5 Tactics Being Used to Oppose Trump's Large-Scale Deportations and Why They Might Be Ineffective
Administrative initiatives are facing challenges on various fronts.
TroibNews 
President Donald Trump appeared to ramp up his mass deportation strategy recently. However, he continues to grapple with significant challenges across government agencies, highlighting the difficulties he encounters in executing what he has claimed would be the largest deportation initiative in U.S. history.
He has attempted to take charge of the immigration narrative through several recent actions: Immigration agents, under the administration's direction, arrested and sought to deport a green card holder who played a prominent role in the Columbia University protests regarding the Israel-Hamas war. Subsequently, the administration invoked a seldom-used 18th-century law to expedite deportations. Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security expedited the transfer of around 250 Venezuelans to a super-max prison in El Salvador, seemingly ignoring a judge’s order.
Beyond these notable actions, Trump’s initiatives are facing challenges on multiple fronts—such as restrictions on detention capacity, legal obstacles, and the financial and logistical requirements of housing migrants at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Although the Trump administration has ceased releasing deportation statistics, the number of individuals removed from the country has not increased on an annualized basis compared to the Biden administration and is lower than during President Barack Obama’s term.
From reporters across the PMG newsroom, here are five reasons why:
Big promise, cold truth
Trump’s ambitious promise to initiate a comprehensive deportation campaign on Day One quickly confronted personnel and resource challenges, including limited detention capacity and an overwhelmed immigration court system.
The White House has intensified pressure on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to boost arrest and deportation figures, a conflict reflected in changes in leadership at the agency. ICE director Caleb Vitello was reassigned last month, following the reassignments of two other top ICE officials.
Trump officials attempted to capitalize on this moment with an early public relations push, highlighting arrests of migrants with criminal records. While there has been an increase in interior arrests, the administration is likely withholding deportation data because these figures are “anemic,” according to John Sandweg, acting director of ICE from 2013-2014.
ICE announced last week that in the first 50 days of the Trump administration, the agency made 32,809 arrests—without providing a breakdown of how many were at-large arrests or additional deportation statistics. Trump officials also stated they had reached maximum detention capacity at 47,600 individuals while working with the Marshals Service, Department of Defense, and Federal Bureau of Prisons to secure additional bed space and funding from Congress.
However, even increased detention capacity will not resolve some of the primary obstacles facing Trump’s mass deportation plans. There is a historic backlog in the immigration courts, a situation likely to worsen as the Trump administration has let go of judges, and many others are resigning or retiring this year.
The number of individuals attempting to cross the border illegally has also significantly decreased, likely due in part to migrants understanding that they will be barred from seeking asylum, coupled with heightened enforcement on the Mexican side of the border. This decline has resulted in fewer expedited deportations at the southern border, using a process known as “expedited removal”—a key reason the pace of removals under Trump is comparable to Biden’s final year in office.
“Trump is a bit of a victim to his own success at the border,” Sandweg said. “And now you can only deport people who’ve gone to the immigration court … but that means that’s going to be anemic removal numbers.” — Myah Ward
Paying for it
Trump’s plans for enhanced border security and interior enforcement carry substantial costs that will require Congress to appropriate funds—a potentially challenging task with a slim Republican majority in the House.
Republican lawmakers are currently engaged in the budget reconciliation process to unlock additional resources without needing Democratic support. The House and Senate have created their respective budget proposals for Trump’s key domestic policy agenda, both of which include additional funding for border security; however, they now must reconcile their differences.
“It takes resources to do what voters elected us to do,” House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan stated in an interview. “Resources for judges, lawyers … wall, drones, people, detention space, detention beds.”
Jordan has also expressed interest in reviving H.R. 2, a Republican bill that proposes sweeping changes to immigration law, which passed during the previous Congress without Democratic votes. However, to reach Trump’s desk, the legislation would need some support from Senate Democrats. Recently, Jordan indicated he might be amenable to modifying highly-skilled visa rules, a move supported by top Trump advisor and billionaire Elon Musk that could appeal to Democrats.
Nonetheless, bipartisan negotiations regarding border security faltered in 2024 after Trump sought to terminate the resulting bill, labeling it “a Death Wish for The Republican Party.”
It remains unclear what concessions Democrats might require to gain their backing for any immigration legislation Republicans plan to advance.
Some Congressional Republicans have contemplated amending the Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship—granting citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. Trump issued an executive order to deny automatic citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants; however, this action faced immediate legal challenges and will likely be settled by the Supreme Court. Many Democrats oppose any legislation that would restrict birthright citizenship, underscoring the protections enshrined in the 14th Amendment. — Hailey Fuchs
States of opposition
Border czar Tom Homan announced in December that mass deportations would “start right here.” While immigration raids have caused anxiety in places like Chicago, the number of such operations has been much lower than anticipated—contrary to Homan’s earlier assertions aimed at mocking the state’s Governor, J.B. Pritzker.
