News
Trump touts historic deportation plans, but his own record reveals big obstacles
Attendees at the Republican National Convention hold up signs reading “Mass Deportation Now!” last month in Milwaukee.
Scott Olson/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Scott Olson/Getty Images
At the Republican National Convention this summer, hundreds of attendees waved signs demanding “Mass Deportation Now!”
When former President Donald Trump took the stage on the final night of the convention, he promised to launch “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country” if reelected.
Trump’s deportation pledge has become a familiar theme of his 2024 campaign, repeated often by the former president at his rallies, in the official Republican Party platform and in his recent conversation with billionaire X owner Elon Musk.
But the Trump administration’s own track record reveals why that will be difficult, if not impossible, to execute.
Internal emails and documents obtained by NPR through a Freedom of Information Act request offer a window into how immigration authorities scrambled from the first days of the Trump administration to scale up their detention capacity in response to requests from the White House. At the same time, they reveal how bureaucratic hurdles slowed the process, limiting the administration’s ability to ramp up immigration enforcement to match the administration’s rhetoric.


On Jan. 26, 2017 — just one day after Trump signed a pair of executive orders on immigration — a top detention official at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) circulated an email with “Proposed Facility Activations” in the subject line.
That email, which has not been previously reported, identified roughly 12,000 detention beds that were potentially available for ICE and for which negotiations for new or expanded contracts could begin “immediately.” The overwhelming majority of beds were in facilities run by private detention companies.
“We must come up with a plan to ensure that activation is not unnecessarily delayed due to sheer volume,” wrote Tae Johnson, who was then ICE’s assistant director of custody management. (Johnson went on to serve as the agency’s acting director under President Biden). He also suggested that planned facility openings should be staggered so that they weren’t “competing against each other.”
ICE ultimately added roughly 15,000 detention beds under Trump, when the agency’s detained population peaked at a record high of more than 55,000 beds per night in 2019.
But even with that additional capacity, ICE was unable to arrest or remove as many unauthorized immigrants as previous administrations, falling short of the massive deportation apparatus that Trump’s advisers sought.
During his tenure as president, Trump faced constant pushback from the Democratic majority in Congress, which at times blocked Trump’s immigration policy proposals. Federal courts also blocked Trump’s moves, including a push for fast-track deportations.
Now Trump’s former immigration advisers are laying out ambitious plans for a second term, including new approaches to enforcement that go well beyond what his administration tried before. Trump himself has talked about enlisting local law enforcement and National Guard troops to extend ICE’s reach, while some of his allies have even floated the idea of “staging areas” or detention camps near the southern border that would allow the administration to arrest, detain and deport unauthorized immigrants by the millions.

But some immigration analysts and former ICE officials say the Trump campaign’s goal of deporting many of the roughly 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. will be expensive and logistically challenging — if it is feasible at all.
“They’re not going to reach the numbers they’re talking about,” said Sarah Saldaña, who was the director of ICE during the final years of the Obama administration. “It’s not going to happen.”
Removing immigrants from the interior of the country requires extensive resources, including detention space, that limit how many people ICE can remove, Saldaña told NPR.
“You’re not going to pick up an unauthorized immigrant one day and put them on a plane the next,” Saldaña said. “It requires a lot of groundwork.”
But former Trump administration officials insist they’re prepared to scale up enforcement, with more resources for federal immigration authorities and assistance from local law enforcement.
“They ain’t seen s*** yet. Wait till 2025,” said Tom Homan, a former acting director of ICE under Trump, at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington last month. “Trump comes back in January — I’ll be on his heels coming back. And I will run the biggest deportation operation this country’s ever seen.”
Ambitious enforcement plans for a second term
There are 11 million unauthorized migrants in the U.S., according to the Office of Homeland Security Statistics. Immigration observers say it would be really challenging to remove all of them, particularly because migrants are spread throughout the country and many have lived in the country for decades and have started families.
Unauthorized migrants also fuel the U.S. economy by paying billions of dollars in local and state taxes, the American Immigration Council reported in June.
Still, Trump and running mate JD Vance have pushed for mass deportations and have falsely claimed that up to 20 million unauthorized migrants are living in the United States.
