Politics
Trump’s immigration crackdown is expected to start on Day 1
In his first 100 days, President-elect Donald Trump plans to begin the process of deporting hundreds of thousands of people. He is expected to end parole for people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. And he is likely to undo a policy that significantly constrained deportations for people who weren’t deemed threats to public safety or national security.
Trump’s team is already thinking about how to craft executive actions aimed to withstand the legal challenges from immigrants’ rights groups — all in hopes of avoiding an early defeat like the one his 2017 travel ban targeting majority-Muslim nations suffered. This time, Trump may have friendlier arbiters. These fights will be refereed by a federal judiciary that he transformed during his first term, including by appointing more than 200 federal judges himself. And at the very top — the ultimate decider of these questions — is the Supreme Court, to which he appointed three conservative justices.
But legal fights aren’t the only long-term challenge Trump’s ambitious immigration agenda will face. The logistical challenges of mass deportation are a little harder to predict. The speed at which Trump could remake deportation policy depends on surmounting tactical challenges like expanding detention capacity and cutting through a massive immigration court backlog.
Trump has already tapped South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who has little experience with the Department of Homeland Security, to lead the sprawling agency. From inside the White House, Stephen Miller, widely seen as the architect of Trump’s first-term restrictionist agenda, has an expansive role over domestic policy. And Thomas Homan, a former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Trump, is returning to be the administration’s border czar.
Through it all, Trump’s immigration team will face intense and sustained scrutiny from the president himself.
Here are some of the immigration initiatives Trump’s team is expected to roll out quickly, and the hurdles they could face:
Ramping up deportations
Trump campaigned on mass deportation — something that could affect large swaths of the 11 million people DHS estimates are in the U.S. without legal authorization.
But deporting millions of people could run into some logistical problems. According to DHS, the largest number of yearly removals came in FY 2013 during the Obama administration, when more than 430,000 people were removed from the U.S.
Trump’s advisers have indicated they would prioritize people with criminal convictions and final removal orders for deportation. In 2022, according to the pro-immigration American Immigration Council, about 1.19 million people had those orders — meaning their cases had worked their way through immigration court and judges decided they must leave. Just removing the people in that category could take years.
Finding, detaining and removing those people would be resource-intensive, said John Sandweg, acting director of ICE from 2013 to 2014. Detention capacity alone would be a costly and immediate challenge. Lawmakers need to appropriate the funding, and even if they do, the administration would need to hire, vet and train more officers — no easy feat.
ICE currently employs 7,000 officers who conduct 250,000 deportations a year, according to the agency. If Trump’s administration wanted to quadruple this number, as Trump has promised, training academies couldn’t handle a deluge of new hires.
“It is just a resource game, but it’s a hard game to play,” Sandweg said.
Regardless of the hurdles and impediments, Trump has been unequivocal.
“It’s not a question of a price tag. It’s not — really, we have no choice,” he told NBC News on Thursday. “When people have killed and murdered, when drug lords have destroyed countries, and now they’re going to go back to those countries because they’re not staying here. There is no price tag.”
Ending parole for people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela
Another Biden administration program that’s likely to end fast: a special visa-free humanitarian parole process for some residents of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The Biden administration, to discourage migrants from trying to cross the border illegally, offered a way for some people from these countries to enter the country legally if they were vetted and had an American-based sponsor. As of August, nearly 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans had traveled to the U.S. via the program and were granted permission to live and work in the U.S. for two years.
Trump, meanwhile, campaigned on expelling many of them. Over the summer, he spread baseless claims that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, were eating people’s pets. And he promised to revoke Haitians’ eligibility for Temporary Protected Status — another program that shields some people from countries with unsafe conditions from deportation and grants them work permits. Many Haitians can work in the U.S. legally because of TPS, a tool secretaries of Homeland Security have used since 1990.
“All that stuff is going to end very fast, almost immediately,” said Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a restrictionist group.
Stein’s group is closely allied with Trump’s team and became a feeder for personnel during the first Trump administration.
“They basically hired half our staff,” he said.
Mark Krikorian, of the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies, agreed that the temporary provision of TPS work documents to people from certain countries deemed dangerous would likely be constricted dramatically.
