Connect with us

Politics

Trump’s orders have upended U.S. immigration. What legal routes remain? 

Published

on

Trump’s orders have upended U.S. immigration. What legal routes remain? 

Promising the largest deportation effort in U.S. history, President Trump, in his first days in office, has released a dramatic series of executive orders and other policy changes that will reshape the country’s immigration system — and the experience of what it means to live in the U.S. as an immigrant, particularly one who is undocumented.

There are an estimated 13 million to 15 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., including more than 2.5 million in California.

That includes people who crossed the border illegally, people who overstayed their visas and people who have requested asylum. It does not include people who entered the country under various temporary humanitarian programs, or who have obtained Temporary Protected Status, which gives people the right to live and work in the U.S. temporarily because of disasters or strife in their home countries.

However, many of the people who came to the U.S. using those legal pathways could also be at risk of deportation, because of other actions the Trump administration has taken.

What exactly has the Trump administration done?

Trump has signed multiple executive orders targeting immigration that, as the Migration Policy Institute noted, do one of three things: sharply limit legal pathways for entering the U.S., bolster enforcement efforts to seal off the U.S.-Mexico border or promote aggressive sweeps to round up and deport people living in the U.S. illegally. Some of the orders have already been challenged in court, and advocates said others could be soon.

Advertisement

Among the most consequential orders:

  • The president declared a “national emergency” at the southern border, which will enable him to deploy military troops there.
  • He moved to end birthright citizenship, which has long been guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union and more than 20 states, including California, have sued, arguing the order is unconstitutional. In a ruling issued in one of those cases on Jan. 23, a federal judge temporarily halted the order while the legal challenges play out.
  • He suspended the refugee admissions program as of Jan. 27 for at least 90 days. Last fiscal year, the U.S. resettled more than 100,000 refugees, the highest number in three decades.

Has the new administration done anything else that affects immigration?

Yes. Among the significant actions:

  • Hours after Trump took office, his new administration shut down the CBP One mobile app. The Biden administration had expanded use of CBP One to create a more orderly process of applying for asylum. Migrants could use the app, once they reached Mexican soil, to schedule appointments with U.S. authorities at legal ports of entry to present their bids for asylum and provide biographical information for screening.
  • In a related action, the administration has given Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials the power to quickly deport about 1.4 million immigrants who were granted legal entry to the U.S. for up to two years through two Biden-era programs: migrants who came in through the CBP One program and were granted parole status as they await hearings on their asylum pleas; and migrants fleeing Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti who were granted temporary parole while seeking asylum.
  • In a notice posted Jan. 21, the administration said it would empower immigration authorities to fast-track deportations of people in the country illegally without a judicial hearing. The ACLU has sued to try to halt the plan.
  • The Department of Homeland Security has rescinded long-standing guidelines prohibiting immigration agents from making arrests in “sensitive” locations such as schools, hospitals and churches.
  • Benjamine Huffman, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, has declared a “mass influx” of illegal immigrants at the southern border, which authorizes the department to deputize state and local law enforcement officers to conduct immigration enforcement.
  • ICE has begun conducting publicized immigration raids in many cities, including New York and Chicago. The administration said it was targeting undocumented people with criminal records. But in a briefing this week, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration views all undocumented immigrants as criminals, because they have violated immigration laws.

So, what are the numbers? Have more people been deported since Trump took office?

ICE authorities this week have been posting daily figures on the agency’s X account citing the number of undocumented immigrants arrested, including 1,179 on Jan. 27 and 969 on Jan. 28. Axios reported this week that ICE made 3,500 arrests during Trump’s first week in office. During Biden’s final year in office, the arrest number was about 350 a week.

It is too soon to evaluate deportation numbers. On Jan. 27, ICE posted on X that: “In one week, law enforcement officials have removed and returned 7,300 illegal aliens.”

If that pace continues, and ICE removes 7,300 immigrants every week for a year, that would result in the forced removal of more than 350,000 people. That figure would outpace removals during the Biden administration. But during the Obama administration, ICE removals peaked at nearly 410,000 in fiscal year 2012. Obama’s enforcement policies targeted undocumented immigrants with criminal records and people who had recently crossed the border without authorization, according to the Migration Policy Institute, while placing low priority on people with established roots in U.S. communities and without criminal records.