They have not been specific about how they plan to carry out their plan, but at least Vance has recognized it might be challenging.
“You start with what’s achievable,” Vance said in an interview with ABC News that aired Sunday. “You cannot have a border unless you’re willing to deport some people. I think it’s interesting that people focus on, well, how do you deport 18 million people? Let’s start with 1 million.”
But Trump and his allies have talked openly about deporting millions more, including migrants who have been in the country for decades, such as the spouses of U.S. citizens and others whom Biden has tried to shield through executive actions.
Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, the Republican vice presidential nominee, speaks at the U.S.-Mexico border in Hereford, Ariz., on Aug. 1.
Rebecca Noble/Bloomberg via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Rebecca Noble/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Stephen Miller, a former senior adviser for Trump, said in a November interview with the conservative Charlie Kirk Show that Trump’s mass deportation plan “involves building large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas, because of the existing infrastructure there.”
Miller is not officially part of the Trump campaign. But during the Trump administration, he had an enormous influence on shaping immigration policy and was behind some of the most hard-line immigration proposals.
He said the facilities would provide space for military aircraft to take unauthorized migrants to Mexico and countries in Asia and Africa. The plan could also include deputizing the National Guards of Republican states as “immigration enforcement officers.”
“That’s the basic idea logistically for how you’re able to carry out a deportation operation at that monumental magnitude,” Miller said.
In an April interview with Time, Trump did not rule out building detention camps as part of his deportation plan.
“I would not rule out anything,” Trump said. “But there wouldn’t be that much of a need for them” because, he said, the plan is to send migrants back to their home countries as quickly as possible.
“We’re not leaving them in the country,” Trump said. “We’re bringing them out.”
In a July call with reporters, Trump said he’d also tap local law enforcement to carry out his plan. Some states, like Texas, have tried to do something similar.
“I’d be using local police,” Trump said. “They know everything about the criminals, and you’d certainly start with the heavyset criminals.”
Throughout his campaign, Trump has suggested that crime rates have increased due to an influx of unauthorized migrants.
“I believe it’s over 20 million people came into our country [under the Biden administration], many coming from jails, from prisons, from mental institutions … and many are terrorists,” Trump said Monday in his interview with X’s Musk.
But it’s not true that 20 million migrants have come under the Biden administration or that they are driving up crime rates. Research shows immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born people, and FBI data shows violent crime has gone down since 2020. There’s also no evidence that countries like Venezuela or El Salvador are emptying their prisons and sending migrants to the United States.
Still, Trump vowed to also use the National Guard to conduct deportations. This proposal has raised eyebrows, since the Posse Comitatus Act does not allow the use of the military to enforce laws within the U.S., except in “cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.”
To accomplish the mass removal of unauthorized migrants, federal agencies like ICE and the Department of Homeland Security would need more infrastructure and likely more personnel, since there are about 6,000 Enforcement and Removal officers.
Chad Wolf, who served as acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security under Trump, says more resources would also need to be appropriated.
“I’m sure that the administration will look at how do you bring in more resources to identify folks — how do you target aliens — which ICE already does, in a more thoughtful manner, and how do you expedite their removals,” Wolf said.
Wolf, who is not part of Trump’s campaign, concedes that implementing “mass deportations” would be difficult.
During his administration, Trump fell short on his campaign promise of deporting many people.
“We had a Democratic Congress who did not fund us to the levels that we had asked for and put a lot of restrictions in place,” Wolf said.
But he said now — nearly four years after Trump left office — there are more resources, like infrastructure, that could help the Republican carry out his plan.
Wolf suggested repurposing Biden’s soft-sided facilities, currently used to process migrants, as additional places to detain those who would be deported.
He said deportations can start with people who have committed crimes or who have a final order of removal.
“Is it going to happen overnight? Probably not,” Wolf said. “But I think it’s a worthy debate to have.”
A window into the rapid expansion of ICE detention
When the Trump administration came to power in 2017, immigration authorities moved quickly to add more detention beds to keep up with the White House’s mandate to increase enforcement.
ICE emails obtained by NPR show how administration officials turned immediately to private detention companies while in search of available beds.