Currently, DHS makes this program available to people from 16 countries, including El Salvador, Ukraine, Syria, Somalia and Haiti. During Trump’s first term, his administration tried to end TPS status for more than 300,000 people. But immigrants sued, arguing the move was made out of racial animus. They secured a nationwide injunction that lasted through the Trump administration.
Rolling back the Mayorkas memo
Early in the Biden administration, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a memo laying out priorities for which immigrants to deport. It emphasized people who threaten national security and public safety, and it directed ICE officers to learn “the totality of the facts and circumstances” about criminal convictions before deciding whether to deport someone — rather than solely using a conviction as a basis for deportation.
Immigration restrictionists expect that guidance will be one of the first things to go.
“That stuff’s going to end obviously, right away,” said Krikorian, whose work was frequently cited by the first Trump administration.
Another person close to Trump’s transition, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive plans, said Mayorkas’ memo could be revoked as soon as Day One, possibly as part of a broader package of executive actions intended to reduce “bureaucratic” hurdles that impede deportations.
Deactivating the CBP One app
The Biden administration rolled out a mobile phone application called CBP One that migrants could use to set up appointments to seek asylum. While Democrats hoped it would create more order around the border, Republicans said the initiative was a way to rush in people who shouldn’t be allowed to enter the United States. Amnesty International, meanwhile, said it violates international law by restraining where and how people could seek asylum. Either way, under Trump, according to the person close to the transition, it’s likely toast.
Ramping up immigration diplomacy
Another tool the Trump administration may use quickly is threats to countries that resist repatriating unwanted migrants.
One challenge for rapid deportations is that the home countries of many migrants — particularly those convicted of violent crimes — don’t always want to take them back. So those people sometimes stay in jails or immigration detention centers in the U.S. indefinitely. To pressure those countries, the U.S. government can threaten to restrict visas for certain categories of applicants.
The Trump and Obama administrations both deployed this option because of this recalcitrance. But the Biden administration has not. In the first 100 days, Trump’s immigration team will likely assess which countries they deem most problematic and decide whether to threaten sanctions.
“I think you’re going to see a significant increase and you’re going to see it early,” Krikorian said. “I’m pretty certain it would be in the first hundred days — there’s no reason you’d wait three months to do something.”
The moves would require cooperation from the State Department, which issues visas. So Trump’s immigration-focused advisers will likely ensure that candidates for top roles at State are simpatico with the administration’s immigration policy — and Sen. Marco Rubio is widely expected to be Trump’s pick for secretary of State.
“That’s going to be a condition for their appointment,” said Jessica Vaughan, also of the Center for Immigration Studies. “They’re not going to appoint someone and want to be surprised later on — ‘I don’t know, we’re not going to play our role.’ It’s in the job description.”
Trump has also said he would restore his Remain in Mexico policy — officially called Migrant Protection Protocols — that required some asylum-seekers to stay south of the U.S.-Mexican border while they await immigration court hearings. But this will require the Trump administration to reach a deal with Mexico to restart the program.
Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff said Tuesday he will not run for president in 2028 and committed to serving a full six-year Senate term if reelected.
“I have zero interest in running for president. I’m not running for president. I’m running for reelection to the Senate,” Ossoff said during a Georgia Senate debate against Republican Rep. Mike Collins.
Asked by Greg Bluestein of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution whether he would serve his full term if he wins in November, Ossoff replied: “Yes, I will.”
The remarks are Ossoff’s most forceful rejection yet of a potential 2028 presidential bid even as his name has repeatedly surfaced in national Democrats’ conversations about possible contenders for the party’s nomination. His public commitment to a full Senate term on Tuesday is the latest of his campaign’s many efforts to tamp down that speculation.
Ossoff gained national attention this year given his strong fundraising numbers, his consistent lead in public polling against Collins and his ability to generate viral moments on the campaign trail, particularly through his attacks on President Donald Trump. Democrats are bullish about Ossoff’s ability to hold onto his Senate seat — so much so that the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC said Tuesday it was removing its ad spending in Georgia for the week.
He’s also taken steps to boost the state Democratic party in Georgia, a perennial battleground that has been and will be key to winning the presidency. If November brings historic wins up and down the ballot, Ossoff will get some of the credit — and he’ll have confirmed his status as a leader in the swing state.
Democrats may be discovering the political power of calling something rigged.
They’re leaning hard into anti-corruption messaging in the final weeks of the campaign as new research suggests that linking corruption to Americans’ economic struggles can boost Democrats into the home stretch.