  • People who have a close family member who is a U.S. citizen can still apply. But if the Trump administration resurrects travel bans barring people from certain countries from entering the U.S., that could limit applications to certain nationalities.
  • People deemed to have valuable skills can apply for temporary or permanent employment visas, although in many cases there are years-long waits for such visas. Employers can petition for temporary work visas for foreign nationals for specific jobs. Permanent work visas are capped at 140,000 per year, a figure that includes the immigrants plus their eligible spouses and minor, unmarried children, according to the American Immigration Council.
  • Immigrants from countries with low rates of immigration to the U.S. are eligible for a green-card lottery.
  • Visas are still available for parents adopting a child from another country.

What’s going on with Dreamers?

While Trump tried to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, during his first administration, he has not yet touched the program this time around.

The Obama-era program grants a renewable work permit and temporary reprieve from deportation to certain people who came to the U.S. as children. An estimated 537,730 people had DACA protection as of September, with the vast majority being from Mexico, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

The legality of the program remains mired in the federal courts.

Advertisement

What are sanctuary policies, and why is the Trump administration targeting them?

There isn’t one clear definition of a sanctuary policy. The term generally applies to policies that limit state and local officials from cooperating with federal authorities on civil immigration enforcement duties.

California’s 2017 sanctuary law, the California Values Act, prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from investigating, interrogating and arresting people simply for immigration enforcement purposes. The law does not prevent federal authorities from carrying out those enforcement duties in California. And it does allow local police to cooperate with federal immigration officials in limited circumstances, including in cases involving immigrants convicted of certain violent felonies and misdemeanors.

Under L.A.’s sanctuary city law, city employees and city property may not be used to “investigate, cite, arrest, hold, transfer or detain any person” for the purpose of immigration enforcement. An exception is made for law enforcement investigating serious offenses. L.A. Unified’s sanctuary policy prohibits staff from voluntarily cooperating in an immigration enforcement action, including sharing information about a student’s immigration status.

An executive order issued on Trump’s first day in office threatens to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions that seek to interfere with federal law enforcement operations. A memo from the Department of Justice, meanwhile, said state and local officials could be investigated and prosecuted for not complying with Trump’s crackdown on immigration enforcement.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has called the pronouncement “a scare tactic,” and vowed legal action “if the Trump administration’s vague threats turn to illegal action.”

Advertisement

If immigration authorities make mass arrests, does the U.S. have space to detain all the immigrants?

That depends on several factors.

On average, nearly 40,000 people have been locked up in ICE detention centers on a daily basis during fiscal year 2025. There is probably capacity in the system for additional detainees, but how much isn’t entirely clear, according to Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project.

What is clear is that the administration intends to expand the ICE detention footprint. On Wednesday, Trump directed his administration to begin using the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the detention of 30,000 “high priority” immigrants. The military also is allowing ICE to detain undocumented immigrants at Buckley Space Force Base in Colorado, according to multiple news reports.

ICE operates six detention facilities in California, with capacity for nearly 7,200 detainees, and is pressing to expand. Agency officials are looking for space to accommodate 850 to 950 people within two hours of its San Francisco regional field offices, a development first reported by CalMatters.

The agency is also looking to increase detention capacity in Arizona, New Mexico, Washington and Oregon, according to federal documents obtained by CalMatters.

Advertisement

ICE facilities, which are largely run by private prison corporations, have been dogged by allegations of poor medical care and inhumane treatment. A 2019 law that would have banned private immigration facilities in California was overturned by the federal courts.

Times staff writers Kate Linthicum, Brittny Mejia, Andrea Castillo and Rachel Uranga contributed to this report.

Politics

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Published

on

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

transcript

transcript

Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”

Advertisement
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

By Shawn Paik

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

Published

on

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.

“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.

“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”

Advertisement

Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)

Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”

“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”

“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”

‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING

Advertisement

Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.

Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”

However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”

Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.

Advertisement

Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business. 

WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS

Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”

The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.

Advertisement

“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS

Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.

Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available. 

Advertisement

Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”

“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said. 

“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”

KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3

The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first.  (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.

A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself. 

“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”

The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”

“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”

Advertisement

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.

“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

Related Article

DHS defends ad blitz amid Senate scrutiny, says campaign drove 2.2M self-deportations and saved taxpayers $39B
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Published

on

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.

The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.

In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.

The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.

“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.

Advertisement

Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.

“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.

Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.

Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.

The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.

“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”

Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.

Advertisement

GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.

In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.

In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending