How Trump transformed immigration policy

The GOP Congress and the courts have helped, but the public is weary.

ERIC GONZALEZ JUENKE AND ALEXANDER KUSTOV

In January 2026, federal immigration agents killed two American citizens protesting ICE operations in Minneapolis. Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother, was shot in her car by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent on Jan. 7. Alex Pretti, also age 37 and an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA hospital, was shot by Border Patrol agents on Jan. 24 while filming their operations.

The Trump administration maintains both shootings were justified acts of self-defense against individuals who threatened federal officers. State officials and video evidence, however, reportedly contradict those accounts. The FBI is investigating the first shooting, while the Department of Homeland Security announced an investigation into Pretti’s death.

The deaths of these citizens have sparked mass protests and state-federal confrontations that might have been unimaginable a year ago. These confrontations, however, were entirely foreseeable given the trajectory of immigration policy under President Donald Trump’s second term. So, how did we get here?

Trump’s 2016 takeover of the Republican Party marked the end of major bipartisan immigration legislation, at least for the foreseeable future. This last decade has instead seen increased polarization on immigration among elected officials, leading to gridlock in Congress. America witnessed executive whiplash as the new Trump administration moved swiftly to reverse executive orders issued by President Joe Biden.

Mass deportation was a central promise of Trump’s 2024 campaign

During the 2024 election, Trump promised something completely different to fix the congressional immigration impasse that many analysts believe he helped create. “Mass Deportation Now” signs at the 2024 GOP convention signaled an aggressive enforcement strategy that centered on firm directives from the White House and a unified and compliant GOP-led Congress. While many voters, even some of Trump’s supporters, now claim they were misled by his campaign, these aggressive policies were at the center of the 2024 Trump-Vance platform. This is the context in which we review a transformational year of immigration politics in 2025.

Immigration policy changes on day one

On the first day of his second term, Trump suspended the refugee program that U.S. presidents have used for decades to grant political asylum to immigrants. The suspension even included the initiatives popular among Republican voters, including the Welcome Corps, a private refugee sponsorship program that had enrolled Americans as sponsors across all 50 states. On the same day, he attempted to end birthright citizenship through executive order. This proposal is currently in the hands of the Supreme Court.

The administration also moved to restrict legal immigration pathways by adding enhanced vetting requirements, laying the groundwork for expanded travel bans. In September, Trump also imposed a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions – a move that alarmed the tech industry but delighted restrictionists. Critics warned the policy would undermine America’s ability to compete for global talent, yet do little to protect American workers. And, while Congress has traditionally determined U.S. immigration policy through the legislative process, none of the administration’s actions required congressional approval.

The GOP-led Congress followed Trump’s lead

Republican legislators, with control of both houses of Congress, responded to the president’s immigration actions with legislative support. In July 2025, Congress passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which included billions of dollars to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations and the expansion of detention centers to house immigrants detained by ICE agents. The most recent budget talks in Congress suggest GOP support remains steadfast, while Democrats have been able to secure some limited oversight on ICE operations, including body cameras and deescalation training.

With few legislative options, Congressional Democrats focused on influencing immigration policy through public opinion and the courts. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) traveled to El Salvador to challenge the president’s deportation policy, and apply media pressure to force the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident deported without due process. The Supreme Court later ruled the deportation unlawful, ordering Abrego Garcia’s return. Other Democrats tried to use their congressional oversight authority by visiting ICE detention centersunannounced and on camera. Despite pushback from the Trump administration, the courts have supported this legislative oversight power, though this fight is ongoing.

Judicial give and take

In 2025, the courts generally limited the president’s immigration agenda, but some judges also extended executive authority in new ways. In what one analyst called the “most important immigration story” of 2025, the president suspended protections and parole for roughly 2.5 million immigrants in the U.S. by cancelling their Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Humanitarian Parole. This meant they no longer had a legal right to remain in the United States. Lower courts halted many of these cancellations until the legal challenges were complete, but the Supreme Court sided with the administration in a few key instances, allowing revocations to continue until the cases reached their final verdict.

The Supreme Court largely ruled in favor of the Trump administration in 2025. Perhaps the most controversial immigration decision came in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. In this case, the Court gave wide latitude to ICE agents to use a person’s race or ethnicity to stop and question them about their immigration status. The lower courts, on the other hand, have generally opposed the administration’s efforts to detain immigrants who are contesting their removal. These rulings have somewhat limited the ambitions of the White House deportation regime. Nevertheless, by December, Homeland Security claimed to have deported more than 600,000 people, with another 1.9 million voluntarily self-deporting.

A polarized public grows weary

Survey results indicate the U.S. public grew more pessimistic about the increasingly militarized immigration enforcement as 2025 came to a close, though Republicans remain largely supportive. Political scientist Michael Tesler described a public that had turned against ICE by mid-2025, and public opinion surveys indicate this view accelerated after the Minneapolis shootings earlier this month. While Americans support a more regularized immigration regime, the president’s enforcement-only approach goes against what most voters say they want.

Immigration was one of the president’s most popular issues at the beginning of his term, and he is now underwater after a year of implementation. This, however, doesn’t mean that Democrats are more popular on the issue.

A precarious year ahead

Trump’s first year of his second term – with Stephen Miller as its chief architect – demonstrated that a determined president can reshape immigration policy dramatically without significant new legislation. Executive orders, regulatory changes, and aggressive enforcement have transformed the immigration landscape, though courts provided the primary check on many of the most extreme measures. Public opinion has soured on the administration’s approach, but this hasn’t translated into political advantage for Democrats.

As 2026 gets underway, the Trump administration faces a choice. Will the administration double down on enforcement and deportation despite declining support? Or will we see a pivot toward the more pragmatic immigration policy shifts most Americans say they want, like more pathways to legal residency for millions of people who have lived and worked in the United States for decades. The courts – and the voters in the upcoming midterm elections – will ultimately judge whether the Trump White House can sustain its current plans for the transformation of America’s immigration story. A Democratic Congress would halt and likely try to reverse many of these policies, but it is unclear what new immigration consensus will emerge on an issue that has so polarizedAmerican elites and voters.

Eric Gonzalez Juenke is a 2025-2026 Good Authority fellow.

Alex Kustov was a 2024-2025 Good Authority fellow.