of images depicting affected individuals or families, contributes to this depersonalized approach often seen from Fox.

Comparative Coverage: Fox News vs. the Associated Press

Introducing a news source that is perceived as neutral, such as the Associated Press, strengthens this analysis of framing bias by offering a contrasting example to outlets like Fox News (AllSides, 2023). Using a comparative lens helps highlight how different organizations shape public opinion through selective language, source choices, and emphasis. More balanced outlets often include a broader range of perspectives and context, making it easier to spot how bias may subtly, or blatantly, shape coverage.

The Associated Press (2025) article takes a factual approach to the 12-hour deportation notice policy, writing it within the historical and legal context of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). The report avoids bias language and instead focuses on legal explanations and historical standards, allowing readers to form their own conclusions (Associated Press, 2025). Notably, it includes comments from multiple perspectives, including government officials, legal scholars, migrant advocates, and impacted individuals (Associated Press, 2025). This helps provide a broader understanding of the policy’s implications.

By contrast, the Fox News articles lean heavily in favor of the Trump administration’s stance, often highlighting justifications for the policy while downplaying or excluding critical voices. For example, the piece covering the 12-hour policy emphasizes national security arguments and features favorable commentary from conservative sources like the Heritage Foundation, with minimal representation of opposing viewpoints (Margolis et al., 2025). Similarly, coverage on due process frames judicial checks as disruptive, portraying legal challenges as barriers to effective governing rather than a protective measure (Chi-Sing, 2025).

The Associated Press (2025) article takes a different route by humanizing the issue with the inclusion of migrant voices and discussing the legal complexity of their cases. While Fox News tends to reduce migrants to abstract legal categories or potential threats. This blunt difference in framing reflects larger reporting tendencies, Fox focusses on enforcement, legal, and security, while the AP focuses more on the human and legal dimensions of the story, offering a fuller picture to the audience.

The AP’s coverage offers a more balanced examination of the deportation policy under the AEA, incorporating diverse perspectives and focusing on legal and human impacts. In contrast, Fox News’ reporting tends to favor the current administration’s viewpoint, emphasizing legality and security while providing limited representation of opposing voices or affected individuals. These differences show the varying levels of bias and objectivity in the two news outlets’ approaches to covering immigration policies.

Exceptions Within Fox News Reporting

During the research process for this paper, some Fox News articles demonstrated a less biased approach to immigration coverage. These examples are valuable for framing analysis because, like comparisons with different news outlets, they offer a contrast within the same network. Bias is not always consistent across a single organization, it can vary depending on the journalist, editing choices, or the specific context of the story. In an article discussing Los Angeles leaders’ legislative efforts, Fox News presents statements from Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez, who criticized President Trump’s immigration policies (Casiano, 2025). The article also references community reactions, including protests and statements from immigrant rights groups (Casiano, 2025). This inclusion of multiple perspectives aligns with Bruggemann’s (2014) concept of interpretive journalism, where journalists provide context and multiple viewpoints to help audiences understand complex issues.

Compared to earlier Fox News articles that often employed emotionally charged language to describe migrants and immigration policies, this piece displays a more neutral tone. For instance, it focuses on legislative actions and public statements without resorting to inflammatory language. This approach aligns with Scheufele’s (1999) emphasis on the importance of objective reporting and the avoidance of frames that might unduly influence public opinion through emotional appeals. Casiano (2025) continues to place a stronger emphasis on institutional processes, rather than solely focusing on individual actors. This focus is what Bruggemann (2014) describes as institutional framing, where the roles and functions of institutions are highlighted to provide a deeper understanding of policy developments.

This Fox News article demonstrates a more balanced and objective approach to reporting on immigration-related issues, incorporating diverse perspectives, reducing emotionally charged language, and emphasizing institutional processes. This shift in framing aligns with the principles outlined by Bruggemann and Scheufele, suggesting a move toward more interpretive and context heavy journalism.

The analysis of Fox News’ immigration coverage reveals consistent framing choices that emphasize legality, economic costs, and national security, often at the expense of human-interest frames. These patterns reflect broader tendencies discovered by researchers like Famulari (2020) and Entman (2007), who highlight how media framing can shape public understanding by emphasizing certain voices and excluding others. Through selective language, limited source selection, and recurring visual strategies, Fox News often paints immigration as a threat, reinforcing political narratives that favor aggressive approaches. However, the inclusion of a more balanced article within Fox’s own reporting, as well as a more objective example from the Associated Press, highlights the levels of variation in framing, even within a single news organization. This proves that bias is not always consistent, but can be shaped by the journalist, article direction, or context of the story. Ultimately, understanding media framing is essential not only for analyzing news content but also for recognizing how public attitudes toward immigration are influenced over time.

References

AllSides. (2023, May). Survey rating media bias: Associated Press, IJR, Reuters, Time, TheBlaze. https://www.allsides.com/blind-survey/survey-rating-media-bias-associated-press-ijr-reuters-time-theblaze-may-2023

Associated Press. (2025, April 30). Venezuelans subject to removal have 12 hours to decide if they want to contest deportation. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/immigration-aea-trump-deportations-be16313f9bfd75dce23a5fb9e9af03dd

Brueggemann, M. (2014). Between frame setting and frame sending: How journalists contribute to news frames. Communication Theory, 24(1), 61–82.

Casiano, L. (2025, February 5). Los Angeles leaders push for bill to impede Trump deportations. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/los-angeles-leaders-introduce-legislation-impede-trump-mass-deportations

Chi-Sing, H. (2025, April 25). What does due process look like for migrants facing deportation? Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-does-due-process-look-like-trumps-deportation-suits

Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173.

Famulari, U. (2020). Framing the Trump administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Policy: A quantitative content analysis of news stories and visuals in US news websites. Journalism Studies, 21(16), 2267–2284.

Margolis, A., Mears, B., & Bream, S. (2025, April 30). Detained migrants given 12 hours to contest deportation under Alien Enemies Act: ICE. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/detained-migrants-given-12-hours-contest-deportation-under-alien-enemies-act-ice-document

Parrott, S., Hoewe, J., Fan, M., & Huffman, K. (2018). Portrayals of immigrants and refugees in U.S. news media: Visual framing and its effect on emotions and attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 62(4), 680-694.

Penley, T. (2024, November 12). President-elect Trump’s deportation plan touted as a ‘cost savings’ opportunity for Americans. Fox Business. https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/president-elect-trumps-deportation-plan-touted-cost-savings-opportunity-americans

Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122.