 | This articlemay betoo long to read and navigate comfortably. When this tag was added, itsreadable prose size was 16,022 words. Considersplitting content into sub-articles,condensing it, or addingsubheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article'stalk page.(February 2026) |
 | It has been suggested that sections of this article besplit out into another article titledImmigration detention in the second Trump administration. (Discuss)(February 2026) |
.jpg) Wearing identity-concealingbalaclavas andmilitary camouflage,ICE agents stand inMinneapolis after thekilling of Renee Good | |
| Date | January 23, 2025 – present (2025-01-23 – present) (1 year, 3 weeks and 1 day) |
|---|---|
| Location | United States |
| Target | Illegal and citizen immigrants residing in the U.S. |
| Participants | |
| Outcome | |
| Deaths | 50 confirmed:
|
| Missing | 4,250 reported missing |
| Part ofa series on the |
| Immigration policy of the second Trump administration |
|---|
Targeting of U.S. citizens |
Targeting of immigrants
|
|
Controversies |
DuringDonald Trump'ssecond term aspresident of the United States, his administration has pursued adeportation policy generally described as "hardline",[b] "maximalist",[28] and as a "mass deportation" campaign,[27] involving the detention, confinement, and expulsion of hundreds of thousands of suspected illegal immigrants and their family members.[27] The Trump administration has claimed that around 140,000 people had been deported as of April 2025, though some estimates put the number at roughly half that number.[29] On August 28, 2025,CNN reported thatU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) alone had deported nearly 200,000 people in seven months since Trump returned to office.[30]
On January 23, 2025, ICEbegan to carry out raids onsanctuary cities, with hundreds of immigrants detained and deported. The Trump administration reversed the policy of the previous administration and gave ICE permission to raid schools, hospitals andplaces of worship.[31][32] The use of deportation flights by the U.S. has created pushback from some foreign governments, particularlythat of Colombia.[33] Fears of ICE raids have negatively impacted theagriculture,[31] construction,[34] and hospitality industries.[35] The total population of illegal immigrants in the United States was estimated at 11 million in 2022, with the top three states ofCalifornia,Texas, andFlorida constituting over half of the total population.[36][37] ICE agents conducting raids frequently travel in unmarked vehicles, wear plainclothes and facial coverings, and refuse to identify themselves or present warrants. The deportations have been faced with widespread controversy andprotests, such as the one in Los Angeles.[38][39][40][41]
The administration has used theAlien Enemies Act to quickly deport suspected illegal immigrants with limited or nodue process,[42][43] and to beimprisoned in El Salvador, which was halted by federal judges and theSupreme Court.[44][45] It ordered the re-opening of theGuantanamo Bay detention camp to hold potentially tens of thousands of illegal immigrants,[46][47] but has faced logistical and legal difficulties using it as an immigrant camp.[48] The majority of detentions have been for non-violent matters.[49][50][51] SeveralAmerican citizens were mistakenly and unfairly detained and deported.[52] Administration practices have faced legal issues and controversy with lawyers, judges, and legal scholars.[42] Thousands of people detained by ICE have disappeared from ICE records and their whereabouts are unknown.[53]
At the time of the January 2025 start to Trump's second presidential term, a majority of Americans supported deporting all immigrants present in the United States illegally.[54] As early as April 2025, multiple polls found that the majority of Americans thought that the deportations went "too far".[55][56][57][58] However, according to aHarvard Harris poll from December 2025, 80% of Americans supported the deportation of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.[59]
| ||
|---|---|---|
Business and personal
45th and 47th President of the United States Tenure
Shutdowns Speeches
Opinion polls Legal affairs
Impeachments   | ||
| ||
|---|---|---|
U.S. Representative from South Dakota Governor of South Dakota U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security | ||
_(cropped).jpg)
"in the last days of the Biden administration", Border Patrol led byGregory Bovino had conducted "Operation Return to Sender" inKern County which was described in The New York Times "as a blueprint for the broader immigration crackdown that was to come".[60] United Farm Workers v. Noem filed by theACLU alleged Border Patrol "agents went on a fishing expedition, dispensing withreasonable suspicion and stopping people based on assumptions about their race or occupation instead", "madewarrantless arrests", people arrested "were expelled to Mexico after being coerced to acceptvoluntary departure", "agents did not identify themselves", and "agents denied (...) repeated requests to call a lawyer".[61] In April 2025, JudgeJennifer L. Thurston granted apreliminary injunction forbidding Border patrol from conducting warrantless stops and acting without reasonable suspicion in theEastern District of California.[62][63]
Trump's campaign heavily relied onfearmongering against immigrants.[64][65][66] He repeatedly usedracial stereotypes anddehumanizing rhetoric to paint the influx of illegal immigrants as an assault—an "invasion"[67]—on the American public,[68][69] citing baseless accounts of their proclivity for crime.[70][71][72] On the campaign trail in December 2023, Trump said immigrants coming to the U.S. are "poisoning the blood of our country", a remark that quickly drew a rebuke from scholars, historians, and his political opponents likening the phrase toracial hygiene rhetoric and language used byAdolf Hitler.[73][74][75]
The New York Times reported that Trump planned "an extreme expansion of his first-term crackdown on immigration", including "preparing to round up undocumented people already in the United States on a vast scale and detain them in sprawling camps while they wait to be expelled", and that it "amounts to an assault on immigration on a scale unseen in modern American history".The New York Times also reported that Trump's advisors are preparing a 'blitz' strategy designed to overwhelm immigrant-rights lawyers, and that his plans would rely on existing statutes without the need for new legislation, although such legislation would also likely be attempted.[76] Economic reports from the Brookings Institution and Peterson Institute for International Economics have found that Trump's plans would result in a decrease in employment for American-born workers and result in "no economic growth over the second Trump administration from this policy alone"[77] while other estimates have it shrinking the Americangross domestic product by 4.2-6.8%.[78]
During his rallies, Trump said he would revoke thetemporary protected status of Haitian migrants living legally in the US and deport them back to Haiti.[79] Trump did not rule out separating families with mixed citizenship status.[80]
The American Immigration Council says that a "highly conservative" estimate of Trump's plan would cost at least $315 billion, or $967.9 billion over a decade, and be unworkable without massive outdoor detention camps.[76]
Trump has stated that his plan would follow the 'Eisenhower model,' a reference to the 1954 campaignOperation Wetback. To achieve the goal of deporting millions per year, Trump stated his intent to expandexpedited removal pursuant to section 235 of theImmigration and Nationality Act; invoke theAlien Enemies Act within theAlien and Sedition Acts of 1798; and invoke theInsurrection Act of 1807 to allow the military to apprehend immigrants and bypass thePosse Comitatus Act.[76]
Trump told a rally audience in September 2024 that the deportation effort "will be a bloody story".[81] He has also spoken of rounding up homeless people in blue cities and detaining them in camps.[82] The Trump team will also attempt to overturn theFlores settlement that prevents the indefinite holding of children.[76]
.jpg)
Trump has promised to reinstatehis ban on entry to individuals from certain Muslim-majority nations, and have theCenters for Disease Control reimpose COVID-erarestrictions on asylum claims by asserting immigrants carry infectious diseases such as the flu, tuberculosis, and scabies.[76] Trump has said he would build more of theborder wall, and move thousands of troops currently stationed overseas to the southern border.[83]
Other proposals included revokingtemporary protected status for individuals living in the United States, endingbirthright citizenship for persons born in the United States to foreign parents, using coercive diplomacy by making immigration cooperation a condition for bilateral engagement, reinstating 'Remain in Mexico' and reviving 'safe third country' status with several nations in Central America, as well as expanding it to Africa, Asia, and South America.[76][84]
Trump's campaign has stated his intention to expelDeferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients after his previous attempt failed in 2020 by a 5–4 vote in the Supreme Court inDepartment of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.[76]
_(cropped).jpg)
On January 22, theDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the administration was rolling back an Obama-era directive that had protected illegal immigrants in sensitive areas such as hospitals, places of worship, courtrooms, funerals, weddings and schools. A spokesperson stated that the Trump administration was not looking to tie the hands of law enforcement.[31][32]
On January 23, Huffman sent out a memo stating that immigrants admitted temporarily by the Biden administration could be removed.[85]
On February 19, the Trump administration issued a stop-work order to prevent the Office of Refugee Resettlement from funding organizations providing legal services to unaccompanied minors entering the United States;Mother Jones said the order stopped legal representation for 25,000 minors and education programs on rights for 100,000 others.[86]
On March 14, 2025,United States Attorney GeneralPam Bondi issued a directive allowing law enforcement officials to enter the homes of migrantswithout warrants.[87][88]
As deportation flights have increased, airlines have increasingly sought to hide details about their planes from flight trackers.[89]
On September 5, a federal immigration court ruled that undocumented immigrants living in the US are ineligible to be released on bond, potentially subjecting millions of immigrants including longtime residents to mandatory detention while their cases are processed. Former immigration judge Dana Leigh Marks called the policy change a "cynical move to try to force people to litigate their cases while they're detained."[90]
In November, federal officials announced plans to hire thousands of "skip tracers" to conduct online and in-person verification of the home and work addresses of up to 1.5 million people living in the US.[91]
Speaking in a press conference on January 7, 2026 following thekilling of Renée Good, JD Vance promised an escalation in immigration enforcement actions and policies. He said that over 10,000 additional ICE agents would be deployed in the United States, using personal data harvested by private contractors to identify targets for arrest. He said that agents would go "door to door" in the coming months to carry out Trump's mass deportation agenda.[91]
On January 23, 2025, the DHS authorized federal law enforcement to assist in carrying out Trump immigration policies. A memo from acting Homeland Security SecretaryBenjamine Huffman provided "the functions of an immigration officer" to several agencies within the Justice Department, including theDrug Enforcement Administration, theBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and theU.S. Marshals Service. The memo gave cross-deputized authority onto these agencies.[92] In April 2025, thePostal Inspection Service began cooperating with federal immigration enforcement efforts.[93]
In July, the Department of Defense increased the number of authorized military personnel designated to support ICE from 1,200 to 1,700 and rotated in National Guard personnel while sending Marines and Naval Reserve personnel to their home stations.[94]
In August, Trump froze training for non-ICE federal agencies through the end of the year to accommodate immigration enforcement hires.[95]
In September 2025, theCato Institute found that ICE had diverted over 25,000 federal, state and local law enforcement officers from their jobs. Of those 25,000, 14,498 were from federal agencies and 8,501 were state and local police.[96] FBI data from October 2025 found that nearly 1/4 of FBI agents, including nearly half in major offices, had been reassigned to support immigration enforcement.[97]
By November 2025, immigration cases had overtaken drug and fraud cases in US courts. The number of immigration cases tripled on an annual basis while new fraud and drug cases fell by 17% and 27% respectively.[98]
In May 2025, the Supreme Court permitted the Trump administration to revoke the protected status of 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants.[99] This action was described as "the largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern U.S. history".[100]
| It has been suggested that this section besplit out into another article titledImmigration detention in the second Trump administration. (Discuss)(February 2026) |