In Illinois and other Democrat-led states, where a substantial proportion of undocumented individuals reside, raids have not yielded the success the administration claimed in its early days. This is partly due to the fact that tracking and detaining individuals without legal status requires significant manpower, which the U.S. government currently lacks.
Moreover, activists have launched a “know your rights” campaign nationwide to inform individuals of their rights, including refusing entry to ICE agents who lack a warrant signed by a judge and insisting on their right to consult a lawyer. Homan has acknowledged that these campaigns are “making it very difficult” to make arrests.
The education initiative began immediately after the election. “We knew we needed to come into the new year prepared,” stated Brandon Lee from the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which is coordinating much of the effort in Illinois. The group’s hotline has seen a rise in inquiries from residents seeking information or reporting sightings of federal officials in their communities.
“We want to make sure that community members know their rights before an ICE encounter and also that after ICE does come to a neighborhood that people know how to respond,” Lee added.
ICE has adapted its approach, often pursuing individuals outside their homes or detaining those who arrive at their scheduled check-ins with immigration authorities—reportedly including long-term residents. — Shia Kapos
A display of force
Trump assigned a significant role to the military in immigration enforcement shortly after taking office, deploying troops to the border and proposing the transfer of tens of thousands of migrants to Guantanamo Bay. However, these initiatives have mainly turned out to be mere theatrics. With migrant crossings at the border significantly dropping, the troops have little to engage with, and the administration has swiftly emptied Guantanamo in light of escalating legal and logistical complications.
The Trump administration has taken the unusual step of involving the military to support its immigration agenda. Thousands of troops have been dispatched to the border, and the Defense Department has been asked to assist with deportation efforts. However, logistical challenges have arisen, particularly around finding appropriate housing for undocumented immigrants after a plan to accommodate them at Guantanamo Bay was abandoned due to the expense of necessary flights. The Pentagon is now exploring the possibility of using military bases for this purpose, including Fort Bliss in Texas.
Trump's efforts to deploy the military for mass deportation initiatives also raise legal concerns. Defense officials are permitted to carry out brief detentions, but the legality of utilizing active-duty troops—trained for combat—for the detention and oversight of migrants introduces significant complexities.
“When do you draw the line around where the military’s role should be?” questioned a former defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the politically sensitive nature of the topic.
The Pentagon's resources are also stretched thin. Its focus on the southern border has placed considerable strain on the U.S. Northern Command, responsible for the defense of the North American continent. The administration has tasked the command with managing military operations along the border while also navigating Trump’s other priorities, from building a “Golden Dome” to defending interests in the Arctic. — Jack Detsch
A perilous legal landscape
In response to some of these challenges, Trump has recently resorted to more audacious deportation strategies. However, these tactics are prompting strong resistance in the courts.
The most notable case involves Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite the deportation of alleged members of a Venezuelan gang. Following the public announcement of this action, the chief federal district judge in Washington ordered the administration to immediately cease deportations under this authority. It was reported that three planes full of deportees were already airborne when Judge James Boasberg issued his order, and the government failed to comply with his verbal directive to return the planes.
Despite the Justice Department's position that it did not technically breach any court orders, the incident frustrated Judge Boasberg—known for his typically measured demeanor—and raised alarms about a potential irreparable clash between the White House and the judiciary.
A separate judge acted swiftly to block the administration from deporting Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident and Columbia University student who led pro-Palestinian protests. In this instance, the administration invoked a little-used section of the immigration code allowing the secretary of state to deport any noncitizen whose presence is deemed a threat to foreign policy.
On March 10, just two days after Khalil's detention, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman prevented the government from deporting him. Judge Furman subsequently transferred the case to New Jersey, where a new judge may evaluate Khalil’s plea for release.
In another extraordinary case, the government moved quickly to deport Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University physician with a valid visa for highly skilled workers. Alawieh was detained while attempting to reenter the U.S. after a trip to Lebanon. The government, alleging her support for Hezbollah, deported her back to Lebanon on a Friday night, despite a prior order from Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, who mandated 48 hours’ notice before any deportation.
Alawieh's legal representatives are actively challenging the government's actions in court to secure her return to the United States.
These three legal cases thrust Trump, the judiciary, and the immigration system into largely uncharted legal territory. Traditionally, the executive branch holds broad authority to deport individuals without authorization, and courts usually defer to the president’s policy decisions in this area.