“Here is where things currently stand in response to the recent Executive Orders,” ICE’s Johnson wrote, laying out a plan to add 9,000 additional detention beds through new contracts to be negotiated “immediately.” Another 3,000 beds could be added to existing contracts, Johnson wrote, and 6,000 more could be added in a later round of negotiations if necessary.
The email identified more than a dozen facilities operated by private detention companies, including GEO Group, MTC, CCA (now CoreCivic) and LaSalle Corrections, that could be repurposed or expanded to detain migrants for ICE.
But Johnson also anticipated some of the challenges ahead. In the email, he suggested that ICE staff should try to streamline the agency’s lengthy security clearance process for detention facility staff members.
“See if clearance standards could be temporarily lessened to allow for the immediate onboarding of contract staff while checks are ongoing,” Johnson wrote.
ICE’s strategy of seeking additional bed space from private detention companies predates the Trump administration.
In emails from October 2016, months before Trump took office, ICE officials wrote in an email that they were “in dire need for detention beds to respond to an immigration crisis on the Southern border,” and they reached out to private detention companies to discuss available bed space.
“Tempted? Anything that GEO has proposed interests you/ICE?” an ICE detention official wrote to Johnson in an email in September 2016. (That official’s name, like many of the names in the emails and documents NPR obtained, was redacted by ICE attorneys.)
Still, no previous administration had expanded the use of private detention facilities as quickly as the Trump administration.
By February 2017, less than a month after Trump took office as president, ICE had identified more than 30 detention facilities in more than a dozen states, ranging from small county and parish jails to large detention facilities. Many facilities on that list did eventually hold detainees for ICE, though in some cases it took months or even years before the contracts were completed and signed.
“In the government, sometimes it’s designed not to move quickly,” said Ron Vitiello, a former acting ICE director under Trump during 2018 and 2019, in an interview with NPR. “It’s hard to get from where you are to where you want to be in a rapid pace.”
There was additional pressure to add detention space to help move migrants quickly out of short-term holding facilities operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Vitiello said, which were overflowing because of a jump in the number of border apprehensions.
ICE held regular meetings “to figure out what the resource picture looked like, what available beds were out there,” Vitiello said. “It was a full-court press in the sense of seeing what was available that needed new contracting, expanding current contracts.”
Thousands of detention beds were available to ICE at the time as the Department of Justice phased out the use of private detention facilities and as some states moved to shorter sentences and more frequent use of parole for low-level offenders.
Some facilities, like the Adams County Correctional Center in Natchez, Miss., had formerly held inmates for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. But the Justice Department declined to renew that contract as it scaled back its use of private prisons in 2016.
Other prisons were vacant because of declines in the inmate population in Texas and Louisiana.
In March 2018, a senior vice president at the GEO Group whose name was redacted by ICE wrote to ICE’s Johnson “regarding the availability of our idle 1,000 bed South Louisiana Processing Center” in Basile, Louisiana. The facility could be opened in as little as 45 days, GEO said, as it worked to expedite security clearances for its staff.
Sometimes, local officials approached ICE directly seeking a tenant for their vacant detention space. That was the case in Anson, Texas, a small town about a two and a half hours’ drive from Fort Worth, where county officials had built a prison with the expectation that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice would hold inmates there. But the department pulled out in 2010, leaving the facility vacant for years — until county judge Dale Spurgin called ICE.
“Judge Spurgin had been in contact on prior occasions to see if ICE was interested in using the facility, however funding never allowed ICE to use the facility,” immigration authorities wrote in an internal report explaining the need for the additional bed space. “With the current situation on the border, Judge Spurgin reached out again to see if ICE might be interested in the facility.”
This time, ICE was interested. The Bluebonnet Detention Facility, as it’s known, began holding detainees in late 2019.
A crowd member uses his phone to record Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaking on the final night of the 2024 Republican National Convention.
Grace Widyatmadja/NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Grace Widyatmadja/NPR
Former immigration officials take differing views of Trump’s plans
Trump often speaks admiringly of another former Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and his immigration policies. “You know, he was a moderate, but he believed very strongly in borders,” Trump said during his Republican National Convention speech last month.
Still, Trump has avoided using the name of Eisenhower’s most famous mass deportation program on the record.