Immigration raids were widely described by both critics and promoted by the Trump administration as purposefully aggressive, with Trump saying they "haven't gone far enough". Videos of ICE and CBP agents smashing car windows, tackling mothers, and lobbing tear gas at citizens and peaceful protesters were quickly shared on social media leading to immense criticism and numerous lawsuits.[101][102][103] Extensive criticism ensued following a "military-style" ICE raid at a residential apartment complex in Chicago's South Shore as part ofOperation Midway Blitz in the early morning hours of September 30, 2025. The operation featured agents rappelling from black hawk helicopters at 1am, tossing flashbangs at families, and rounding up and zip-tying adults, children, and U.S. citizens.[104]
As early as January 23, high-profile ICE raids occurred inAtlanta, Boston, Denver, Miami, New York City,Newark,Philadelphia,Seattle, and Washington, D.C., detaining 538 people. The mayor of Newark claimed that ICE raided a local establishment and detained illegal immigrants as well as citizens, including a veteran, without a warrant.[105][106][107] On April 24, immigration agents raided a family's home in Oklahoma City and seized the residents' belongings including laptops, phones and cash, despite them being US citizens who were not the targets of the warrant issued for the home. Assistant DHS secretary Trisha McLaughlin defended the raid, saying it was "ultimately a successful operation".[108]
On September 4, an immigration raid occurred at aHyundai plant in Georgia detaining approximately 475 workers in what was described as the largest immigration enforcement operation carried out at a single location by Homeland Security.[109] The raid led to a diplomatic row between the United States and South Korea, and analysts described it as deterring foreign investment in America.[110][111]
| It has been suggested that this section besplit out into another article titledImmigration detention in the second Trump administration. (Discuss)(February 2026) |
Trump set a goal of 1,200 to 1,500 ICE arrests per day, but his administration has largely failed to meet these targets. Trump's administration saw about 800 ICE arrests per day after he took office in January, declining to fewer than 600 arrests per day in February, at which point ICE stopped publishing daily statistics. Trump's rates of arrests lag those of both the Obama and Biden administrations, despite ICE officers working extra shifts and being given arrest quotas. Trump's relatively low rate of immigration enforcement has been attributed to limitations in ICE resources and staffing, as well as a dramatic decrease in the number of immigrants illegally crossing the US-Mexico border since Trump took office.[112][113][114][115] In May 2025, Kristi Noem andStephen Miller pushed ICE to increase its arrest numbers to 3,000 per day.[116] ICE encouraged officers to make warrantless arrests and to "turn the creative knob up to 11" in meeting the updated detention targets, including interviewing and arresting individuals they may coincidentally encounter dubbed "collaterals".[117]
ICE officials said in early March 2025 that 32,809 arrests were made between January 20 and March 10, 2025. They also accused the Biden administration of inflating arrest statistics.[118] At the beginning of 2025, there were over 41,000 people in ICE custody.[119] By mid-March, ICE reported holding 46,269 people in custody.[120]
In early September 2025, theBoard of Immigration Appeals reversed an earlier decision that had allowed immigration judges to conduct bail hearings for detained migrants who entered the US without inspection.[121] Immigration attorneys and advocates called this decision "deeply flawed"[122] and "a terrible plan" that would enrich private prison companies holding detainees in substandard conditions.[123] Later that month, ahabeas corpus petition was filed on behalf of a detained 46-year-old double amputee with a pending permanent residence petition who had been taken into ICE custody based on a burglary conviction from his teenage years for which he had been pardoned in 2010. His attorney predicted that thousands more such petitions would be filed in the wake of the immigration appeals board decision.[124]
By February 2026,The New York Times reported "federal judges have found that the Trump administration has been ignoring longstanding legal interpretations that mandate the release of many people who are taken into immigration custody if they post a bond", resulting in lawsuits and many releases.[125]
Amid relatively low numbers of ICE arrests and deportations, Trump's administration sought to inflate the presence of deportations in media, such as by posting images of shackled deportees on social media, manipulating Google searches by updating timestamps of old ICE press releases, and allowing celebrities likeDr. Phil to accompany ICE raids.[113][128] Commentators described the media campaign as coming close to "glorifying violence and rough justice" and prioritizing "looking tough".[129] The meme-heavy publicity campaign was run by political appointees in their 20s, and received criticism from political commentators and scholars for being unprofessional and intentionally cruel,[130][131] and promotingwhite nationalism,remigration,Nazism,fascism, andantisemitism.[132][133][134]
In February 2025, the White House posted a video on social media showing immigrants in shackles being prepared for a deportation flight, along with footage of a set of handcuffs and chains jingling as they are pulled from a basket and laid out on airport tarmac next to others. The video was captioned "ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight", and was shared by the Seattle office of ICE, along with a different caption. Responses to the video ranged, with some cheering the actions shown in the video, while others called it disgusting and dehumanizing.[135]
In March 2025, DHS skipped acompetitive bidding process and awarded two Republican-linked firms $200 million to create an anti-migrant ad campaign that praised Trump. The adverts played on television channels and featured Kristi Noem thanking Trump and touting the administration's deportation efforts. The videos drew attention for their use of campaign-style footage of Trump.[136]
In late April 2025 the administration posted multiple stylized booking photos along theWhite House north lawns perimeter with the word 'Arrested' and a severe crime listed beneath an unblurred image.[137] The administration claims that the individuals depicted in the signs have all entered the country illegally and were all convicted of severe crimes such as murder, kidnapping, sexual assault of a child and rape. Shortly after the posting of the signs the official White House Twitter account posted photos used in the signs along with the individuals full names.[138]
Politico described the administration's legal setbacks on deportation being used as part of a public relations campaign that relied on "oversimplifications" and "misrepresentations" of his legal cases to tell the story of "a president trying to get violent criminals out of the country, only to be blocked by obstinate judges".[139]
Detainees have reported overcrowded and unsanitary conditions in ICE detention. A group of women was denied access to the bathroom and forced to urinate on the floor of a prison bus on the way to Krome detention center in Florida. Detainees have reported being denied access to food, water, and showers.[120]
A September 2025 report inThe Guardian on the Alexandria, Louisiana detention center documented overcrowding, substandard conditions, lack of access to medical treatment, stays longer than the three days allowed for short-term facilities, difficulties accessing lawyers and family, indifference from facility staff and other issues. Private companyGeo Group runs the Alexandria facility. Geo Group donated US$1 million to Trump-aligned political action committeeMAGA Inc. in 2024;[140] ICE acting directorTom Homan was a paid consultant to the firm prior to joining the Trump administration. Four days previous to a February 2025 ICE inspection of the facility it was given a waiver from standard medical screening standards for detainees. DHS and Geo Group representatives denied that there were issues with conditions at the Alexandria detention facility, but without addressing specifics.[141] A later report on an ICE detention facility inCalifornia City, California, echoed concerns about substandard conditions and alleged detainees who protested were put intosolitary confinement. Private companyCoreCivic, which reopened and runs the facility, a former state prison that had been closed in March 2024, denied the allegations. In addition to the conditions for detainees, advocates claimed it was being run without the necessary permits or approval process.[142]
A September 2025 report fromPhysicians for Human Rights, the Peeler Immigration Lab andHarvard University Law School experts on solitary confinement in ICE detention facilities showed an escalation under the Trump administration, including for individuals, durations and reasons that violated ICE guidelines as well as international standards for humane detention.[143][144] A November 2025 lawsuit alleged inhumane conditions in theBroadview ICE facility outside of Chicago. According to the lawsuit, detainees were denied access to bathrooms, clean beds, legal representation and contact with the outside world.[145] An Egyptian political asylee detained by ICE for 10 weeks said that his detention in the United States was as brutal as his detention in Egypt was.[146]
An October 2025 report by the American Civil Liberties Union documented numerous cases of ICE detention of pregnant women, in contravention of ICE's own policy against the practice.[147] At least 14 pregnant detainees were held at Basile Detention Center in Louisiana as of April 2025. ICE has stopped reporting the number of pregnant people in its custody and refused to hand that information over to Congress. The ACLU documented instances of "miscarriages, denial of prenatal care, and inadequate food and medical attention" faced by pregnant women in immigration detention.[148][149]
A December 2025 Amnesty International report found numerous human rights violations at Florida's "Alligator Alcatraz" and Krome detention centers. Violations and abuses identified by Amnesty included arbitrary detention, unsanitary conditions (toilets overflowing, limited access to showers, exposure to insects, 24-hour lighting, poor food and water quality and lack of privacy), andincommunicado detention at Alligator Alcatraz, as well as overcrowding, medical negligence, prolonged arbitrary and retaliatory solitary confinement, violence by guards, including in the presence of human rights monitors, and similarly unsanitary and inhumane detention conditions at Krome.[150][151] A leaked January 2026 video showed overcrowded, unsanitary conditions inside an ICE detention center inBaltimore, Maryland. Immigrant rights advocates had raised alarm about conditions in this facility in the spring of 2025.[152][153]
By the end of February, at least three people had died in ICE detention centers since the beginning of the Trump presidency.[154]
In April 2025, Washington state representativePramila Jayapal's office raised alarm over the suicide of a Chinese national in CBP custody at Yuma Border Patrol Station. Though her suicide was seen in surveillance footage, CBP could not verify whether required welfare checks were performed and did not render a medical response for nearly two hours.[155] On April 16, a 58-year-old Vietnamese refugee with dementia living in Albuquerque died in ICE detention, with his family alleging that he died due to medical neglect.[156] On April 25, a Haitian woman who had been detained at Broward Transitional Center died, leading to outcry over her alleged medical neglect.[157] Altogether, at least seven people died in ICE custody within the first 100 days of the Trump presidency.[158] By mid-May, nine had died,[159] including a 68-year-old man who died in transit the month after his confinement when he reportedly had been in good health.[160][161]
In June, a 49-year-old Canadian man died in ICE custody.[162] By July, 13 had died in ICE custody.[163] On August 7, a 32-year-old Chinese citizen was found hanging in his cell in ICE custody in Pennsylvania.[164]
On December 3, a 48-year-old man from Guatemala who reportedly had been healthy when detained and sent toCamp East Montana died in an El Paso hospital from liver and kidney complications. Earlier, his widow, who had been separated from him since their detention, had been deported to Guatemala.Amnesty International and other activists have called for the closure of Camp East Montana after multiple reports about conditions there; DHS has denied these reports.[165][166][167] On December 14, a 46-year-old Eritrean man died after seven months in ICE custody in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania.[168]
By December 2025, ICE had reported 32 detainee deaths since January 20, compared to 24 such deaths during the four-year presidency ofJoe Biden. The higher number of deaths was attributed to increased numbers of detainees, increased reliance on private detention facilities, frequent transfers between facilities and the dismantling of government offices investigating discrimination, neglect and mistreatment in detention.[169][170] The number of deaths in ICE detention in 2025 was the highest since 2004. In December, four people died in the span of four days according to ICE press releases.[171]
On January 3, 2026, a 55-year-old Cuban man died in ICE detention at Camp East Montana.[172] ICE said his death was a suicide, but a witness said he was choked by a guard.[173] Subsequently, the medical examiner who assessed his case ruled it a homicide.[174] On January 14, 36-year-old Nicaraguan immigrant Victor Manuel Diaz was the third person to die at Camp East Montana after being taken there by ICEfrom Minnesota.[175] In January 2026, 46-year-old Cambodian refugee Parady La died from drug withdrawal in ICE detention in Philadelphia. La's family accused ICE of medical neglect, saying they were told that he was begging for help in the final hours of his life.[176]