Yet Trump’s heavy reliance on unconventional deportation authorities has attracted closer scrutiny from the judiciary. Courts have already restricted other immigration measures advanced by the administration, such as an executive order aimed at temporarily halting refugee admissions. Judges are likely to keep a close eye on Trump's strategies, particularly in relation to Khalil and Alawieh—individuals who are not undocumented immigrants at all.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
He has attempted to take charge of the immigration narrative through several recent actions: Immigration agents, under the administration's direction, arrested and sought to deport a green card holder who played a prominent role in the Columbia University protests regarding the Israel-Hamas war. Subsequently, the administration invoked a seldom-used 18th-century law to expedite deportations. Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security expedited the transfer of around 250 Venezuelans to a super-max prison in El Salvador, seemingly ignoring a judge’s order.
Beyond these notable actions, Trump’s initiatives are facing challenges on multiple fronts—such as restrictions on detention capacity, legal obstacles, and the financial and logistical requirements of housing migrants at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Although the Trump administration has ceased releasing deportation statistics, the number of individuals removed from the country has not increased on an annualized basis compared to the Biden administration and is lower than during President Barack Obama’s term.
From reporters across the PMG newsroom, here are five reasons why:
Big promise, cold truth
Trump’s ambitious promise to initiate a comprehensive deportation campaign on Day One quickly confronted personnel and resource challenges, including limited detention capacity and an overwhelmed immigration court system.
The White House has intensified pressure on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to boost arrest and deportation figures, a conflict reflected in changes in leadership at the agency. ICE director Caleb Vitello was reassigned last month, following the reassignments of two other top ICE officials.
Trump officials attempted to capitalize on this moment with an early public relations push, highlighting arrests of migrants with criminal records. While there has been an increase in interior arrests, the administration is likely withholding deportation data because these figures are “anemic,” according to John Sandweg, acting director of ICE from 2013-2014.
ICE announced last week that in the first 50 days of the Trump administration, the agency made 32,809 arrests—without providing a breakdown of how many were at-large arrests or additional deportation statistics. Trump officials also stated they had reached maximum detention capacity at 47,600 individuals while working with the Marshals Service, Department of Defense, and Federal Bureau of Prisons to secure additional bed space and funding from Congress.
However, even increased detention capacity will not resolve some of the primary obstacles facing Trump’s mass deportation plans. There is a historic backlog in the immigration courts, a situation likely to worsen as the Trump administration has let go of judges, and many others are resigning or retiring this year.
The number of individuals attempting to cross the border illegally has also significantly decreased, likely due in part to migrants understanding that they will be barred from seeking asylum, coupled with heightened enforcement on the Mexican side of the border. This decline has resulted in fewer expedited deportations at the southern border, using a process known as “expedited removal”—a key reason the pace of removals under Trump is comparable to Biden’s final year in office.
“Trump is a bit of a victim to his own success at the border,” Sandweg said. “And now you can only deport people who’ve gone to the immigration court … but that means that’s going to be anemic removal numbers.” — Myah Ward
Paying for it
Trump’s plans for enhanced border security and interior enforcement carry substantial costs that will require Congress to appropriate funds—a potentially challenging task with a slim Republican majority in the House.
Republican lawmakers are currently engaged in the budget reconciliation process to unlock additional resources without needing Democratic support. The House and Senate have created their respective budget proposals for Trump’s key domestic policy agenda, both of which include additional funding for border security; however, they now must reconcile their differences.
“It takes resources to do what voters elected us to do,” House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan stated in an interview. “Resources for judges, lawyers … wall, drones, people, detention space, detention beds.”
Jordan has also expressed interest in reviving H.R. 2, a Republican bill that proposes sweeping changes to immigration law, which passed during the previous Congress without Democratic votes. However, to reach Trump’s desk, the legislation would need some support from Senate Democrats. Recently, Jordan indicated he might be amenable to modifying highly-skilled visa rules, a move supported by top Trump advisor and billionaire Elon Musk that could appeal to Democrats.
Nonetheless, bipartisan negotiations regarding border security faltered in 2024 after Trump sought to terminate the resulting bill, labeling it “a Death Wish for The Republican Party.”
It remains unclear what concessions Democrats might require to gain their backing for any immigration legislation Republicans plan to advance.
Some Congressional Republicans have contemplated amending the Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship—granting citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. Trump issued an executive order to deny automatic citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants; however, this action faced immediate legal challenges and will likely be settled by the Supreme Court. Many Democrats oppose any legislation that would restrict birthright citizenship, underscoring the protections enshrined in the 14th Amendment. — Hailey Fuchs
States of opposition
Border czar Tom Homan announced in December that mass deportations would “start right here.” While immigration raids have caused anxiety in places like Chicago, the number of such operations has been much lower than anticipated—contrary to Homan’s earlier assertions aimed at mocking the state’s Governor, J.B. Pritzker.
