Politics
Trump says he'll undertake the 'largest deportation' in U.S. history. Can he do that?
Former President Trump has promised that, if reelected, he will kick out millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.
Trump and his surrogates have offered sparse details for how he would carry out the “largest deportation operation in American history,” but have cemented the goal as a top priority. What is known: The strategy would rely on military troops, friendly state and local law enforcement, and wartime powers.
“No one’s off the table,” Tom Homan, Trump’s former head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in July. “If you’re in the country illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder.”
Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance said the administration would start by deporting immigrants who have committed crimes.
At a campaign rally earlier this month in Aurora, Colo., Trump said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 “to target and dismantle every migrant criminal network operating on American soil.”
The ex-president went on to say that he would send “elite squads” of federal law enforcement officers to “hunt down, arrest and deport” every migrant gang member. Those who attempt to return to the U.S. would be served with 10-year prison sentences without parole, he said, adding that any migrant who kills a U.S. citizen or law enforcement officer would face the death penalty.
How many people would Trump go after?
It’s unclear.
In May, Trump told Time magazine he would target 15 million to 20 million people who he said are living illegally in the U.S. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center estimates the actual number to be about 11 million as of 2022. More than 2 million people have entered the country illegally since then.
“Let’s start with 1 million,” Vance told ABC News in August.
During his entire presidency, from January 2017 to January 2021, Trump deported about 1.5 million immigrants, according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of federal figures — far fewer than the 2 million to 3 million he speculated about deporting in a 2016 interview as president-elect. The Biden administration is on pace to match Trump’s deportation numbers.
What powers would Trump invoke to justify deportations?
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the president to arrest, imprison or deport immigrants from a country considered an enemy of the U.S. during wartime. Congress passed the law as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts — four laws that tightened restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limited criticism of the government, when the country was on the brink of war with France.
The law has been used three times in American history: during the War of 1812 and World War I and after the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II.
During WWI, federal authorities placed 6,300 “enemy aliens” — many from Germany — into internment camps.
By the end of WWII, more than 31,000 people from Japan, Germany and Italy, as well as some Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, had been interned at camps and military facilities — in addition to the more than 100,000 Japanese Americans who were forcibly relocated to the same camps and detained under different legal grounds, said Gabriel “Jack” Chin, a UC Davis professor who studies criminal and immigration law.
Chin said he isn’t convinced that Trump would make the Alien Enemies Act the cornerstone of his immigration policy because the U.S. is not in a declared war with another nation.
“It would have to rest on an argument that random immigration — that is to say immigration based on individual decisions of individual people — is the equivalent of an invasion from a nation-state,” he said. “And that would have to be based on an idea that foreigners as a group are a nation.”
Trump has also said he would deploy National Guard troops under the orders of sympathetic governors.
“If I thought things were getting out of control, I would have no problem using the military,” he told Time.
Federal law limits the involvement of military troops in civilian law enforcement.
In 2018, Trump sent 5,800 active-duty troops to the southwestern border amid the arrival of a caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America. Initially the troops performed support work such as laying razor wire as a deterrent to crossing, but later the White House expanded their authority to allow them to use force and provide crowd control to protect border agents.
Last year, President Biden sent 1,500 Army and Marine Corps troops to fill critical “capability gaps” at the border as the administration lifted the Title 42 border expulsions policy that Trump had invoked to turn away asylum seekers and other would-be immigrants as the COVID-19 pandemic raged.
Trump has promised to go further during a second term by recalling thousands of troops from overseas to be stationed at the U.S.-Mexico border. He has also explored using troops to assist with deportations and confronting civil unrest.
Is it legal?
Using the Alien Enemies Act, Trump could conduct rapid deportations without the typically required legal processes. He could also circumvent federal law to use military troops in a broader law enforcement capacity to carry out arrests and removals.
But speeding up the deportation process could come with catastrophic consequences, Chin said. Scores of U.S. citizens are already mistakenly deported.
“If the point of this was a roundup, U.S. citizens would be rounded up,” he said.
Katherine Yon Ebright, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice, argued in an analysis of the law that courts would likely avoid opining on the presence or absence of an invasion, or whether the perpetrator of the alleged invasion is a foreign nation or government.
“The courts’ hesitance to weigh in on these questions heightens the risk that Trump will invoke the Alien Enemies Act despite its clear inapplicability,” she wrote. But she added that “courts may strike down an invocation of the Alien Enemies Act under modern due process and equal protection law, justiciable grounds for checking abusive presidential action.”
Tom Jawetz, deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security from 2021 to 2022, said courts tend to give deference to the president for executive determinations. But he said this one could be difficult to uphold.
“There could be opportunities for legal attack,” he said. “It sounds like they would be stretching it beyond its capacity, beyond what the text [of the law] would allow.”