The Trump administration frequently states detainees targeted by ICE are "the worst of the worst" and violent criminals.The Economist described the claim as having "little basis in reality", with a majority of detainees having no criminal records.[177]
NBC News reported that the number of ICE detainees increased from 39,238 to 41,169 over the first two weeks of February 2025. They reported that almost all of the 4,422 new detainees were male, with only 22 females. The report stated that 41% of the new detainees had no criminal charges, compared to 28% under the Biden administration. The report also noted that ICE had the capacity to hold 41,500 people, and new capacity was being sought both in the United States and Guantanamo Bay.[178]
In early April 2025, attorneys for Venezuelan immigrants withtemporary protected status reported that their clients were being arrested and detained in possible violation of law, including while complying with rules to check in with ICE.[179] In May 2025, a group of Venezuelan detainees who had been temporarily blocked from deportation to El Salvador formed an "SOS" by linking their bodies together in the yard of the Bluebonnet Detention Facility. The detainees and their families have rejected government claims that they are gang members and decried the use of the Alien Enemies Act to circumvent the ordinary asylum process.[180]
By June 2025,The Independent highlighted released data that indicated non-criminal ICE arrests had jumped more than 800% since April, that only 30% of those in detention had criminal convictions with 27% having pending criminal charges, and only 8.5% of those with criminal records were for violent offenses. The increased non-criminal arrests were described as part of the Trump administration's efforts to ramp up deportations at all costs.[49]CNN reported internal ICE statistics showing less than 10% of immigrants in ICE custody since October 2024 had criminal offenses, and stated that internal ICE documents suggested officials were not focused on violent criminals.[50] On June 20 2025, theCato Institute reported on nonpublic data of ICE arrests that indicated 65% detained by ICE had no criminal convictions, and that 93% had no violent convictions.[51] A July 2025 analysis of statistics from the Deportation Data Project[181] shows that the proportion of immigrants convicted of violent crimes has dropped from the Biden administration's 10% to 7% during the Trump administration, when comparing the period January 20-June 26.[182] As of November 30, 2025, 73.6% of detainees had no criminal conviction. Many of the convicted detainees committed only minor defenses such as traffic violations.[183]
On January 29, 2026,The Economist reported that while the Trump administration claimed to be targeting "the worst of the worst", only 5% of recent detainees had been convicted of violent crimes.[184] At the end of the Biden administration, the percentage of criminals captured by ICE was at 64%, falling to roughly 30% by November 2025.[177]
In Pennsylvania, 10Lhotshampa Bhutanese refugees were detained in ICE raids.[185] As many as 60 Bhutanese refugees have been detained nationwide. Those detained were afforded refugee status, but ICE pointed to their criminal records, ranging from driving under the influence to felony assault, to justify the revocation of their legal status and their deportation. Many had already served their time in U.S. prisons or on probation and reintegrated into society.[186]
NeitherBhutan norNepal accepts Lhotshampa refugees as citizens, rendering them stateless when deported from the US.[186] Several of those deported were forced to return to refugee camps in Nepal.[187]
In February 2025, Reuters reported that ICE planned to locate over 600,000 people who entered the U.S. as children without their parents, some of whom were no longer children and some of whom had rejoined and were living with parents, and either deport them, if deportation had already been ordered, or serve notice to appear in immigration court.[188] On March 6, 2025, ICE began to detain immigrant parents and children together in a Texas detention facility. The first group contained 3 minor children.[189]
In October 2025, cases emerged where migrant children had been misclassified as unaccompanied or otherwise separated from their parents, who were then moved between several ICE detention facilities. Advocates feared this could lead to indefinite separations should the government lose track of where it was sending parents and their children.[190]
Also in October 2025, lawyers for unaccompanied minors in ICE custody began to receive word that their clients would be moved to adult detention facilities after their 18th birthdays. On October 4, U.S. District JudgeRudolph Contreras issued a temporary restraining order finding that ICE policy in violation of his 2021 order directing that such minors be released to the least restrictive setting available on turning 18 as long as they were not a danger to themselves or others and/or a flight risk.[191]
Adrian Conejo Arias and his five-year-old son, Liam, were apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) inMinnesota in January 2026 as part of a federal immigration enforcement action. The detention of Adrian and his son, which was documented in a photograph that went viral, gained significant attention as a representation of the increased deportation actions in Minnesota under the Trump administration.[192][193]
Later, a federal judge named Fred Biery ordered the release of the child and his father, denouncing the deportation policies of the administration as inhumane and illegal. The judge’s decision highlighted that the judiciary had to intervene to prevent further suffering for the family and that theDepartment of Homeland Security had to release them by February 3, 2026. This issue was mentioned in relation to the judiciary’s reaction to the detention of children and the treatment of minors in immigration enforcement.[194]
37,660 people were deported in Trump's first month in office, including both removals and returns, far fewer than the monthly average of 57,000 deportations under Biden in 2024.[195] CBP has reported a drastic decrease in encounters with migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, suggesting that a decrease in border crossings could explain the decrease in deportations.[196] The Trump administration has claimed that around 140,000 people had been deported as of April 2025, though some estimates put the number at roughly half that number.[29] On August 28, 2025,CNN reported thatU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) alone had deported nearly 200,000 people in seven months since Trump returned to office.[197]
An October 27, 2025 DHS press release claimed that more than 2 million people had been removed from the country, with 527,000 being deported while 1.6 million "voluntarilyself-deported".[198][199] TheCenter for Migration Studies called the statement "a self-serving fantasy", describing it as based on a flawed interpretation of population data and that a more realistic number was around 1/10th of claimed self-deportations.[200] The Brookings Institution estimated around 310,000 deported and 210,000 to 405,000 voluntary departures due to enforcement activity.[201][202]
Under immigration law, the government may deport individuals to third countries only when it is "impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible" to return them either to their home countries or send them to any previously designated alternative countries.[203][204] In 1994, the United States ratified theUnited Nations Convention Against Torture, prohibiting the expulsion of any person to another country where there are "substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture".[205]
In February 2025, the DHS directed immigration officers to review all cases of people granted protections against deportation to their home countries to determine if they could be detained and removed to a third country.[206] Soon after, ICE deporteda Guatemalan man to Mexico two days after he said in court that he had been abducted and raped in Mexico.[207]
According to documents obtained byCBS in August 2025,Honduras andUganda signed agreements with the United States to accept deportees from other countries. Honduras agreed to accept up to 200 deportees from otherSpanish-speaking countries in Latin America, including families with children, while Uganda will accept deportees from other African countries, provided they have no criminal records.[208][209]
.jpg)
On March 14, 2025, the Salvadoran government agreed to detain up to 300 alleged members ofTren de Aragua in return for US$4.76 million. The agreement incorporated several conditions including that none of the funds be used for legal counseling or referrals for the detainees.[210][211] On March 15,deportation flights operated byGlobal Crossing Airlines[212] carrying over 260 immigrants from Venezuela and El Salvador arrived in El Salvador where the immigrants were taken into custody at theTerrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). Neither the US nor Salvadoran governments offered any immediate evidence that those deported had been charged with crimes or had connections to any gangs.[213] A60 Minutes investigation failed to find any U.S. or foreign criminal charges against 179 of those deported, only finding serious criminal charges against about a dozen.[214] A Cato Institute investigation determined that more than 50 of the Venezuelans deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration had come to the United States legally and broken no immigration laws.[215] US District JudgeJames Boasberg ordered that any planes in the air carrying those covered by his order be turned back and those individuals returned to the US. The Trump administration allowed the flights to proceed in spite of his order.[216][217][218] On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that Judge James Boasberg was without jurisdiction to issue his order, thus the order was a nullity ascoram non judice.[219]
On March 28, US District JudgeBrian E. Murphy issued atemporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the DHS from deporting immigrants to a nation other than that covered in immigration proceedings without a "meaningful opportunity" to make a claim under theUN Convention against Torture.[220][221] Despite this order, on March 31 the US sent 17 immigrants it alleged without providing evidence to be members of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 on US military planes to El Salvador to be confined at CECOT.[222][223]
On April 18, 2025, Murphy granted apreliminary injunction requiring the government to follow the law by giving written notice before third-country removals and allowing claims under the UN Convention Against Torture. On May 7, 13 Laotian, Vietnamese, and Philippine immigrants learned that they would be deported the same day toLibya. Murphy prevented the flight with an order clarifying that the flight would violate the injunction.[224] On May 20, the DHS deported a group of immigrants from Myanmar and Vietnam toSouth Sudan.[225]
The Trump administration expanded third-country deportations of immigrants to Africa, with many of them having no connections to the continent.[226] His attempted deportations to Libya and South Sudan were described by legal experts as violating federal law prohibiting "non-refoulment" which prohibits sending people to dangerous countries where they are at risk of possible torture or persecution.[227] On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay of Murphy's injunction, along ideological lines, allowing the administration to continue deporting individuals to countries other than their own while the case proceeds in the district court.[228] In May 2025, eight men, from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, and Vietnam, were told by officials that they were being transferred from an ICE facility in Texas to a facility in Louisiana. However, the plane actually flew toCamp Lemonnier inDjibouti.[229] The men were shackled to a shipping container for multiple weeks before being later deported to South Sudan in July 2025.[229][230]
Later that same month, a further five men were deported toEswatini,[231] where they were detained in the Matsapha maximum security correctional complex. Reportedly, all the men, between the ages of 44 and 70, were living in the US after completing sentences for criminal offenses.[232] Ten more US detainees arrived in early October.[233] The US Department of State's 2023 human rights report on Eswatini noted credible reports of human rights violations including torture of some detainees.[234][235] One of the deportees, a Jamaican man who had been allowed to stay legally in the US since 2021 after serving out a prison sentence for murder, was taken into ICE custody while complying with his reporting requirements. He was transferred between detention facilities in New York, Louisiana and Texas and put on and then taken off a flight to Jamaica. The Jamaican government later stated it would have received him and he was in fact returned to Jamaica from Eswatini.[233]Human Rights Watch claimed Eswatini had agreed to accept up to 160 deportees from the US in return for US$5.1 million,[236] an amount Eswatini's finance minister later confirmed in testimony before the nation's parliament.[237] In a statement to the New York Times, DHS said that immigrants to the US who committed crimes should expect to “end up in [Salvadoran detention facility] CECOT, Eswatini, South Sudan, or another third country,”[238] while an attorney for two of those detained claimed “the United States is outsourcing their detention ... to purge the United States of immigrants and refugees and to make a spectacle of deportations.”[232]
On August 14, a coalition of legal and human rights groups asked the High Court of Eswatini to declare the agreement allowing the deportations and detentions unconstitutional, stating, "this litigation signals to the continent and the world that African nations cannot serve as dumping grounds for unresolved issues."[239] The International Organization for Migration (IOM) also offered assistance to the deportees.[240]
On October 15, a Cuban man began ahunger strike to protest his deportation from the US and confinement in Eswatini.[241]
In mid-August 2025 seven migrants were deported toRwanda. Rwanda had agreed in June to accept up to 250 migrants from the US, providing them with training, health care and accommodation,[242] in return for US$7.5 million.[236] The IOM also offered its assistance to these migrants. The Rwandan government provided no further information about the seven individuals. One activist toldAgence France-Presse that Rwanda had agreed to accept US migrants in return for the money andan advantage in US-brokered talks between it and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[243] These deportations took place despite concerns about Rwanda's human rights record; theUS Department of State's most recent human rights report for Rwanda noted numerous concerns including arbitrary killings and arrests, torture and degrading treatment.[244]
On September 5, 2025, the US flew 14 migrants from Alexandria, Louisiana toGhana, including at least five fromNigeria andThe Gambia who had immigration court orders preventing their deportation to their home countries.[245] The detainees were reportedly restrained instraitjackets for the 16-hour flight and not informed of their destination either before or after their arrival. Ghanaian PresidentJohn Dramani Mahama confirmed an agreement with the US to accept deportees on September 10.[246] On September 12,Asian Americans Advancing Justice filed suit on behalf of the five Nigerians and Gambians, four of whom were detained in Dema Camp under substandard conditions. Ghana had sent one former detainee on to The Gambia even though, as a gay man, the US immigration court held he could not be sent there under the provisions of the international Convention Against Torture.[247] In late September eight to ten of these migrants were taken toTogo where they were left to fend for themselves without identity documents or formal entry. Some of these migrants alleged they had been held in substandard conditions in Ghana and told they would be taken to a hotel before they were expelled.[248]
In her decisions on the lawsuit, US District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan called the US government's actions "a very suspicious scheme" intended as "an end run around the United States' obligations"[249] but that despite "the government’s cavalier acceptance of Plaintiffs’ ultimate transfer to countries where they face torture and persecution” her court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the case.[250][251]
On November 10, 2025, US SenatorJeanne Shaheen sent a letter to Secretary of StateMarco Rubio asking for an explanation for a $7.5 million payment to the government ofEquatorial Guinea in exchange for that nation agreeing to accept US deportees. The letter noted Equatorial Guinea's record of corruption and human rights violations, including several documented in State Department human rights and human trafficking reports. The payment, made from a fund intended for international relief to migrants and refugees, exceeded total US aid to Equatorial Guinea over the past eight years.[252] It followed approaches and meetings between high US government officials and Equatorial Guinean first vice presidentTeodoro Nguema Obiang, son and presumed successor of the nation's president. The younger Obiang reportedly received benefits from the US despite hiscourt settlement there, conviction in France and subjection to international sanctions for corruption.[253]
In the evening of February 20, 2025, 135 immigrants to the U.S. from Eastern European nations including 65 children arrived in Costa Rica. Five days later another group of 65 migrants including 16 children arrived.[254] Local authorities immediately loaded them onto buses for a six-hour ride to theTemporary Migrant Care Center near the border with Panama. The center is a former wood products facility that had been extensively remodeled in 2017.[255] The U.S. would reportedly pay for their transportation while the IOM would offer assistance with any onward migration.[256]
The office of Costa Rica's independentombudsman (Defender of Inhabitants) met and interviewed the immigrants and issued a report detailing problems with their treatment. The ombudsman's office claimed immigrants had arrived in "visible distress" and were unaware of their destination after leaving the U.S.; were not allowed to contact overseas relatives; had their identity documents taken from them; and did not receive proper medical or other services on arrival. Costa Rica's security minister Mario Zamora stated that the immigrants did receive proper care on their arrival to the temporary care center and that the ombudsman's report was based on limited contact with immigrants at the airport, a contention the ombudsman rejected.[257][258][259]
As of late April, 85 deportees remained in Costa Rica. They were allowed to leave the care center and permitted to remain in the country for three months, after which they were to have accepted voluntary repatriation or obtained legal status. Without some legal status, however, they were not allowed to obtain work.[260]
On June 24, 2025, theConstitutional Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court [es] ruled that the 28 migrants, including 13 minors, remaining at the care center be released; given an appropriate legal status in Costa Rica; have their economic and social needs evaluated and receive services to meet them; and be reimbursed for any damages suffered as a result of their confinement, all within 15 days.[261][262]
Earlier, Costa Rican PresidentRodrigo Chaves said his nation was receiving immigrants from the U.S. because it was "helping the economically powerful brother from the north who, if he puts a tax on the free trade zones, will wreck us".[263]
Panama agreed to accept US deportees from countries that US cannot deport directly to. These countries include Afghanistan, China, Iran, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. Once in Panama, they are governed by Panamanian law and are treated asimmigrants. Several have requested to be repatriated to their countries of origin. Panama is currently housing those who do not want to be repatriated in an immigrant camp. It is unclear what their further processing will involve.[264]
In the evening of February 12, 2025, the first of several U.S. military flights carrying deportees landed in Panama. President Mulino stated some 360 deportees/immigrants would arrive on these flights, be transferred to a camp inDarién and either repatriated or moved to still other countries at U.S. expense. TheInternational Organization for Migration (IOM) stated it was providing support to these immigrants at Panama's request, as did theUN High Commissioner for Refugees.[265]
The Panamanian government initially confined these immigrants in the Decapolis Hotel. Attorneys and journalists were largely unable to contact them. Those immigrants able to communicate with journalists said they were asylum seekers who feared persecution or worse if returned to their countries of origin, though U.S. Department of Homeland Security representatives claimed none had asserted such fears during U.S. processing or custody. Legal representatives for the migrants later stated the majority of those flown to Panama had never been given the opportunity to make an asylum claim through the standard "fear interview" required by US law.[266] The immigrants also stated at least one of their number had attempted suicide, while another suffered injuries attempting to escape from confinement.
One of the immigrants, Artemis Ghasemzadeh, a 27-year-old English teacher from Iran, said she hadconverted from Islam to Christianity, which is a capital offense in Iran.[267] With a pattern ofpersecution of Christians in Iran, Ghasemzadeh feared that she and otherIranian Christians would face the death penalty if she were to return there and has not agreed to be repatriated.[267][268] Ghasemzadeh also said a U.S. soldier who she was helping with translating information for other immigrants asked her not to mention that they were being taken to Panama[264] and that she had never been asked about or allowed to make a claim for asylum in the U.S.[269] Matthew Soerens, U.S. Director of Church Mobilization forWorld Relief, noted that in 2024, "30,000 of the 100,000 refugees resettled in the U.S. were Christians fleeing persecution."[268] Peyman Malaz, chief operating officer of the PARS Equality Center, noted that "Those who arrive at the border are often the most persecuted and desperate, such as Iranian Christians".[267] Other deported immigrants included a former Afghan military officer, ethnic minorities and LBGTQ+ individuals, and one young adult who had been separated from her family at the U.S. border.[270]
On the night of February 18, Panamanian authorities moved some 170 of the immigrants to the San Vicente camp four hours from Panama City, which previously housed people detained after crossing theDarien Gap. Journalists and attorneys were still unable to contact the immigrants.[271] In the meantime, at least one immigrant, reportedly a woman from China, escaped confinement,[272] while another woman from Ireland voluntarily returned there.[273] As of February 28, 2025, there were 9 additional Iranian Christian converts, including three children, detained in the camp. None have agreed to be repatriated to Iran.[269]
Panamanian politicians and commentators raised objections to these operations, stating that they were contrary to Panamanian and international law and that Panama should not become "the Guantanamo of Central America".[274][275] In mid-March 2025, Panamanian president Mulino said he did not know if more immigrant flights from the U.S. would arrive in Panama but that he was "not very inclined to do it, because they leave us with the problem".[270]
In late February 2025, lawyers representing immigrants being held in the Panamanian camp expressed concern that they had not been allowed to communicate with their clients, who they said had been flown out of the U.S. without being screened for asylum. Panamanian presidentJosé Raúl Mulino told a press conference he did not know why immigrants were being prevented from contacting legal counsel.[276] On March 1, lawyers filed suit against Panama before theInter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) charging that the U.S. violated the group's asylum rights, challenging Panama's authority to detain them and asking for emergency orders that none of the detainees be deported to their countries of origin. A separate suit against DHS was anticipated.[277]
On March 8, 2025, Panama released the 112 immigrants from San Vicente, gave them permits to remain in the country for 30 days (renewable for an additional 60 days), and bused them to Panama City. On their release, immigrants reported substandard conditions in the San Vicente camp, including limited access to medical treatment; limited communication with families, legal representatives and journalists; and lack of information about their status and possible onward destinations. Several immigrants with possible claims to asylum said those claims had not been considered and that Panamanian authorities had told them "we do not accept asylum." Immigrants' legal representatives expressed concerns that the move was an attempt by Panama to wash its hands of the individuals the US sent to it and to affect the outcome of the case before the IACHR.[278][279] Representatives for the migrants stated that as of mid-May 2025 about half had left Panama, mostly for Mexico, while others remained in shelters provided by UNICEF or local churches.[266] As of late May none of the few applications migrants made for asylum in Panama had been approved while at least nine were rejected, most summarily.[280] Later, the migrants were allowed to remain in Panama until December 2025 but not allowed to work. While some eventually obtained asylum, others continued to face difficulties and they and representatives of charitable organizations complained of governmental indifference and a lack of support.[281]
On January 29, 2025, Trump ordered the preparation of theGuantanamo Bay detention camp to house tens of thousands of immigrants.[46] Since its opening in 2002, Guantanamo Bay previously held 779 detainees, mostly without charges or trial. Detainees had their legal rights restricted and were subjected totorture. The detention camp previously cost half a billion dollars per year, making it the most expensive prison in the world.[282]
In February, 178 Venezuelan immigrants were being held in the camp, of whom 126 had criminal records.[283] On February 20, a Homeland Security official stated "177 of the 178 migrants at Guantánamo Bay were deported...The one other person was sent to a detention facility in the U.S."[284]
The Trump administration has faced difficulties using Guantanamo as an immigrant detention facility. These included lack of planning, cost, uncertainty about whether ICE or the DoD would be responsible for the immigrants, the lack of policy guidance around support for facilities and services for immigrants, and the questionable legality of the transfers. A bipartisancongressional delegation was scheduled to travel to the camp, but was cancelled by U.S. Secretary of DefensePete Hegseth.[48]
As of March 3, the population of the camp was around 20,[48] and as of March 13, no immigrants were being held at Guantanamo.[285] By early April several dozen immigrants "on final orders supposedly to head to their final destination" were being temporarily held at Guantanamo, including Nicaraguans who had been added to a deportation flight originating in Louisiana.[286]