Messaging from Democrats that tied corruption to housing, health care and the cost of living increased voter support for Democratic congressional candidates by about 3 percentage points, according to a national survey last month conducted by Blue Rose Research and Democratic-aligned Winning Jobs Narrative Action, which was obtained by POLITICO.
The findings align with a shift in how Democrats are talking about corruption — and help explain why that message has exploded on the campaign trail. From Sen. Jon Ossoff in Georgia to James Talarico in Texas and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Democrats have zeroed in on a common argument: Washington is rigged to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyday Americans.
“We have a corruption crisis in this country, and it is leading to an affordability crisis,” Iowa Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek said during his Senate debate against Rep. Ashley Hinson last week.
It’s a message that is reverberating across campaigns. In a recent presentation delivered to Democratic groups on Capitol Hill, longtime Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson offered a succinct playbook: “Corruption is why your costs are high,” according to the presentation viewed by Blue Light News.
His presentation also encouraged Democrats to lead with the acknowledgement that costs are high and then go into corruption, acknowledge that it happens across parties and avoid making President Donald Trump the sole focus of their attacks. “Trump works as an example of corruption that raises costs, not as the whole case,” the presentation said.
Since April, Democratic candidates and outside groups in House and Senate races have spent roughly $104 million on advertising mentioning corruption, according to ad tracking firm AdImpact. Republicans, meanwhile, have spent $36 million across House and Senate campaigns over the same period.
“It’s not just like, ‘oh, look at what’s happening with the ballroom,’ or ‘boy, Donald Trump’s made a lot of money on crypto,’” Democratic strategist Chris Meagher said. “You have to be able to tie it to the impact on people’s lives.”
“The narrative works best when it’s an outsider candidate who is linking a rigged economy to a rigged political system,” longtime Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said of the anti-corruption messaging.
Running against corruption is not new. But as Democrats looked for a way out of the political wilderness after 2024, they began turning a familiar attack — anti-corruption — into a broader message tied to voters’ economic pain. What once was an attack largely focused on Trump has become a more expansive argument for candidates trying to connect it to why Americans are struggling financially, potentially providing a blueprint for the party beyond November.
“Democrats used to talk about corruption as a crime. Now corruption is the explanation for costs,” Ferguson, the Democratic strategist, said.
The issue — and messaging around it — is also coming to the fore in a cycle when anger over the suppression of Epstein files hit a fever pitch and public pressure to ban Congress from trading stocks continues to mount.
And it’s not just the research by Blue Rose that shows the potential potency of that message.
In another recent survey from the Democratic group Navigator Research, obtained by Blue Light News, the vast majority of Americans — both Democrats and Republicans — say corruption is driving up their costs. That same survey of registered voters, conducted in August, found majorities, including roughly a quarter of Republicans, say Trump is bringing more corruption to Washington than fixing it.
And new results from the nonpartisan Center Square’s Voter Voice Poll, conducted this month by Noble Predictive Insights and shared first with Blue Light News, show 10% of voters ranking government corruption as the second most important issue facing Americans, tied with the economy and jobs, and only behind inflation and price increases.
In some instances, Democrats have wrested the word “rigged” away from Trump who has used it in the context of unproven election fraud and turned it into a mobilizing political talking point. That’s a departure from March 2024 when Democrats criticized then Rep. Katie Porter for accusing special interests of spending money to “rig” the California Senate race after she lost in the state’s primary. But now some Democrats are embracing that language as a way to rail against what they see as a corrupt system.
“They’re rigging the rules to benefit their wealthy donors and corporate special interests,” former Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown said in a message to supporters announcing the launch of his campaign to return to office.
But the corruption resonates across parties. Republicans who spoke with Blue Light News said Democrats do not own the issue — voters everywhere are animated by it. While polling shows that voters in both major parties believe the government is corrupt, Republicans accuse Democrats of lacking credibility on the issue.
“Americans have been disgusted by the level of self-serving corruption that spread like herpes through the slimy politicians who run the Democrat Party, and now they’re suddenly changing their tune because it’s an election year,” National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Mike Marinella said in a statement. “Voters see through the facade, and they know Republicans are cleaning up the rot left behind by Democrat leaders.”
On the Senate side, National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson Bernadette Breslin pointed Blue Light News to a poll in Minnesota — a rare offensive opportunity for Senate Republicans this cycle — that shows there are just about as many voters who blame Democratic Gov. Tim Walz for widespread fraud of federally-funded government programs in the state as there are who blame the criminals. Walz’s lieutenant governor, Peggy Flanagan, is running for Senate against Republican Michele Tafoya, and corruption under Democratic rule is a key theme for Republicans in the race.
“The overwhelming majority of Minnesotans blame the Walz-Flanagan administration — and the criminals it aided and abetted — for plundering their hard-earned taxpayer dollars,” Breslin said. “They’ll vote for Michele Tafoya to right the ship this November.”
Steve Pierce, executive director at Winning Jobs Narrative Action, said one of the biggest shifts for Democrats this cycle on corruption has been a move away from a message largely rooted in concerns over democratic norms, which have struggled to break through in a way that moves voters in past cycles.
“You’ve seen Democrats, rather than connecting corruption to democracy, connecting it to affordability, connecting it to the top concern that voters have,” said Pierce. “It’s connecting it in a way that’s meaningful to voters around the things that they are thinking about every day.”
The anti-corruption message has played out across the country, and as an explanation for frustration against different economic pain points, including rising electric bills and local data center projects.
A recent memo on data centers from House Majority PAC, the main super PAC working to elect House Democrats, noted the “message environment in the 2026 election cycle has been dominated by costs, with an important secondary theme around corruption that began to emerge last year.” The group’s spokesperson, CJ Warnke, told Blue Light News that “every single poll and every single focus group shows affordability to be voters’ number one issue, and they specifically point to corrupt politicians as being responsible for driving up prices.”
Next month’s midterms will offer the clearest test yet of whether Democrats can turn this message into votes. But Democratic operatives increasingly see anti-corruption messaging as more than just a short-term political weapon — as long as they try to do something about it if they win control next year.
“I think the thing for Democrats, if they do want to keep it on the radar heading into 2028, and I think they should because I think it is a really potent issue for them, they are going to have to also deliver on it,” said Pierce.
“They have to be able to show up to get caught trying,” he said.
MAGA Inc. is planning to trim the map in a homestretch bid to cling to power in November.
The President Donald Trump-aligned super PAC, with several hundred million dollars still in the bank, is planning a series of major money moves coordinated with other leading GOP super PACs in the final three weeks before Election Day. The push includes cutting off spending to a group of less attainable House races, piling in money to shore up others and training its focus on key Senate seats to salvage Republicans’ Senate majority.
Ohio, Alaska and Iowa are the Senate races that Trump officials view as increasingly critical to keep their majority in the chamber, according to three GOP officials familiar with MAGA Inc.’s strategy, granted anonymity to candidly assess the midterms.
One of the people said MAGA Inc. and a leading House GOP super PAC would pull spending out of Michigan’s 8th District by the middle of this week. The move effectively acknowledges Democratic Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet’s strength over GOP challenger Tom Smith. They have similar plans for a group of other House races in the coming days that are trending away from Republicans.
The official stressed the tacking would amount to “re-allocating, not cutting” the total planned spend.
MAGA Inc. and its affiliates are still competing in all of the Senate battlegrounds, including Texas, where they expected to add at least $5 million and potentially more in the coming days, according to the official.
For the Senate, winning two out of those three states of Ohio, Alaska and Iowa would make it “hard” for Democrats to take the Senate, one of the senior GOP officials projected, adding that a three-state sweep would decisively put it out of reach for Democrats. That, however, would require Republicans to win Texas and a handful of other at-risk red states, while also flipping Michigan or another blue state. The same senior Republican official said there’s confidence GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson “probably pulls through” in the Iowa Senate race.
Texas, however, remains a massive headache for Republicans — and the GOP official is pointing to Ken Paxton as the problem.
The senior Republican official said MAGA Inc. would do what it can to help candidates and vowed to “unload the tank” — a promise the group has been making for months even as it’s only spent more than half of the half-a-billion-dollar war chest with three weeks to go.
But the onus for standing up a winning campaign is shifting. Ultimately, the official said, “it’s up to the candidates, not the outside groups” to “bring it home and have a reason to get a few more points of swing voters their way.” They also need to maximize their votes with Republicans, this person said.
“Over the next week to 10 days you will see a lot of moves — a lot of coordinated moves — that are around trimming the map for the home stretch,” the senior GOP official familiar with MAGA Inc.’s plans said. “It’ll be all over the place. It’ll just just be moving on from districts that we don’t think it’s the right time for, and piling in further on ones we think it is the right time for.”
That would force top House GOP groups to decide whether to shift their own cash to take over key spending from MAGA Inc. as they work to defend a host of once-safely red House seats Trump won by more than 10 points in 2024 that are now at risk. That includes key districts across the Midwest, North Carolina, Nevada, along with a seat in Kentucky, which Trump won by 15 points.
In Ohio, where Trump is traveling for a rally on Monday, Republicans have privately worried about GOP Sen. Jon Husted for months. The former lieutenant governor, who was appointed to serve out Vice President JD Vance’s Senate term, has been trailing former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in public and private polling for months. The top Senate GOP super PAC, Senate Leadership Fund, has unloaded close to $100 million in Ohio and a slew of outside groups have joined, making it one of the most expensive Senate contests in the country. Just in the last week, Husted notched his first narrow lead over Brown in one recent poll.
“We want a maximum spend,” Ohio GOP Chair Alex Triantafilou, who played host to Vance on Friday in Lima and will reprise that role as the president lands in Youngstown, said in an interview. “We want as much attention. I mean, the president’s coming, the vice president. Look, I’m the chair of the Republican Party — I want full resources in this state. We welcome it very much.”
And while Texas has emerged as an unexpectedly expensive headache for Republicans, another GOP operative familiar with MAGA Inc.’s thinking suggested Ohio could end up costing Republicans more spending from all sides, despite its smaller size.
Democrats see the same final battlefield taking shape. Senate Majority PAC, the top Democratic-aliied PAC, is injecting $2.5 million in Iowa and $7 million in Ohio for television ads, according to plans shared first with Blue Light News, “injecting new resources to help close the gap in those battleground states,” a spokesperson said. They’ll also continue to back aggressive digital campaigns in each state. This comes on the heels of SMP dropping $5 million in Kansas.
Beyond Ohio, other senior Republicans are busy trying to staunch the bleeding in red states across the map.
Top Senate GOP groups have already cut off spending in North Carolina, where Republicans are struggling to defend a GOP-held seat. They have also pulled some money back in Georgia but are still planning to unload millions more in the Peach State.
Senate Leadership Fund expects to keep spending broadly across the map in the final weeks. The group plans to pour even more money into Texas as a potential lifeline to Paxton, hitting a total of nearly $200 million. They’re also dropping dough in Kansas to defend Sen. Roger Marshall, whose tough race against Democrat Adam Hamilton blindsided top Republicans in the final weeks, along with a crop of other endangered GOP incumbents, according to two Republicans with direct knowledge of the plans. And, SLF is expected to keep unloading money into the Michigan Senate race, which Senate Republicans view as their top flip opportunity.
The senior GOP official familiar with MAGA Inc.’s strategy defended the group’s spending decisions, despite waves of criticism from some Republicans who wanted it to unleash all its $400-million-plus war chest, and sooner. So far, MAGA Inc. and its affiliates have spent just over $200 million this cycle, including future ad reservations, according to data from AdImpact.
The cash the wider MAGA Inc. operation deployed last month, which was close to $100 million, shielded candidates from further losses as the environment worsened for Republicans, the official argued.
“The money’s working,” the official said. “The money stopped everybody from getting killed in September when the environment rapidly deteriorated further. The money held the line.”
The campaigns that received the September spending were able to “stay afloat,” one of the other officials said. “There are more candidates in a position that they can still win their race today that wouldn’t have been had that not happened.”
Many of those GOP candidates, however, privately argue it was Trump’s poor approval rating and his decisions around the ongoing war with Iran, tariffs and sky-high fuel prices that are sparking voter backlash.
It was during that September panic that GOP officials became increasingly worried about the growing map.
At one point, Trump officials believed they may need to start intervening to boost even Sen. Ashley Moody in ruby-red Florida as warning signs shot up across the Sunshine State, according to two Trump officials with direct knowledge of the matter.
But recent internal polling for Moody has turned a corner, alleviating many of those concerns and prompting Trump officials to stand by plans for the president to visit the state — but more as a way to boost Rep. Byron Donalds, who is running for governor, and several key House races that Republicans are worried about, according to the people.
Jessica Piper contributed to this report.
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words