Is it feasible?
Deporting millions of people would be expensive and logistically complex.
Former President Obama, who in 2013 oversaw the most deportations in a year when his administration kicked out 438,000 immigrants, relied on local police turning people over to federal immigration agents. Trump has said he would similarly rely on state and local law enforcement. But many state and local governments, including California, have since limited their cooperation with immigration agents.
Immigration courts are already overwhelmed, and more deportation cases would add to the backlog of 3.7 million cases. Lengthy delays in immigration court proceedings mean immigrants often wait years before their case is completed.
Among the rights afforded to immigrants is a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that prohibits them from being indefinitely detained if their country won’t accept them back. Countries including Venezuela and China have previously refused to cooperate with U.S. authorities on deportations.
How much would it cost?
It would cost at least $315 billion to deport the roughly 13 million people in the country illegally, according to an analysis by the American Immigration Council, a group that advocates for policies that welcome migrants. The deportation effort would require building hundreds of new detention facilities, as well as hiring hundreds of thousands of new immigration agents, judges and other staff.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s budget last year was about $9 billion. Significantly increasing its funding would require the backing of Congress — an uphill battle given current political divisions.
Jawetz said Trump could redirect funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Defense, like he did for construction of the border wall, and could also reassign personnel from other agencies to perform immigration enforcement tasks.
An analysis by CBS News found that it cost an estimated average of $19,599 to deport one person over the last five fiscal years after apprehension, detention, immigration court processes and transport out of the U.S. were taken into account. The average cost of repatriation only increases as more migrants arrive from distant countries such as Cameroon and China.
How are people preparing?
Mass deportation could rip apart deeply rooted families that include citizens and noncitizens, worsen labor shortages and lead to economic upset. Discussion of mass deportation alone would also sow fear in immigrant communities, as happened during Trump’s first term.
Jawetz said advocates for migrants are beginning to consider potential legal action. During Trump’s presidency, informal Signal and WhatsApp networks emerged across the country in which advocates and community members communicated real-time responses to policy changes they were seeing on the ground.
“We would hope and expect to see much of the same this time around” if Trump wins, the former Homeland Security counsel said. “If you think about it, just the level of anxiety people [would be] living under on a day-to-day basis over a period of years is pretty extraordinary.”
Politics
Video: President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order
new video loaded: President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order
transcript
transcript
President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order
Marijuana was downgraded from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug on Thursday. The reclassification does not legalize cannabis, but it does ease restrictions on the substance and allows for more research.
-
Today, I’m pleased to announce that I will be signing an executive order to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance with legitimate medical uses. We have people begging for me to do this. I want to emphasize that the order I am about to sign is not the legalization or it doesn’t legalize marijuana in any way, shape, or form, and in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug — has nothing to do with that.
December 18, 2025
Politics
Trump quietly signs sweeping $901B defense bill after bipartisan Senate passage
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Trump signed into law a nearly $1 trillion defense policy bill Thursday and approved what looks to be the largest military spending package in U.S. history.
The fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act authorizes $901 billion in military spending, roughly $8 billion more than the administration requested, according to Reuters.
It also delivers a nearly 4 percent pay raise for troops, provides new funding for Ukraine and the Baltic States, and includes measures designed to scale back security commitments abroad.
In a release shared online, Rep. Rick Allen said: “With President Trump’s signature, the FY2026 NDAA officially delivers on our peace-through-strength agenda with a generational investment in our national defense.”
TRUMP ADMIN ANNOUNCES $11B TAIWAN ARMS SALES DEAL
U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. December 11, 2025. (Al Drago/Reuters)
“Not only does this bipartisan bill ensure America’s warfighters are the most lethal and capable fighting force in the world, but it also improves the quality of life for our service members in the 12th District and nationwide,” he added.
As previously reported by Fox News Digital, the Senate passed the NDAA on Wednesday, sending the compromise bill approved with bipartisan support to the president’s desk.
Trump signed it quietly Thursday evening, according to Reuters.
The NDAA includes $800 million for Ukraine over the next two years as part of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which pays US firms for weapons for Ukraine’s military.
It also includes $175 million for the Baltic Security Initiative, which supports Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
TRUMP TOUTS BRINGING COUNTRY BACK FROM ‘BRINK OF RUIN’
President Donald Trump announced his proposal for a ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense system in the United States on May 20, 2025. (Reuters/Leah Millis/File Photo; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The bill prohibits reducing U.S. troop levels in Europe below 76,000 for more than 45 days without formal certification by Congress.
The legislation also restricts the administration from reducing U.S. forces in South Korea below 28,500 troops.
Trump ultimately backed the bill in part because it codifies some of his executive orders, including funding the Golden Dome missile defense system and getting rid of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, per Reuters.