In June 2025, after administration efforts to dramatically increase detention of migrants,[287] Politico reported on plans to begin sending thousands of those detained to Guantanamo Bay. Those considered for transfer reportedly included 800 Europeans, some from nations considered to be cooperative in receiving their deported citizens.[288] According to U.S. SenatorGary Peters, detaining migrants at Guantanamo Bay cost $100,000 per day per detainee.[289] Days later, those plans appeared to have been put on hold and administration spokespeople denied their existence.[290]
The United States cannot unilaterally send deportation flights to other countries; there must be an established agreement with each nation to accept the deportation flights, and they must have diplomatic ties. Some countries, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela, have largely refused to accept these flights. ICE has historically utilized handcuffs and chains to return deportees, which is stated to be a protection measure; however, since the start of the 2025 deportation flights, multiple countries have raised issues with the use of handcuffs and chains.[33] Legal and human rights observers have noted that such flights, to nations possibly under tariff and other threats from the U.S. and where some immigrants are detained without regular access to counsel, family communication or identity documents, may lack transparency and violate immigrants' rights.[291]
The majority of deportation flights are undertaken by private contractors. A typical flight is staffed with more than a dozen privately contracted security guards, two nurses, an ICE officer, and flight attendants. Flights can carry more than 100 detainees, who are restrained for the duration of the flight. Flight attendants withGlobal Crossing Airlines (GlobalX), a contractor for deportation flights, shared concerns withProPublica about their experiences on board those flights. Attendants were given no instructions as to how to evacuate restrained passengers in an emergency, and some were informally told to save themselves and other government contractors while abandoning deportees. They also raised concerns over inadequate air conditioning and lavatory facilities, as well as rules prohibiting them from speaking with, making eye contact with or feeding detainees.[292] Leaked GlobalX data reviewed by The Guardian showed more than 1700 flights, mostly between US airports, carried migrants between January and May 2025. In that time GlobalX transported 1000 children, including 500 under the age of 10 and 22 infants. Migrants were moved repeatedly to locations far from their families, communities and legal representatives; not informed of their destinations; and reportedly threatened with long-distance transfers and separation from family if they did not agree to accept voluntary departure. Some 3600 were transferred five or more times including some who had been moved up to 20 times. DHS representatives denied these allegations without providing specifics.[293]
On January 26, 2025,Colombian PresidentGustavo Petro barred two U.S. military planes carrying deported Colombian nationals from landing in the country, requesting that deportees be "treated with dignity" and sent to Colombia on civilian aircraft. Trump and Petro both threatened the other with tariffs. Later that day, U.S. officials assured Colombian officials that they would not place the deportees in handcuffs nor photograph Colombian citizens aboard the flights after they were returned, and that deportees would be escorted by Department of Homeland Security officials instead of military personnel.[294] The White House then announced that Colombia had agreed to allow the planes to land.[295] Former Colombian presidentIván Duque criticized Petro's initial decision and stated onX: "It is urgent that the Petro government put the country above its populist prejudices and anti-US rhetoric and quickly establish protocols for receiving deported Colombians."[296]
Since 2005, the US has deported thousands of Ecuadorians. In 2023, 18,449 Ecuadorians were deported. In 2024, 13,589 Ecuadorians were deported, according to the Ecuadorian ministry of foreign affairs.[297][298]
From January to March 2025, 1,828 Ecuadorians had been deported so far[299] on 18 flights that travel Thursdays and Tuesdays each week.[300] The usual trip goes from Texas to Guayaquil.[298]
The second Trump administration continued the Biden administration's deportation of Salvadoran immigrants to their country of nationality. In 2024, an average of ten deportation flights per month arrived in El Salvador from the US.[301] As of early February 2025, a Salvadoran government official stated there had been no massive deportations from the US to El Salvador.[302]
Kilmar Armando Abrego García, a Salvadoran withwithholding of removal status in the United States, was mistakenly deported toEl Salvador on March 15, 2025, an action theTrump administration admitted was an "administrative error"[303] while also accusing him of being a member and leader of theMS-13 gang.[304] Despite a withholding of removal prohibiting his removal to El Salvador due to the risk of persecution, he was detained by ICE and transferred to the Center for Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT) in Tecoluca.[304] His wife, a U.S. citizen, and their disabled son filed a lawsuit over the deportation and on April 4 a court ordered the government to return him to the U.S. by April 7.[305] On April 10, the Supreme Court ordered Trump to facilitate his return to the United States, finding his deportation to El Salvador had been improper.[44]
In a whistleblower complaint filed in June 2024, government attorney Erez Reuveni alleged multiple instances of misconduct around these deportations involving senior Trump administration officials. These included misleading and withholding information from the courts, willfully violating injunctions, keeping information and guidance about injunctions from government agencies, instructing him not to inquire or communicate in writing about possible violations of court orders and making arguments and statements known to be false. Reuveni was fired after refusing to sign an appeal brief in Abrego Garcia's case that included assertions and arguments he believed to be untrue.[306][307]
In late January 2025, a Guatemalan governmental official stated that three military flights from the US carrying 265 individuals had arrived in Guatemala.[308]
On August 29, 2025, CNN reported the administration planned to return 600 Guatemalan minors who had arrived in the US unaccompanied.[309] The Guatemalan government stated it had reached a bilateral accord with the US, presented by Department of Homeland Security SecretaryKristi Noem during her visit to Guatemala in June, that would guarantee the safe return and family reunification of Guatemalan minors in the US who otherwise might have been placed in custody and provide the returnees with Guatemalan government assistance. TheNational Immigration Law Center and theYoung Center for Immigrant Children's Rights filed a class action suit to block the removals of the Guatemalan minors. After a hearing on August 30, District of Columbia District JudgeSparkle L. Sooknanan ordered that no unaccompanied Guatemalan minors be removed from the US for at least 14 days.[310] Government lawyers confirmed that after the judge's ruling children who had been put on planes headed to Guatemala, at least one of which might have taken off but then returned to the US, were removed and returned to theOffice of Refugee Resettlement.[311]
On September 18, federal district judgeTimothy J. Kelly extended Judge Sooknanan's emergency order to all Guatemalan minors who entered the US alone and have not exhausted their immigration appeals.[312] Judge Kelly's order enjoins the government from removing these minors from the US. In his order, Judge Kelly noted there was no evidence any of the children's families had asked for their return as the government had claimed; referenced awhistleblower report to Congress that at least 30 of the children had been abused in Guatemala;[313] and warned the government against taking his decision as an invitation to remove minors from other countries, some 2,000 of whom are in government facilities.[314] Judge Kelly was appointed by Donald J. Trump.
On January 23, 2025,Mexico denied a United States military plane the ability to land, causing the plane to never take off while two others bound for Guatemala did. Later that week, White House press secretaryKaroline Leavitt tweeted that Mexico accepted four deportation flights in one day from the ICE Air Operations and government-chartered flights.[315]
On February 14, 2025, Mexican PresidentClaudia Sheinbaum said that 13,455 immigrants had been deported to Mexico, 2,970 of which did not originate from Mexico.[316]
An investigation byThe Guardian and+972 Magazine identified two deportation flights of Palestinians arrested by ICE utilizing the private plane ofGil Dezer, a business partner and friend of Trump. The flights landed atBen Gurion airport where Israeli security forces transported the deportees to acheckpoint in theoccupied West Bank. Dezer's plane was also used in deportation flights toKenya,Liberia,Guinea andEswatini.[317]
The Guardian reported two deportation flights carrying about 80 Russian asylum applicants left Louisiana for Cairo in June and August 2025. In Cairo, the deportees were forced onto planes to Moscow. Russian security services interrogated some en route; at least one, a military deserter facing a 10-year sentence in Russia who claimed to have entered the US lawfully, was tied to his seat. Another Russian asylum seeker reported poor conditions and treatment in theAdams County Correctional Center in Natchez, Mississippi that had caused him to lose 24 kilos. Activists called the deportations "cruel and shameful" and asked Canada to offer asylum to Russian government opponents under US deportation orders. DHS declined to comment on these deportations.[318]
In February 2025, a mixed-status family was removed from the U.S. to Mexico after stopping at aBorder Patrol checkpoint inSarita, Texas, about 90 miles fromthe border. The parents in the family are Mexican citizens, and several of the children are U.S. citizens. The family had been living in theRio Grande Valley in Texas and were en route toHouston, where their 10-year-old daughter, a U.S. citizen recovering from brain cancer, had been receiving treatment. Despite having previously been allowed to pass the checkpoint with a doctor's letter, during their February trip they were detained and questioned, the daughter's medication was allegedly confiscated, and they were held overnight at a federal processing facility near the border before being walked into Mexico the next day. The mother said "[we] were confronted with the hardest decision to make, which was separate permanently from our children, or be deported together".[319][320]
A two-year-old U.S. citizen, V.M.L., was taken into custody with her mother and older sister during a "routine check-in" with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Louisiana on April 22, 2025.[321] A "next friend" of V.M.L. petitioned for a writ ofhabeas corpus to obtain toddler's release, and for a temporary restraining order preventing her deportation.[322] The government responded that V.M.L.'s mother was being deported and wished to take V.M.L. with her to Honduras, and presented the court with a hand-written letter saying so, allegedly written by the mother. On April 25, JudgeTerry Doughty asked to speak with the mother to confirm this and consider the petitions. But ICE had already put the mother and two girls on a plane,[321] and although they were still in flight to Honduras when Doughty asked to speak with the mother, ICE did not respond until after they had deplaned in Honduras.[322] Doughty ordered a hearing for May, saying that it was "In the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningfulprocess".[321]
TheAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated that another family, with U.S. citizen children ages four and seven, was deported from Louisiana the same day. The ACLU added that one of the children has a rare form of metastatic cancer and "was deported without medication or the ability to consult with their treating physicians–despite ICE being notified in advance of the child's urgent medical needs".[321]
The administration has focused itscatch and revoke program on foreign students who have engaged in pro-Palestinian speech, characterizing them as pro-Hamas.[323] On March 25, 2025, the state department issued a directive stating that visa applicants would be ineligible if their social media activity indicated that they were "advocating for, sympathizing with, or persuading others to endorse or espouse terrorist activities or support a designated foreign terrorist organization", and that similar activity could result in the revocation of existing visas.[324] On April 9, 2025, the DHS announced it will screen social media accounts for what it deems to be "antisemitic".[325][326]
On April 8, 2025, in response to the large number ofstudent visa revocations,Inside Higher Ed started tracking the number of known visa revocations for students and recent alumni, and mapping the colleges and universities reporting visa revocations. As of the morning of April 9, the tracker showed 419 students and recent alumni from over 80 institutions of higher education across the U.S. In many cases, immigration authorities have not notified the institutions of the reasons for the visa revocations.[327]
As of 24 June 2025, there have been four deportees that US courts have ordered be returned to the US. They include:
Several other migrants have been deported in violation of law and/or court orders. Guatemalan migrantMaribel Lopez, who has a US citizen child and a pending asylum case, was wrongfully deported to Guatemala and then returned to ICE custody in September 2025.[332]Britania Uriostegui Rios, a Mexicantransgender woman, was deported to Mexico in violation of an immigration court order in November 2025. Her wrongful deportation was discovered only after her lawyers made inquiries. ICE has said it would allow her to reenter the US; she sued to force ICE to release her from custody on her return.[333][334]Any Lucia Lopez Belloza was detained by ICE while attempting to fly from Boston to Texas to visit her family for Thanksgiving. She was sent to a Texas detention facility and then to Honduras despite an emergency federal court order prohibiting her deportation.[335] On December 7, federal agents appeared at Lopez's family's Austin, TX home but left after two hours.[336] The administration was reported to have apologized for deporting Lopez Belloza.[337]
_Enforcement_and_Removal_Operations_(ERO)_in_Los_Angeles%2c_California%2c_June_12%2c_2025_-_78.jpg)
.jpg)
During thesecond presidency of Donald Trump, federal immigration enforcement policies and operations have resulted in the documented arrest,[338] death,[c] detention,[345] and removal[346][347] ofAmerican citizens. As of October 2025, the U.S. government was not tracking the number of detained or missing citizens, butProPublica confirmed at least 170 citizen detentions by that time.[348] The deportation of U.S. citizens from the United States is illegal.[d][349]
High-profile detention cases of American citizens include arrests of elected officials,[350][351] disabled adults[352][353] and children,[354] andPuerto Rican andIndigenous people.[355][356]Donald Trump has supportedtaking away citizenship from Americans[357] and detaining citizens in foreign prisons noted forhuman rights abuses.[358][359][360]
Congressional Democrats have challenged the Trump administration to justify the detention of U.S. citizens and have been blocked by the Trump administration from investigating, passing laws limiting abuses, or overseeing immigration actions affecting U.S. citizens.[361] Trump, other Republicans, and administration officials alternately confirmed,[345] defended,[362] and denied[362] reports of American citizens being arrested, deported, and detained.Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was confirmed by independent review and U.S. judges to have violated laws including theImmigration Act of 1990 by interrogating and detaining people without warrants or review of their citizenship status.[338]
The Trump administration's treatment of U.S. citizens has raised concerns among civil rights advocates.[338] Some activists have compared the impact of ICE on American citizens toconcentration camps such asManzanar, where Japanese-Americans were interned duringWorld War II.[363][364] Between 110,000 and 120,000 U.S. citizens[365] were imprisoned by the U.S. government during theinternment of Japanese Americans forpolitical reasons from 1942 to 1945.[363][364] TheCato Institute called Trump's immigration regime damaging to American interests.[338] Legal and immigration experts have stated that these legal violations were caused by Trump administration pressure to deport people quickly without safeguards.[356]
According to the Brazilian news outletg1, Brazilian illegal immigrants living in the US report that they are skipping work and avoiding sending their children to school for fear of arrest. They are also using messaging apps, such asWhatsApp, to share real time information on the movements of ICE. In some instances this has led to panic due to misinformation, such as a false report of ICE drones flying over neighborhoods. Social organizations, such as Boston's Brazilian Worker Center, have hosted information meetings where immigrants can learn their rights and set up custody documents for their children in case the parents are deported. Many of these meetings are held online since people are afraid to go out of their homes.[366]
An 11-year-old girl inGainesville,Texas named Jocelyn Carranza committed suicide after students at her school started a rumor that ICE would deport her family.[367]
After a man named Maher Tarabishi was arrested by ICE in October 2025, his 30 year-old son Wael, who was diagnosed withPompe disease, suffered multiple serious health emergencies. The Tarabishi family called for Maher's release on humanitarian grounds, as Maher was Wael's primary caregiver and his detention compromised Wael's health.[368] Waeldied of complications of Pompe disease on January 23, 2026.[369]
Some school districts, such as in California, New York, Georgia, and Illinois, have already issued sweeping directives stating that district teachers, officials and administration were not to comply with ICE officials or allow them on school grounds unless they were presented with a valid court-issued warrant.[32] Several schools reportedly had parents and guardians of students calling shortly after the inauguration about concerns of ICE agents being able to access school grounds.[370] An article from WBTV shared that on March 5, students from Monroe High School located in Monroe, North Carolina walked out in order to protest against ICE raids in schools to share their support for their peers.[371] In June 2025, theLos Angeles Unified School District announced plans to implement a security perimeter aroundgraduation sites to protect students and families from ICE.[372]
In 2024, theAmerican Immigration Council estimated the cost of conducting a million deportations at $967.9 billion in federal government spending over a decade.[373]
Deportations are a lucrative business and the WSJ reported in May 2025, how billions are spent each year in detaining people, in frequently moving them from one of the one hundred US detention centers to the next, and in providing toiletries, food and telecommunication services. In FY 2023 enforcement and removal operations alone cost $4.5 billion.[374]
After it was announced that Trump was utilizing military planes to deport individuals, it was estimated that each flight cost over $850,000. Each of the recent deportation flights had about 80 people on board.[375][376]
Construction, manufacturing, agriculture, service, and childcare are among the sectors that employ large numbers of illegal immigrants.[34][377][378][379]Adam Tooze said that the planned deportations would cause "a series of rolling shocks to a large part of the U.S. economy" and would also affect people outside those sectors by raising prices.[377] Manuel Cunha Jr., the president of the Nisei Farmers League in California, said, "If you took away my workforce, you wouldn't eat.... The country will stop, literally stop because the food system won't move."[380] Lack of childcare would prompt some people to leave the workforce.[379]
Shortly after Trump took office in January 2025, rumors of mass deportations and fears of increased ICE raids impacted the agriculture sector with massive drops in field workers who showed up for work the day after the inauguration.[31] Preliminary data from the Census Bureau showed that 1.2 million immigrants had left the US workforce between January and July 2025. The agricultural sector was particularly affected, with watermelon, cantaloupe, corn and cotton harvests delayed and crops wasted. Contractors in the construction sector were also unable to fill job openings. The largest regional loss of construction workers was in California, where more than 13,000 workers were lost.[381]
After it was reported that ICE might arrest people at hospitals, hospitals in Washington[382] and Georgia[383] advised staff to alert security guards or supervisors if they were questioned by ICE. The states of Texas and Florida required healthcare facilities to "to ask the immigration status of patients and tally the cost to taxpayers of providing care to immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization".[384]
In Minnesota, ICE personnel entered a hospital without a judicial warrant. They handcuffed one patient to their bed, and remained in the patient's room for one day. After 28 hours, the ICE officers were confronted and removed from the hospital. Some advocates asked for hospitals to change policies to prevent ICE from entering emergency rooms and hospitals, though no policy change was reported.[385][386]
It was reported in February 2025 that law enforcement had arrested individuals in at least three states that were allegedly impersonating ICE officers during the ramping up of deportations. Sean-Michael Johnson was arrested in South Carolina and charged with kidnapping and impersonating a police officer after reportedly detaining a group of Latino men. Johnson was recorded by one of the men saying "Where are you from, Mexico? You from Mexico? You're going back to Mexico!". In North Carolina, Carl Thomas Bennett was arrested for impersonating an ICE officer and sexually assaulting a woman threatening to deport her if she did not comply. A Temple student was charged as one of a group of students, wearing shirts with "Police" and "ICE" printed on them, that attempted to enter a residence hall and then moved to disrupt a local business in Pennsylvania.[387][388]
In early January 2025, tribal leaders of theNavajo Nation inArizona reported that they have received calls and text messages from Navajo people living in urban areas who have been stopped, questioned, or detained by ICE, prompting a detailed discussion of the topic during a Naabik’íyáti’ Committee meeting. State SenatorTheresa Hatathlie, who representsArizona's 6th legislative district, joined the committee meeting and shared her report in theNavajo language.[389] Hatathlie reported to the Council that she received a call about a case involving eight Navajo citizens who were detained for hours with no cell phones or ability to contact their families or tribes.
In November 2025, a member of theSalt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community was put on a detainer for ICE due to a clerical error. The error was resolved by family and local authorities, and she was not detained by ICE.[390]
In January 2026 in Minnesota, ICE detained four enrolled members of theOglala Sioux Tribe. DHS refused to release information on the men unless the entered tribe into an agreement with ICE, which tribal leadership refused to do, saying it would violate their treaty laws.[391][392][393] As of January 15, 2026, three of the men remained in ICE custody.[394]
Also in January 2026, ICE followed and stopped a member ofRed Lake Nation in Minnesota. ICE officers dragged him out of his car, repeatedly struck him, and detained him, despite his attempts to comply and despite being informed that he was an American citizen and tribal citizen. His aunt captured the event on her camera. ICE accused the citizen of assaulting an officer, told him he would face charges, and released him later that evening.[395][396]
April Ignacio, who grew up and lives on theTohono Oʼodham Nation (whose tribal lands are on both sides of the Arizona-Mexico border and whereU.S. Customs and Border Protection has had a presence for decades) said that the Trump administration's new policies are taking aim at tribal communities "in new and shocking ways", which will draw attention to the communities and spur tribal responses.[citation needed]
The termination of thehumanitarian parole program by Donald Trump's administration in March 2025 will particularly impact hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans who had entered the United States legally under the policy implemented by PresidentJoe Biden. The measure, scheduled to take effect on April 24, 2025, will revoke work permits and deportation protections for these immigrants, requiring them to leave the country or face removal.[397] Originally designed to provide a legal and orderly pathway for Venezuelans fleeing a severe political and economic crisis, the program allowed applicants to enter the U.S.[398] with the support of a financial sponsor and gain immediate access to the labor market.[399]
Out of the more than 500,000 individuals admitted through this mechanism, a significant proportion were Venezuelan nationals who relied on this route to avoid dangerous and illegal border crossings. The program also applied to immigrants fromCuba,Haiti, andNicaragua, theVenezuelan diaspora represented the largest contingent, driven by one of the most extensive displacement crises inLatin America. TheDepartment of Homeland Security argued that the program failed to effectively reduce pressure on local communities and support systems, citing the continued high levels of illegal immigration. The repeal reflects a broader shift in immigration policy under Trump toward stricter border control measures, supported byRepublican critics of Biden's more open immigration stance, despite the parole program's role in reducing illegal immigration flows from Venezuela.[400][401]
Los Angeles Metro saw a 10% to 15% decline in bus and rail ridership from June 6 to June 20, 2025, following immigration raids in the Los Angeles area.[402][403]
 | This section needs to beupdated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(June 2025) |
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement has a webpage with statistics of its "enforcement and removal operations". It says it is "updated quarterly", but as of June 2025[update], it had not been updated since the previous year-end (before Trump took office).[404] One study by the Center for Immigration Studies suggested that from January to July 2025, the total foreign-born population of the United States fell by 2.2 million, including 600,000 non-citizens with legal status. However, researchers cautioned that the limited sample size of this survey and the reluctance of immigrants to respond to surveys in a time of increased enforcement may have led to survey results that over-state the impact of Trump's deportation policies.[405]
When Trump took office, ICE began posting its statistics on X.