“Operation Wetback,” as it was known in official government documents, took its name from a racist term for Mexicans who swam or waded across the Rio Grande. In 1954, Eisenhower’s immigration commissioner launched the military-style operation to remove thousands of Mexicans who had crossed into the U.S. in search of work.
Immigration authorities later claimed to have rounded up and removed more than 1 million people. Historians now say that this number may be massively inflated, though there’s little doubt that the operation ensnared many U.S. citizens as well and that hundreds of deportees died during roundups or on ships bound for Mexico.
The modern record for most removals in a four-year span was set during the first term of President Barack Obama, who was labeled the “deporter in chief” by immigrant rights advocates who were critical of his policies. Removals by ICE peaked on his watch in fiscal year 2013, with more than 432,000 in a single year. During the Trump administration, annual removals never exceeded 270,000.
Even the Biden administration, despite widespread criticism from immigration hard-liners, is on pace to carry out roughly the same number of deportations as the Trump administration, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute — if you combine returns at the border, which have soared under Biden, with removals from the interior. (And that’s without counting the roughly 3 million migrants who were rapidly expelled after crossing the border under pandemic-era rules known as Title 42.)
Still, the former president and his allies promise they can eclipse those records in a second Trump administration.
“It’s 100% possible,” said Vitiello, the former acting ICE director. As few as 55,000 to 60,000 detention beds would be enough to support a larger deportation operation, Vitiello said, if they were paired with border policies that cut down on the number of illegal crossings.
“You can do all of those things at once,” Vitiello said. “But you have to start with the flow now at the border and then set a priority for what happens in the interior.”
This is not the first time Trump has promised massive deportations. When he was president in 2019, Trump tweeted, “Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in.”
Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in. Mexico, using their strong immigration laws, is doing a very good job of stopping people…….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2019
Caught off guard, immigration authorities scrambled to make good on those warnings. Meanwhile, immigrant advocates and Democratic leaders in cities across the country vowed to protect unauthorized immigrants in their midst. In the end, no mass arrests or deportations materialized.
Some former ICE officials believe Trump and his allies are once again threatening more than they can deliver when they promise the largest deportation operation in U.S. history.
“The cynic in me would say that’s a political statement, not really a practical statement,” said Saldaña, the former ICE director, that’s designed to appeal to people “who like the idea of coming in and kicking people out of the country.”
In reality, Saldaña says, any effort to remove all the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. would face enormous legal and practical challenges.
Many of those immigrants are living in the shadows and have never had any contact with immigration authorities. So even if ICE were able to find and arrest them, they could be entitled to contest their removal before an immigration judge. But that process can take years because of lengthy backlogs in immigration courts.
“It’s a morass of regulations, government cooperation, in order to try to get somebody back into their country,” said Saldaña. “The logistics are not simple.”
Moreover, immigrant advocates say removing millions of unauthorized immigrants at once would have a devastating effect on communities and families — including millions of mixed-status families that include U.S. citizens and lawful residents — and would likely hurt the U.S. economy in the process.
Migrants wait to enter a shelter at the Sacred Heart Church in El Paso, Texas, on Dec. 17, 2022. Migrants had crossed over the border from Mexico in the previous days, seeking political asylum.
John Moore/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
John Moore/Getty Images
It’s possible that a second Trump administration could choose to focus its enforcement efforts on the more than 2.5 million migrants who’ve been allowed into the U.S. to seek asylum during the Biden administration. Many of them are legally present in the country while they await their asylum hearings in immigration court — though most lack any kind of permanent legal status.
Some of Trump’s allies say those recent arrivals should be taking his threats of mass deportation seriously.
“As a guy who spent 34 years deporting illegal aliens, I got a message to the millions of illegal aliens that Joe Biden released in our country in violation of federal law,” Homan, the former ICE acting director, told a cheering crowd at the Republican National Convention last month. “You better start packing now. You’re damn right. ‘Cause you’re going home.”
News
Rubio’s Absence From Iran Talks Highlights Stay-at-Home Role
When President Barack Obama negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran more than a decade ago, his point man was Secretary of State John Kerry. Over 20 months of talks, Mr. Kerry met with his Iranian counterpart on at least 18 different days, often several times per day.
High-level nuclear diplomacy was a natural role for the top U.S. diplomat. Secretaries of state traditionally take the lead on the country’s biggest diplomatic tasks, from arms control treaties to Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
But as President Trump prepares to send a delegation to the latest round of U.S.-Iran talks in Pakistan this weekend, his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, will remain where he often does: at home.
Mr. Rubio did not attend the last U.S. meeting with Iran earlier this month. Nor did he join several meetings held over the past year in Geneva and Doha. Mr. Rubio has also been absent from U.S. delegations abroad working to settle the war in Ukraine and Israel’s war in Gaza. Despite a long period of crisis and war in the region, he has not visited the Middle East since a brief stop in Israel last October.
In recent months, Mr. Rubio — consumed with his second role, as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser — has not traveled much at all.
During the Biden administration, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken made 11 foreign trips from January 2024 to late April 2024, stopping in roughly three dozen cities, according to the State Department. So far this year, Mr. Rubio has visited six foreign cities, including a stop in Milan for the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Mr. Trump has outsourced much of his diplomacy to others, including his friend Steve Witkoff, a wealthy associate from the world of Manhattan real estate, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner have spearheaded diplomacy with Israel, Ukraine and Russia, as well as Iran, whose delegation they will meet for the second time this month in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital.
Mr. Rubio’s distance from the trenches of diplomacy reflects his dual role on Mr. Trump’s national security team. For the past year, he has served as the White House national security adviser even while leading the State Department — the first person to do so since Henry A. Kissinger in the mid-1970s.
The secretary of state runs the State Department, overseeing U.S. diplomats and embassies worldwide, as well as Washington-based policymakers. Working from the White House, the national security adviser coordinates departments and agencies, including the State Department, to develop policy advice for the president.
The twin roles reflect Mr. Rubio’s influence with Mr. Trump, and offer him a way to maintain it. For Mr. Rubio, less time abroad means more time at the side of an impulsive president prone to making critical national security decisions at any moment.
As Mr. Witkoff, Mr. Kushner and Vice President JD Vance met with Iranian officials in Pakistan earlier this month, Mr. Rubio was at Mr. Trump’s side at an Ultimate Fighting Championship event, noted Emma Ashford, an analyst of U.S. diplomacy at the nonpartisan Stimson Center in Washington. “Rubio clearly prefers to stay close to Trump,” Ms. Ashford said.
Mr. Rubio accepted the national security adviser job on an acting basis last May after Mr. Trump reassigned the job’s previous occupant, Michael Waltz. But officials say that Mr. Rubio is expected to keep it indefinitely.
That arrangement is not inherently bad, Ms. Ashford added. And she noted that previous presidents had entrusted major diplomatic tasks to people other than the secretary of state. President Joseph R. Biden Jr. delegated his C.I.A. director, William J. Burns, to handle diplomacy with Russia and cease-fire negotiations between Israel and Hamas, for instance.
But she echoed the complaints by many current and former diplomats that Mr. Rubio seems less like someone performing both jobs than a national security adviser who sometimes shows up at the State Department. “I do think it’s to the detriment of the whole department of State and to America’s ability to conduct diplomacy in general that we effectively have the secretary of state position sitting vacant,” she said.
Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, contested such claims. “Anyone trying to paint Secretary Rubio’s close coordination with the White House and other agencies as a negative could not be more wrong,” he said. “We now have an N.S.C. and State Department that are totally in sync, a goal that has eluded past administrations for decades.”
Mr. Rubio divides his time between the State Department and the White House, often spending time at both in the same day. In an interview with Politico last June, Mr. Rubio said he visited the State Department “almost every day.”
While there, he often meets with visiting dignitaries before returning to the White House. Last week, Mr. Rubio presided over a meeting at the State Department between Lebanese and Israeli officials that set the stage for a cease-fire in Lebanon.
His twin jobs “really do overlap in many cases,” he said. “In many cases you end up being in the same meetings or in the same places; there’s just one less person in there, if you think about it,” Mr. Rubio added. “A lot of people would come to Washington, for example, for meetings, and they’d want to meet with the national security adviser and then meet with me as secretary of state. Now they can do both in one meeting.”