In Illinois and other Democrat-led states, where a substantial proportion of undocumented individuals reside, raids have not yielded the success the administration claimed in its early days. This is partly due to the fact that tracking and detaining individuals without legal status requires significant manpower, which the U.S. government currently lacks.
Moreover, activists have launched a “know your rights” campaign nationwide to inform individuals of their rights, including refusing entry to ICE agents who lack a warrant signed by a judge and insisting on their right to consult a lawyer. Homan has acknowledged that these campaigns are “making it very difficult” to make arrests.
The education initiative began immediately after the election. “We knew we needed to come into the new year prepared,” stated Brandon Lee from the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which is coordinating much of the effort in Illinois. The group’s hotline has seen a rise in inquiries from residents seeking information or reporting sightings of federal officials in their communities.
“We want to make sure that community members know their rights before an ICE encounter and also that after ICE does come to a neighborhood that people know how to respond,” Lee added.
ICE has adapted its approach, often pursuing individuals outside their homes or detaining those who arrive at their scheduled check-ins with immigration authorities—reportedly including long-term residents. — Shia Kapos
A display of force
Trump assigned a significant role to the military in immigration enforcement shortly after taking office, deploying troops to the border and proposing the transfer of tens of thousands of migrants to Guantanamo Bay. However, these initiatives have mainly turned out to be mere theatrics. With migrant crossings at the border significantly dropping, the troops have little to engage with, and the administration has swiftly emptied Guantanamo in light of escalating legal and logistical complications.
The Trump administration has taken the unusual step of involving the military to support its immigration agenda. Thousands of troops have been dispatched to the border, and the Defense Department has been asked to assist with deportation efforts. However, logistical challenges have arisen, particularly around finding appropriate housing for undocumented immigrants after a plan to accommodate them at Guantanamo Bay was abandoned due to the expense of necessary flights. The Pentagon is now exploring the possibility of using military bases for this purpose, including Fort Bliss in Texas.
Trump's efforts to deploy the military for mass deportation initiatives also raise legal concerns. Defense officials are permitted to carry out brief detentions, but the legality of utilizing active-duty troops—trained for combat—for the detention and oversight of migrants introduces significant complexities.
“When do you draw the line around where the military’s role should be?” questioned a former defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the politically sensitive nature of the topic.
The Pentagon's resources are also stretched thin. Its focus on the southern border has placed considerable strain on the U.S. Northern Command, responsible for the defense of the North American continent. The administration has tasked the command with managing military operations along the border while also navigating Trump’s other priorities, from building a “Golden Dome” to defending interests in the Arctic. — Jack Detsch
A perilous legal landscape
In response to some of these challenges, Trump has recently resorted to more audacious deportation strategies. However, these tactics are prompting strong resistance in the courts.
The most notable case involves Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite the deportation of alleged members of a Venezuelan gang. Following the public announcement of this action, the chief federal district judge in Washington ordered the administration to immediately cease deportations under this authority. It was reported that three planes full of deportees were already airborne when Judge James Boasberg issued his order, and the government failed to comply with his verbal directive to return the planes.
Despite the Justice Department's position that it did not technically breach any court orders, the incident frustrated Judge Boasberg—known for his typically measured demeanor—and raised alarms about a potential irreparable clash between the White House and the judiciary.
A separate judge acted swiftly to block the administration from deporting Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident and Columbia University student who led pro-Palestinian protests. In this instance, the administration invoked a little-used section of the immigration code allowing the secretary of state to deport any noncitizen whose presence is deemed a threat to foreign policy.
On March 10, just two days after Khalil's detention, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman prevented the government from deporting him. Judge Furman subsequently transferred the case to New Jersey, where a new judge may evaluate Khalil’s plea for release.
In another extraordinary case, the government moved quickly to deport Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University physician with a valid visa for highly skilled workers. Alawieh was detained while attempting to reenter the U.S. after a trip to Lebanon. The government, alleging her support for Hezbollah, deported her back to Lebanon on a Friday night, despite a prior order from Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, who mandated 48 hours’ notice before any deportation.
Alawieh's legal representatives are actively challenging the government's actions in court to secure her return to the United States.
These three legal cases thrust Trump, the judiciary, and the immigration system into largely uncharted legal territory. Traditionally, the executive branch holds broad authority to deport individuals without authorization, and courts usually defer to the president’s policy decisions in this area.
Yet Trump’s heavy reliance on unconventional deportation authorities has attracted closer scrutiny from the judiciary. Courts have already restricted other immigration measures advanced by the administration, such as an executive order aimed at temporarily halting refugee admissions. Judges are likely to keep a close eye on Trump's strategies, particularly in relation to Khalil and Alawieh—individuals who are not undocumented immigrants at all.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