| Day | Arrests (% change from prior Day) |
|---|---|
| January 23 | 538 |
| January 24 | 593(+9.27%  ) |
| January 25 | 286(-51.8%  ) |
| January 26 | 956(+334% ) |
| January 27 | 1,179(+23.3% ) |
| January 28 | 969(-17.8% ) |
| January 29 | 1,016(+15.6% ) |
| January 30 | 962(-5.3% ) |
| January 31 | 913(-5.1% ) |
| February 1 | 864(-5.4% ) |
| February 2 | 736(-14.8% ) |
| February 3 | 715(-2.9% ) |
| February 4 | 815(+14% ) |
| Totals as of February 4 | 10,542 |
| Month | Deportations (% change from prior Month) |
|---|---|
| February 22, 2025 | 37,660[195] |
| March 22 | TBD(+) |
| April 22 | TBD(+) |
| May 22 | TBD(+) |
Immigration lawyers and former judges described the administration as taking multiple actions in an attempt to bypass immigration courts and the right to due process, including moving protections from deportation, canceling grants to provide legal representation to children, firing judges responsible for hearing cases, and deporting migrants to prisons in third countries. Trump and administration figures frequently criticized giving due process to immigrants.[415] Trump's attempts to limit due process for immigrants using theAlien Enemies Act and obscure provisions of theImmigration and Nationality Act stoked controversy with federal judges and the Supreme Court, with many attempted deportations being halted.[42] Large numbers of sitting federal judges, included ones appointed by Trump himself, condemned the attempts to erode due process, warning that erosion of due process for alleged "terrorists" and "gang members" could easily be expanded to other groups.[416]
On January 25, it was reported that some immigrant rights groups in Chicago filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration against the deportation plans, claiming the specific targeting of sanctuary cities such as Chicago violated the US Constitution. The executive director of Raise the Floor Alliance, Sophia Zaman, claimed the motives of the raids were retaliatory by the Trump administration against the cities policies.[417]
Shortly after the announcement of the rollback of an Obama-era directive that protected immigrants in sensitive areas such as hospitals, places of worship and schools, a coalition ofQuakers filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to block ICE raids on houses of worship. The coalition included thePhiladelphia Yearly Meeting,New England Yearly Meeting,Baltimore Yearly Meeting, Adelphi Friends Meeting and the Richmond Friends Meeting.[418] The Quakers coalition argued that the practice of communal worship is uniquely harmed by the possibility of immigration arrest or search, as worship commonly involves multiple congregates sitting in silence to await a message from God.[419]
On February 11, 2025, a coalition of more than two dozen Christian and Jewish denominations sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) et al. over its decision to allow ICE agents to raid houses of worship to make arrests. The groups are asserting that the raids will violate their religious freedom rights under theFirst Amendment. The case was filed in theU.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.[420]
Numerous challenges have been made in court to the deportation policies. In April 2025, the US Supreme Court ruled against deportation of Venezuelans held in Texas.[45]
After dozens of farmworkers and laborers were arrested in California's Central Valley, Judge Jennifer Thurston ordered an end to ICE's raids in the region, saying they were stopping people without warrants or reasonable suspicion.[421]
Several members of Congress complained that they were denied access to detention facilities in violation of federal law.[422][423][424][425]
On June 11, 2025, theUnited States Department of Justice Civil Division released a memo directing its prosecutors to focus efforts on bringing cases in federal courts against certain naturalized US citizens with the aim ofstripping them of their US citizenship. The categories specified in the memo included individuals with "a nexus to terrorism", gang members, those engaged in financial fraud and those who may have misrepresented facts in their citizenship applications.[426] Immigration experts expressed concern that such court cases could be abused to target opponents of the Trump administration who, once their citizenship had been removed, could be deported.[427]
After reports that the administration planned to offer unaccompanied minor migrants US$2,500 to waive their rights and return to their countries of origin,[428] US RepresentativeDelia Ramirez (D-IL 3) and 21 others sent a letter to DHS requesting information on the plans and the steps DHS would take to ensure compliance with theTrafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and other legal requirements covering the treatment of such migrants.[429]
| It has been suggested that this section besplit out into another article titledImmigration detention in the second Trump administration. (Discuss)(February 2026) |
Most immigration arrests are carried out under non-judicialadministrative warrants that do not authorizeuse of force fornonconsensual entry onto private property or othernonpublic spaces, and are authorized byimmigration judges,immigration officers, or agencies within the executive branch rather than afederal district judge ormagistrate judge.[430][431] In January 2026,Whistleblower Aid filed ananonymous complaint with Congress disclosing an internal May 2025 ICE memorandum articulating a policy directive approved by acting ICE DirectorTodd Lyons that authorized the use of administrative warrants forarrest by ICE agents in places of residence that the complaint contends violates theFourth Amendment.[432] While the memo states that DHS did not rely exclusively on administrative warrants foralien arrests in places of residence historically, the memo also states that the DHSgeneral counsel's office had recently concluded that doing so was not prohibited by theU.S. Constitution, theImmigration and Nationality Act, orimmigration regulations.[433] While the memo asserts that administrative warrants are notsearch warrants and have aknock-and-announce requirement, the memo also asserts that ICE agents are permitted to forcibly enter residences to make arrests and detentions pursuant to afinal order of removal issued by an immigration judge, theBoard of Immigration Appeals, a federal district judge, or a federal magistrate judge.[434]
The complaint alleges that the memo was not widely circulated within the agency and exposure to it was highly controlled, with some DHS employees being asked to return the memo after reading it; one of the two whistleblowers was only allowed to view the memo alongside a supervisor, required to return it after reading, and barred from taking any notes.[432] However, the complaint alleges that the memo's content has been used to train ICE officers deployed on thenationwide immigration raids and continues to be required guidance for new ICE officers and trainees—despite other written DHS training materials explicitly contradicting the memo's administrative warrants guidance.[432] How widely the memo's guidance was applied was unknown at the time of the complaint; theAssociated Press reported that documents it reviewed of aforced entry and arrest in Minneapolis on January 11, 2026 showed the ICE agents involved only procured an administrative warrant.[432] In a press statement addressing the memo after its disclosure, DHS spokespersonTricia McLaughlin stated that persons affected by administrative warrants received "fulldue process and a final order of removal from an immigration judge. The officers issuing these administrative warrants also have found probable cause. For decades, the Supreme Court and Congress have recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement."[433]
The memo has been criticized by legal scholars and immigration lawyers,[435][436] and at least one lawsuit has been filed to block its implementation.[437][438] Administrative warrants are authorized and generally required for immigration arrests under Section 1226(a) ofTitle 8 of the United States Code,[439][440] whileSection 1357(a) of Title 8 provides aplain view ofillegal entry exception and areason to believe andlikelihood of escape exception to Section 1226 that allow forwarrantless arrests.[441][442] Lyons issued a subsequent memo pursuant to Section 1357(a) in January 2026,[443][444] while a federal judge inOregon ruled in a class-action lawsuit against DHS the following month that immigration officers may not conduct warrantless arrests without a likelihood of escape.[445] While theU.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of administrative warrants inAbel v. United States (1960) and the constitutionality of Section 1226 inDemore v. Kim (2003),[439] theCongressional Research Service (CRS) referenced the Court's decisions inAlmeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) andUnited States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975) in reports released in 2021 and 2025 as establishing that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against "unreasonablesearches and seizures" extends to arrests and detentions to enforce civil immigration law in the interior of the United States—where theborder search exception does not generally apply and without regard to an alien'simmigration status.[446][441]
Referencing the Supreme Court's decision inMaryland v. Pringle (2003), the 2025 CRS report noted further that lower federal courts have interpreted the reason to believe exception of Section 1357(a) for warrantless immigration arrests to be equivalent to the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement, and have applied the Supreme Court's holding inGraham v. Connor (1989) that the Fourth Amendment prohibits theuse of excessive force in criminal law cases over immigration arrests.[447] While noting the Supreme Court's holdings inCalifornia v. Greenwood (1988) andFlorida v. White (1999) permittingwarrantless searches in public spaces due to the absence of areasonable expectation of privacy, the 2025 CRS report references lower federal court rulings that nonetheless held that ICE agents must have probable cause of the presence of an unlawful alien and the exigent circumstance of a likely escape to conduct a warrantless arrest, as well as conflicting lower court rulings on conducting warrantless surveillance for immigration enforcement inplaces of worship due to restrictions from theFirst Amendment and theReligious Freedom Restoration Act.[448]
Noting the Supreme Court's rulings inStoner v. California (1964),Mancusi v. DeForte (1968),Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973),Marshall v. Barlow's (1977),Payton v. New York (1980),California v. Ciraolo (1986), andRiley v. California (2014), the 2025 CRS report cites lower federal court rulings that have held that administrative warrants do not confer the same legal authority asjudicial warrants, and have ruled that ICE agents have violated the Fourth Amendment when forcibly entering private homes without a judicial warrant and where noestablished Fourth Amendment exceptions applied.[448] However, referencing the Supreme Court's rulings inBrignoni-Ponce,Florida v. Royer (1983),Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado (1984), andMuehler v. Mena (2005), the 2025 CRS report noted that while the Court has held that whileinterrogation alone without detention about a person's citizenship in public places does not violate the Fourth Amendment, the Court has held that brief detentions without arrest,traffic stops, andstop-and-frisks require at leastreasonable suspicion based on thetotality of the circumstances to be conducted without a warrant (includingin proximity to the borders of the United States).[449] Following these precedents, the CRS notes that lower federal courts have ruled that the reasonable suspicion standard does not authorize brief detentions by immigration officers strictly due to suspectedalienage (but instead requires suspectedunlawful presence), nor detaining workers during interrogation.[450]
| It has been suggested that this section besplit out into another article titledImmigration detention in the second Trump administration. (Discuss)(February 2026) |
In a lawsuit filed in January 2026, Illinois and Chicago alleged that DHS agents had usedMobile Fortify more than 100,000 times in the interior of the United States.[451] First brought to public attention in reporting by404 Media in June 2025,[452] themobile app features afacial recognition system onphotos taken to search federal and state databases that afederal court has ruled are impermissible for procuring administrative warrants due to inaccuracy, while the Illinois and Chicago lawsuit alleges that the department's use of the app exceeds what federal law authorizes fordata collection ofbiometrics.[453] While the lawsuit alleges specific cases of federal immigration agents scanning a person's face without consent, news organizations have reported that federal immigration agents frequently perform such scans without consent and legal commentators have noted that the use of such facial recognition technology (FRT) by federal immigration enforcement had been previously limited toports of entry and in investigations.[453][451]
In the same month the Illinois and Chicago lawsuit was filed,The New York Times reported that unnamed current and former DHS officials have confirmed that Mobile Fortify, the FRT andlocation tracking tools developed byPalantir Technologies andClearview AI, and othercellphone hacking andsocial media tracking tools are being used by DHS immigrant enforcement agencies to both attempt to identify undocumented immigrants and totrack the locations andmonitor the online activity of citizens who areanti-deportation protestors.[454][455] U.S. SenatorEd Markey with colleagues wrote letters to ICE in September 2025 and November 2025 requesting that the agency stop using the technologies and answer questions about the agency's use of them (specifically if they were being used to identify citizens, protestors, and minors),[456] while a bill proposed in Congress in January 2026 would ban DHS from using Mobile Fortify andsimilar apps.[453] Mobile Fortify was developed byNEC, a Japanese information technology company.[451]
In 2020, theGovernment Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report that noted that while there is no comprehensive federaldata privacy law or federal law that specifically and explicitly regulates commercial use of FRT, the GAO suggested that federal laws that address the commercial use, collection, and storage ofpersonal data may nonetheless apply to commercial FRT and other biometrics technology—specifically, theDriver's Privacy Protection Act, theHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, theFair Credit Reporting Act, theFamily Educational Rights and Privacy Act, theComputer Fraud and Abuse Act, theChildren's Online Privacy Protection Act, and Section 5 of theFederal Trade Commission Act.[457][458] Along with the Congressional Research Service in a 2020 report,[459] the GAO similarly suggested in a 2022 report that the requirements for federal agency collection, use, and storage of personal data under thePrivacy Act of 1974 and theE-Government Act of 2002 may also apply to FRT and biometrics technology.[460] The 2020 GAO and CRS reports both note that there are state laws that explicitly regulate commercial use of biometric data or FRT (referencing theCalifornia Consumer Privacy Act),[461][462] while a 2023 CRS report notes that DHS is required to maintain a biometric entry-and-exit records system on non-citizens under thePatriot Act.[463][464]