TRUMP TO HAND OUT $2.6B IN ‘WARRIOR DIVIDENDS’ — AND THE SURPRISING POT HE’S PULLING THE MONEY FROM
The seal of the Department of War is displayed inside the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (elal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“Under President Trump, the U.S. is rebuilding strength, restoring deterrence, and proving America will not back down. President Trump and Republicans promised peace through strength. The FY26 NDAA delivers it,” House Speaker Mike Johnson had said in a statement Dec. 7 on the new measures.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.
Politics
State regulators vote to keep utility profits high, angering customers across California
Despite complaints from customers about rising electric bills, the California Public Utilities Commission voted 4 to 1 on Thursday to keep profits at Southern California Edison and the state’s other big investor-owned utilities at a level that consumer groups say has long been inflated.
The commission vote will slightly decrease the profit margins of Edison and three other big utilities beginning next year. Edison’s rate will fall to 10.03% from 10.3%.
Customers will see little impact in their bills from the decision. Because the utilities are continuing to spend more on wires and other infrastructure — capital costs that they earn profit on — that portion of customer bills is expected to continue to rise.
The vote angered consumer groups that had detailed in filings and hearings at the commission how the utilities’ return on equity — which sets the profit rate that the companies’ shareholders receive — had long been too high.
Among those testifying on behalf of consumers was Mark Ellis, the former chief economist for Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas. Ellis estimated that the companies’ profit margin should be closer to 6%.
He argued in a filing that the California commission had for years authorized the utilities to earn an excessive return on equity, resulting in an “unnecessary and unearned wealth transfer” from customers to the companies.
Cutting the return on equity to a little more than 6% would give Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, SDG&E and SoCalGas a fair return, Ellis said, while saving their customers $6.1 billion a year.
The four commissioners who voted to keep the return on equity at about 10% — the percentage varies slightly for each company — said they believed they had found a balance between the 11% or higher rate that the four utilities had requested and the affordability concerns of utility customers.
Alice Reynolds, the commission’s president, said before the vote that she believed the decision “accurately reflects the evidence.”
Commissioner Darcie Houck disagreed and voted against the proposal. In her remarks, she detailed how California ratepayers were struggling to pay their bills.
“We have a duty to consider the consumer interest in determining what is a just and reasonable rate,” she said.
Consumer groups criticized the commission’s vote.
“For too long, utility companies have been extracting unreasonable profits from Californians just trying to heat or cool their homes or keep the lights on,” said Jenn Engstrom at CALPIRG. “As long as CPUC allows such lofty rates of return, it incentivizes power companies to overspend, increasing energy bills for everyone.”
California now has the nation’s second-highest electric rates after Hawaii.
Edison’s electric rates have risen by more than 40% in the last three years, according to a November analysis by the commission’s Public Advocates Office. More than 830,000 Edison customers are behind in paying their electric bills, the office said, each owing a balance of $835 on average.
The commission’s vote Thursday was in response to a March request from Edison and the three other big for-profit utilities. The companies pointed to the January wildfires in Los Angeles County, saying they needed to provide their shareholders with more profit to get them to continue to invest in their stock because of the threat of utility-caused fires in California.
In its filing, Edison asked for a return on equity of 11.75%, saying that it faced “elevated business risks,” including “the risk of extreme wildfires.”
The company told the commission that its stock had declined after the Jan. 7 Eaton fire and it needed the higher return on equity to attract investors to provide it with money for “wildfire mitigation and supporting California’s clean energy transition.”
Edison is facing hundreds of lawsuits filed by victims of the fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena. The company has said the fire may have been sparked by its 100-year-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon, which it kept in place even though it hadn’t served customers since 1971.
Return on equity is crucial for utilities because it determines how much they and their shareholders earn each year on the electric lines, substations, pipelines and the rest of the system they build to serve customers.
Under the state’s system for setting electric rates, investors provide part of the money needed to build the infrastructure and then earn an annual return on that investment over the assets’ life, which can be 30 or 40 years.
In a January report, state legislative analyst Gabriel Petek detailed how electric rates at Edison and the state’s two other biggest investor-owned electric utilities were more than 60% higher than those charged by public utilities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The public utilities don’t have investors or charge customers extra for profit.
Before the vote, dozens of utility customers from across the state wrote to the commission’s five members, who were appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, asking them to lower the utilities’ return on equity.
“A profit margin of 10% on infrastructure improvements is far too high and will only continue to increase the cost of living in California,” wrote James Ward, a Rancho Santa Margarita resident. “I just wish I could get a guaranteed profit margin of 10% on my investments.”
-
Iowa4 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa6 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine3 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland4 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota5 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Nebraska1 week agoNebraska lands commitment from DL Jayden Travers adding to early Top 5 recruiting class