Asked about his travel schedule during a news conference last December, Mr. Rubio said he had less reason to travel abroad because “we have a lot of leaders constantly coming here” to visit Mr. Trump at the White House. Mr. Rubio also joins Mr. Trump’s foreign trips in his capacity as national security adviser.
Many national security veterans call the arrangement unwise, saying that both jobs are extremely demanding and incompatible with one another.
It was not easy even for Mr. Kissinger, who had firmly established himself over more than four years as national security adviser before convincing President Richard M. Nixon to let him take on an additional role as secretary of state in 1973. (In a reversal of Mr. Rubio’s approach, Mr. Kissinger was in constant motion, including a round of Middle East shuttle diplomacy that kept him on the road for 33 straight days.)
“In general, it’s a mistake to combine those roles,” said Matthew Waxman, who held senior roles at the National Security Council, State Department and the Pentagon during the George W. Bush administration.
“That said, it’s not necessarily a bad thing that a dual-hatted Rubio is so offscreen right now,” Mr. Waxman added. “Especially while so much attention is focused on high-wire diplomacy with Iran, someone needs to manage foreign policy around the rest of the world.”
News
Appeals court rules that Trump’s asylum ban at the border is illegal
President Trump speaks during an event on health care affordability in the Oval Office at the White House on Thursday in Washington.
Mark Schiefelbein/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Mark Schiefelbein/AP
WASHINGTON — An appeals court on Friday blocked President Trump’s executive order suspending asylum access at the southern border of the U.S., a key pillar of the Republican president’s plan to crack down on migration.
A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that immigration laws give people the right to apply for asylum at the border, and the president can’t circumvent that.

The court opinion stems from action taken by Trump on Inauguration Day 2025, when he declared that the situation at the southern border constituted an invasion of America and that he was “suspending the physical entry” of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides it is over.
The panel concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act doesn’t authorize the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making,” allow him to suspend plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating their anti-torture claims.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden.
“We conclude that the INA’s text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the opinion said.
White House says asylum ban was within Trump’s powers
The administration can ask the full appeals court to reconsider the ruling or go to the Supreme Court.
The order doesn’t formally take effect until after the court considers any request to reconsider.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking on Fox News, said she had not seen the ruling but called it “unsurprising,” blaming politically-motivated judges.
“They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” she said.
Leavitt said Trump was taking actions that are “completely within his powers as commander in chief.”
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the Department of Justice would seek further review of the decision. “We are sure we will be vindicated,” she wrote in an emailed statement.
The Department of Homeland Security said it strongly disagreed with the ruling.
“President Trump’s top priority remains the screening and vetting of all aliens seeking to come, live, or work in the United States,” DHS said in a statement.
Advocates welcome the ruling
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that previous legal action had already paused the asylum ban, and the ruling won’t change much on the ground.

The ruling, however, represents another legal defeat for a centerpiece policy of the president.
“This confirms that President Trump cannot on his own bar people from seeking asylum, that it is Congress that has mandated that asylum seekers have a right to apply for asylum and the President cannot simply invoke his authority to sustain,” said Reichlin-Melnick.
Advocates say the right to request asylum is enshrined in the country’s immigration law and say denying migrants that right puts people fleeing war or persecution in grave danger.
Lee Gelernt, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case, said in a statement that the appellate ruling is “essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims under the Trump administration’s unlawful and inhumane executive order.”
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, welcomed the court decision as a victory for their clients.
“Today’s DC Circuit ruling affirms that capricious actions by the President cannot supplant the rule of law in the United States,” said Nicolas Palazzo, director of advocacy and legal Services at Las Americas.
Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, wrote a partial dissent. He said the law gives immigrants protections against removal to countries where they would be persecuted, but the administration can issue broad denials of asylum applications.
Walker, however, agreed with the majority that the president cannot deport migrants to countries where they will be persecuted or strip them of mandatory procedures that protect against their removal.
Judge Cornelia Pillard, who was nominated by Democratic President Obama, also heard the case.
In the executive order, Trump argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives presidents the authority to suspend entry of any group that they find “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
The executive order also suspended the ability of migrants to ask for asylum.
Trump’s order was another blow to asylum access in the U.S., which was severely curtailed under the Biden administration, although under Biden some pathways for protections for a limited number of asylum seekers at the southern border continued.
Migrant advocate in Mexico expresses cautious hope
For Josue Martinez, a psychologist who works at a small migrant shelter in southern Mexico, the ruling marked a potential “light at the end of the tunnel” for many migrants who once hoped to seek asylum in the U.S. but ended up stuck in vulnerable conditions in Mexico.
“I hope there’s something more concrete, because we’ve heard this kind of news before: A district judge files an appeal, there’s a temporary hold, but it’s only temporary and then it’s over,” he said.
Meanwhile, migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries have struggled to make ends meet as they try to seek refuge in Mexico’s asylum system that’s all but collapsed under the weight of new strains and slashed international funds.
This week hundreds of migrants, mostly stranded migrants from Haiti, left the southern Mexican city of Tapachula on foot to seek better living conditions elsewhere in Mexico.
News
A New Worry for Republicans: Latino Catholics Offended by Trump
When Stuart Sepulvida arrives at St. Francis de Sales Roman Catholic Parish in Tucson, Ariz., for Mass, which he attends most mornings, he passes a display honoring local soldiers and encouraging parishioners to pray for their safety. Hundreds of small cards record their names: Robles, Arenas, Grajeda. A portrait of Pope Leo XIV hangs across the lobby.
Mr. Sepulvida, 81, is a Vietnam veteran whose patriotism and Catholicism are deeply intertwined. He voted for President Trump three times but has never felt more betrayed by an American president than when Mr. Trump denounced Pope Leo as “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy.”
“It was very disturbing to me to hear both of them clashing like they did,” Mr. Sepulvida said, standing outside the church one morning this week. Now, he is reconsidering whether he will vote Republican this year.
The Republican Party is struggling to hold onto the support from Hispanic voters who helped propel Mr. Trump back into the White House in 2024. Yet as many party leaders have acknowledged the urgent need to stop the backsliding among Latinos, the president has enraged many of even his strongest supporters by clashing with the pope.
On Easter Sunday, Pope Leo, the first U.S.-born pontiff, spoke of the need to “abandon every desire for conflict, domination and power, and implore the Lord to grant his peace to a world ravaged by wars.” Within days, Mr. Trump, who has led the United States into a war with Iran, said the pope was “catering to the radical left” and posted an AI-generated image portraying himself as a Jesus figure. Mr. Trump later deleted the image, saying he thought it depicted him as a doctor.
“It just isn’t what a president should do,” Mr. Sepulvida said. “The pope speaks for his people. He is beyond politics.”
Mr. Trump won 55 percent of Catholic voters in the 2024 election, compared to 43 percent who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, according to Pew Research Center. The most sizable gains came from Hispanic Catholics. While Joseph R. Biden Jr. won their votes by a 35-point margin in 2020, the Democratic advantage shrunk to 17 points in 2024. Now, just 18 percent of Hispanic Catholics said they support most or all of President Trump’s agenda, according to a poll from Pew released earlier this year.
If the president’s quarrel with the pope sours more Latinos on the Republican Party, it could affect midterm races across the country, including in South Florida and South Texas, where Republicans have notched important victories in predominantly Hispanic districts in recent years.
In Arizona’s Sixth Congressional District, which stretches from north of Tucson to the Mexican border, voters were still grappling with the fallout this week.
The district is roughly evenly divided among Republicans, Democrats and independent voters. Nearly a third of the district is Hispanic, and there is a significant population of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as a large Catholic community with deep history in the region. It also has one of largest numbers of military veterans of all congressional districts in the country.
“The president is looking for a lot of attention from everything,” said Maria Ramos, 60, who regularly attends weekday Mass at St. Francis. A registered independent, she usually votes for Democrats but often declines to cast a ballot if she views a candidate as too liberal. “He believes he can put God in his place. He’s meddling in countries that he’s not in control of — he wants to control the world.”
“It is not just a very serious lack of respect — it is a mortal sin,” she said, shaking her head. One word comes to her mind again and again, she said: disgust.
Like so many others in southern Arizona, Ms. Ramos has several relatives who serve in the military — a path they saw to both serve the country and as an entry into the stable middle class. Many of them, she said, voted for Mr. Trump for president.
The Tucson district is now widely seen as one of the most competitive in the country. Republican Juan Ciscomani narrowly won the district in 2022, in part by emphasizing his biography as a Mexican immigrant and a devoted father of six children. He is also an evangelical Christian, a group that has driven much of the growth among Hispanic Republican voters in recent years.
Mr. Ciscomani declined a request for an interview, but when a local radio host asked Mr. Ciscomani what he thought of Mr. Trump’s comments “as a man of faith,” the congressman declined to criticize the president but said, “You can trust that you won’t see any meme like that coming out of my account.”
JoAnna Mendoza, the Democrat challenging Mr. Ciscomani this fall, has made her 20-year career in the U.S. Navy and Marines a key aspect of her story on the campaign trail. While she rarely speaks about her religious background and no longer considers herself a practicing Catholic, she said she briefly considered becoming a nun as a teenager. She criticized Mr. Ciscomani for not condemning the president’s remarks.
“You can’t make faith a central part of your campaign and then allow this to stand,” she said in an interview.
Across Tucson, Latino Catholics, regardless of their past voting preferences, were similarly quick to condemn the president’s remarks.
When Cecilia Taisipic, 71, heard about it, she said, she winced with shame about her vote for him in 2024.
“I thought he would make the country better, but apparently it’s the opposite,” she said as she left Mass at St. Francis earlier this week. She is so fed up with politics, she said, that she is unlikely to vote at all this year. “When it comes to my faith, I don’t like anybody to challenge it. Now I don’t want to hear anything on the news. I just want to pray.”
Matilde Robinson Bours, 63, teaches a weekly Spanish Bible study class at St. Thomas the Apostle Parish, and like nearly all of the women in her class, she immigrated from Mexico decades ago. She has voted for Republicans in nearly every election since she became a citizen. Though she has never liked President Trump, she said, his comments about the pope enraged her more than anything else he has said or done in the past.
“This surpassed everything, every social and political norm — this is personal to all Catholics,” she said. “The arrogance and ego is disgusting. To think that he is God? The pope has every right and responsibility to talk about peace.”
Still, Ms. Robinson Bours said, nothing will stop her from supporting Republicans again this year. She has been delighted that her adult children have stopped supporting Democrats in recent elections.
“Almost everyone I know thinks the way I do,” she said.
Patricia Martinez, 86, who has attended the same Bible study as Ms. Robinson Bours for years, shook her head in disagreement. She said she cannot imagine voting for a Republican who supports Mr. Trump.
“This is different — this shows he is out of his mind,” said Ms. Martinez. “We have to have basic respect and teach that to people in this country.”
Patrick Robles, a 24-year-old native of Tucson, spent years alienated from the Roman Catholic Church, but returned to his faith more recently. “The craziness of the world sort of caused me to seek some sort of answers,” he said. Now, he attends Mass at the St. Augustine Cathedral in downtown Tucson, a few blocks from the office where he works as an aide to Representative Adelita Grijalva, a Democrat.
Mr. Robles said he saw Mr. Trump’s battle with the pope as both a personal affront and a political opportunity.
“The president is basically trying to draw a line between Catholics and what we perceive to be patriotism,” he said. “I believe we can be both.”
Last week, he texted one of his uncles who has supported Mr. Trump in every election asking him what he thought.
“I’m afraid we need divine intervention,” the uncle replied.
-
New York48 minutes agoDemocrats Weigh Whether a Lawmaker’s Ethnicity Counts More Than Ideology
-
Detroit, MI1 hour agoPotential Day 3 Detroit Lions targets: 10 players to consider
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoKaelon Black selected by 49ers in NFL draft: Grade, analysis
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoDallas Cowboys remaining draft selections after second and third rounds
-
Miami, FL2 hours ago
How much and where to park in Miami during a hurricane or flood threat
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoBuffalo visits Boston with 2-1 series lead
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoDenver Broncos’ Day 3 pivotal to expanding title window after only 1 draft pick so far
-
Seattle, WA2 hours ago
Neal selected by Seattle in 3rd round of NFL Draft