The 2020 CRS report noted that federal case law analyzing constitutional issues with FRT is limited.[465] While noting the Supreme Court's decision inKatz v. United States (1967) that established thereasonable expectation of privacy standard and legal test for what constitutes search and seizures generally permits warrantless searches in public places, the CRS also noted that the Court qualified its ruling inUnited States v. Knotts (1983) upholding the warrantless surveillance at issue in the case because, despite the fact that the evidence obtained by the government could have been acquired by visual surveillance in public, "different constitutional principles may be applicable" if "twenty-four hours surveillance of any citizen of this country [were] possible."[466] As such, the CRS noted that the Court applied the qualification to its holding inKnotts to its decisions inUnited States v. Jones (2012) andCarpenter v. United States (2018) requiring warrants for searches that usedGPS tracking andcellphone surveillance—which led the CRS to conclude that the Court's decisions in the cases suggest that when surveillance conducted in public is prolonged and continuous may nonetheless constitute a search requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.[467]
However, the CRS also noted in its 2020 report that while the Court declined to extend thethird-party doctrine established inUnited States v. Miller (1976) andSmith v. Maryland (1979) to the surveillance presented inCarpenter, the CRS suggested, citing a lower court ruling, that law enforcement use of FRT ondriver's license photographs maintained by adepartment of motor vehicles or photographs held by other third parties probably does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.[468] Nonetheless, citing news reporting aboutmass surveillance in China, limitations on the technological infrastructure for law enforcement's use of FRT in the United States, and lower federal court rulings that did not address what degree of prolonged surveillance in public implicates the Fourth Amendment, the CRS concluded that how the Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence would apply to use of FRT and other biometric technology in the interior of the United States was unclear and unresolved.[469]
Provided that the searches are routine and minimally intrusive, the 2020 CRS report noted that lower federal courts had held that use of FRT and collection of biometric data at theborders of the United States, ports of entry, or their functional equivalent are allowed under the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment.[470] While the CRS noted that little federal case law addresses challenges to wrongful arrests based on unreliable FRT, the CRS referenced the Supreme Court's decisions inAguilar v. Texas (1964),Illinois v. Gates (1983),Maryland v. Pringle (2003), andFlorida v. Harris (2013) and other lower federal court rulings on the reliability ofinformants anddetection dogs, the CRS suggested that the reliability and accuracy of specific FRT systems would likely be subject to review by courts when assessing the legal basis for a search or an arrest and following thetotality of the circumstances standard established inIllinois v. Gates.[471]
The 2020 CRS report noted that the Supreme Court and lower federal courts had not addressed challenges to FRT use under theFirst Amendment, but referencing the Court's holdingNAACP v. Alabama (1958) establishing a relationship betweenfreedom of association andprivacy, the CRS suggested that there could be First Amendment implications for use of FRT if it is used to conductretaliatory arrests and prosecutions for persons engaged inprotected speech.[472] The 2020 CRS report also noted that federal courts had rarely addressedequal protection challenges to use of FRT under theDue Process Clause of theFifth Amendment or theEqual Protection Clause of theFourteenth Amendment, and referencingWashington v. Davis (1976),Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977),Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney (1979), andMcCleskey v. Kemp (1987), the CRS noted that such claims would require plaintiffs to show that the actions of defendants have both a discriminatory effect and purpose for the claims to be upheld.[473]
| It has been suggested that this section besplit out into another article titledImmigration detention in the second Trump administration. (Discuss)(February 2026) |
In 2025,San Francisco and other local governments withsanctuary city policies filed a lawsuit against the administration overExecutive Order 14159,Executive Order 14218, and a February 2025 memo issued by Attorney GeneralPam Bondi over imposed conditions to receive federal funds that the plaintiffs alleged were not authorized by Congress and that effectively required enforcement of federal immigration law, while similar lawsuits were filed inMassachusetts andRhode Island.[474] Conversely, the second Trump administration filed litigation againstIllinois,New York,Colorado, New York City,Boston, Rochester, New York, and multiple cities inNew Jersey for their sanctuary policies.[475] In aJanuary 24, 2026 letter to Minnesota GovernorTim Walz following theprotests in the state in response to thekillings of Renée Good andAlex Pretti during themass deployment of ICE and Border Patrol to the state, Bondi requested that the state government repealsanctuary policies in the state, give theJustice Department's Civil Rights Division access to the state's voter rolls, and share itsMedicaid,Food and Nutrition Service, andSupplemental Nutrition Assistance Program records with the Justice Department for its investigation of the2020s Minnesota fraud scandals.[476][477]
A day after the letter was sent, Trump called on Congress to pass legislation to ban state and local government sanctuary policies and called on Walz, Minneapolis MayorJacob Frey, and all Democratic governors and mayors "to formally cooperate with the Trump Administration to enforce our Nation's Laws, rather than resist and stoke the flames of Division, Chaos, and Violence."[478] Bondi's letter was referenced in oral arguments for a class-action lawsuit filed by Minnesota against DHS to block the mass operation in the state.[479][480] In separate reports issued in 2025, the CRS noted that the Supreme Court held inHines v. Davidowitz (1941),Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), andArizona v. United States (2012) that immigration laws passed by Congress generallypreempt state laws under theSupremacy Clause ofArticle Six,[481][482] and along with other lower federal court rulings, the CRS has noted that state and local law enforcement have limited legal authority to arrest and detain aliens for immigration law violations, and generally may only do so under a cooperative agreement with DHS underSection 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code.[483][484]
However, the CRS also noted that the Court held inDe Canas v. Bica (1976),Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (2011), andKansas v. Garcia (2020) that not allstate laws related to aliens are immigration regulations preempted by federal law.[485][482] Moreover, referencing the Court's decisions inNew York v. United States (1992) andMurphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018), the CRS has noted that lower federal courts have held that theTenth Amendment prohibits the federal government fromcommandeering state government resources to enforce federal immigration law, and that state and local governments enforcing a federal detention request can be held in violation of the Fourth Amendment if the request lacks probable cause—which is why various state and local governments have enacted laws limiting their law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement in order to shield themselves fromlegal liability.[486][482] The Supreme Courtincorporated the Fourth Amendment's requirements for warrants directly against state governments inAguilar v. Texas (1964) by theDue Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment.[487]
Also, referencingSouth Dakota v. Dole (1987) andNational Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the CRS has also noted that theTaxing and Spending Clause ofArticle One, Section Eight does not authorize Congress to place conditions on federal funds to state governments without providing notice to recipients identifying what constitutes compliance and noncompliance with the conditions to receive the funds, that are unrelated to the essential purpose of the funds, that are coercive such that they compel actions that the states would otherwise not perform, and where the conditions would require states to act unconstitutionally.[488] As such, the CRS noted in a separate report issued in 2021 that lower federal courts struck downExecutive Order 13768 issued during thefirst Trump administration because it ordered the Justice Department and DHS to restrict the grant eligibility of sanctuary jurisdictions for noncompliance with Section 1373 of Title 8,[489] and Congress had not required compliance with Section 1373 for the specific funds that the first Trump administration ordered to be withheld.[490][486][488]
By January 2026,The Associated Press reported that a "broad cultural revolt" against ICE and Trump's immigration agenda was forming across American culture, business, sports, and entertainment.[491]
By April 2025, CNN/SSRS polling found 52% of Americans felt the level of deportations went "too far", with AP-NORC polling finding that about half thought he had gone "too far".[55][56] By July 1,Marist polling found that the number of Americans finding deportations went "too far" was at 54%.[57]
Gallup polling released on July 11, 2025, showed the number of adults saying immigration was a "good thing" for the country increasing "significantly", including among Republicans. Polling showed 79% of all Americans saying it was a good thing, an increase from 64% in 2024, and up to 64% by Republicans from 39% in 2024. Gallup described the polling as a high-point in a 25-year trend and that the shift was primarily driven by Republicans and independents. It found the number of Americans who wanted less immigration decreasing from 55% to 30%, and that Republican's sharp anti-immigrant views had largely faded since the 2024 presidential election. It also found 85% supporting apathway to citizenship forthose brought to the US illegally as children, and a nearly as many supported a pathway to citizenship to all illegal immigrants as long as they met certain criteria with the largest increase among Republicans. Americans who supported deportations also reduced to roughly 4 in 10 from 5 in 10 from 2024.[58]
Harvard Harris polling from December 2025 showed that 80% of Americans supported the deportation of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.[492]
Demonstrations emerged nationwide against enhanced immigration enforcement policies under the Trump administration and the increasing activity of ICE. Demonstrations occurred locations including Texas,[493]California,[494] Alabama,[495] South Carolina,[496] Indiana,[497] and metropolitan areas such asLos Angeles.[494]
Protests over hardline immigration tactics ignited across the United States Wednesday after days of demonstrations in Los Angeles, as California prepared for a legal showdown with the White House over Donald Trump's deployment of the military.
At core of US President Donald Trump's hardline immigration policy is his use of a 1798 wartime authority allowing presidents to detain or deport the natives and citizens of an enemy country.
The U.S. Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation - again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration.
The administration has torn up the rulebook as it seeks to implement a hardline agenda to expel people from the US.
Donald Trump made no secret of his willingness to exert a maximalist approach to enforcing immigration laws and keeping order as he campaigned to return to the White House.
New nonpublic data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) indicate that the government is primarily detaining individuals with no criminal convictions of any kind. Also, among those with criminal convictions, they are overwhelmingly not the violent offenses that ICE continuously uses to justify its deportation agenda. ICE has shared this data with people outside the agency, who shared the numbers with the Cato Institute.
It's not a matter of if U.S. citizens are getting caught up in President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown and mass-deportation efforts but, rather, how and how many. Some have just been collateral arrests and detentions, in which people are briefly questioned or detained by ICE agents, while others have been jailed for hours or days. Some U.S.-born children have been swiftly deported along with undocumented family members.
55 percent in The New York Times; Marquette, 64 percent; CBS News, 57 percent; ABC News, with a slightly different question, 56 percent... a very clear indication that a majority of Americans… do, in fact, want to deport all immigrants who are here illegally.
Just over half, 52%, say Trump has gone too far in deporting undocumented immigrants, up from 45% in February. A similar 52% now say that Trump's immigration policies have not made the US safer. And most, 57%, say that they do not believe the federal government is being careful in following the law while carrying out deportations.
About half of Americans say Trump has "gone too far" when it comes to deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. About one-third say his approach has been "about right," and about 2 in 10 say he's not gone far enough.
A majority of Americans (54%) describe the actions of ICE in upholding immigration laws as having gone too far.
citing a Harvard Harris poll from December that suggested 80% of Americans support his administration's efforts to deport illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.
Migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela could be quickly expelled.
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
Miroff 07262025 was invoked but never defined (see thehelp page).Some come close to glorifying violence and rough justice. At times, it seems like looking tough is even more important than being tough; the posturing may be compensating for a deportation rate that senior White House officials such as Stephen Miller have deemed disappointing.
ABC129175522 was invoked but never defined (see thehelp page).Homan also admitted that ICE had made what he called 'collateral arrests' of American citizens in 'many' instances.
Police arrested more than a dozen New York state and city elected officials Thursday at 26 Federal Plaza, the Manhattan immigration court and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office, many as they pressed to gain access to the building's 10th-floor lockup, where recent court rulings—including a temporary restraining order—directed ICE not to cram immigrants into overcrowded, unsanitary conditions.The lawmakers and other officials, arrested around 3:45 pm local time, say they were "attempting to conduct oversight" following claims that people appearing for court hearings were being confined for hours or days without proper food, medical care, or contact with attorneys.
Federal officers arrested 11 Democratic elected officials inside a federal building in Lower Manhattan on Thursday after the officials demanded access to cells used by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to detain migrants.The officials, including Brad Lander, the city comptroller, and city and state lawmakers, were arrested after they showed up at 26 Federal Plaza and sought to inspect the 10th-floor holding cells, which are operated by ICE and closed to the public. The cells have drawn scrutiny following complaints of unsanitary and overcrowded conditions, leading a federal judge to order ICE to improve the conditions last month.
{{cite news}}:External link in|title=Across the country, judges appointed by presidents of both parties — including Trump himself — are escalating warnings about what they see as an erosion of due process caused by the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign. What started with a focus on people Trump has deemed "terrorists" and "gang members" — despite their fierce denials — could easily expand to other groups, including Americans, these judges warn.
citing a Harvard Harris poll from December that suggested 80% of Americans support his administration's efforts to deport illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.
