How Democrats Plan to Oppose Trump's Vow of "mass deportations"
In a recent piece for POLITICO, six prominent law enforcement leaders from blue states share their initial approaches to addressing the challenges posed by the incoming president.
TroibNews 
Democratic attorneys general are gearing up for a series of legal actions aimed at preventing Donald Trump from executing mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, signaling an impending array of confrontations over a key aspect of his campaign platform.
In interviews with PMG, six prominent blue-state prosecutors expressed their readiness to take legal action against Trump for potential misuse of military troops on domestic soil, attempts to enlist local or state law enforcement for federal immigration duties, and violations of individuals' constitutional rights to due process.
These attorneys general stated they would challenge Trump if he seeks to federalize the National Guard or directs active-duty military units or National Guard forces from red states into blue states. They also anticipate pushing back against any efforts by his administration to deploy immigration agents in schools and hospitals to target vulnerable communities.
Moreover, they are preparing to contest Trump’s efforts to cut federal funding to local law enforcement agencies to coerce them into executing deportations, a tactic that proved unsuccessful during his first term.
The preparations reflect the significant concern among blue-state leaders regarding Trump’s deportation intentions and foreshadow the crucial role that state prosecutors will play in influencing the nation’s immigration policy. Following a wave of legal challenges from red states against President Joe Biden’s immigration policies in recent years, blue-state attorneys have positioned themselves to initiate another round of legal battles, this time aiming to counter Trump on his signature issue.
“There are ways to [handle immigration] that are in line with American values and conform to American law. But they don’t seem to be interested in pursuing that,” New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, a former federal prosecutor with experience in immigration enforcement, stated regarding Trump and his allies. “And that’s where someone like me has an important role to play.”
**MOVES AND COUNTERMOVES**
While some skeptics have dismissed Trump’s commitment to the largest deportation in U.S. history as unrealistic, Democratic attorneys general are taking him at his word. They are preparing legal briefs and analyses while identifying potential courts to file their lawsuits in anticipation of a mass roundup of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants.
This sets the stage for a legal duel between a president-elect eager to push the boundaries of executive power and a group of state prosecutors familiar with his strategies and ready to adapt to his changing tactics. The situation is unfolding alongside broader political shifts regarding border security.
Trump’s policy team is already devising executive actions designed to endure legal scrutiny from organizations and state attorneys — aiming to avoid early defeats reminiscent of the 2017 travel ban targeting predominantly Muslim nations.
Every move Trump makes during his transition, including appointing immigration hardliners to his Cabinet and revealing plans to declare a national emergency while using military support for deportations, provides Democrats with more insight into how to counter his efforts once he assumes office.
During his campaign, Trump promised to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite the removal of immigrant gang members. He is expected to eliminate parole options for individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and to deactivate the CBP One mobile application that migrants use to schedule asylum appointments.
His future border czar, former acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement director Tom Homan, has pledged to intensify workplace raids. Incoming deputy chief of policy Stephen Miller has discussed the possibility of empowering the National Guard as immigration enforcement officers and even moving troops across state lines to bypass resistance. While federal law largely restricts the military's use for domestic law enforcement, Miller previously identified a loophole in the Insurrection Act that permits military deployment on domestic soil during periods of turmoil.
On Monday, Trump confirmed via social media that he intends to declare a national emergency and mobilize military resources to aid in deportations.
State prosecutors argue that these plans face substantial legal challenges. The notion of utilizing the military has already sparked political divisions among Republicans, with libertarian-leaning GOP Senator Rand Paul labeling Trump’s plan for mass military-assisted deportations a “huge mistake”—an early indication that Democrats may find allies in this arena.
“I don’t think the theories that they have comport with federal laws, so there would be a direct challenge to the legal basis the president would use to deploy the United States military,” Torrez stated.
“Separate and apart from the legal arguments that we would be advancing in court, I think there’s a broader context that most Americans are simply not comfortable and do not support utilizing military assets in that way,” he added.
**WHERE TO PUSH BACK — OR NOT**
Attorneys general are not poised to obstruct lawful immigration enforcement. They often collaborate with federal authorities to manage public safety threats and to apprehend and deport criminals, as they have historically. As they prepare for what they perceive as potential overreach from a second Trump administration, their forthcoming actions will largely depend on how the president-elect implements his plans, which remains uncertain.
Trump’s advisors have suggested that the Republican administration will pursue a more “targeted” approach to deportations, beginning with individuals recognized as national security threats or those with criminal records. However, attorneys general are doubtful this strategy will hold, fearing that he might also target undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for years and those who have entered through legal means—outcomes that could lead to family separations and chaos in communities.
“If he’s going to want to achieve that type of scale, the largest deportation in U.S. history, as he says, by definition he’s going to have to target people who are lawfully here and … go after American citizens,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin stated. “And we’re not going to stand for that.”
Trump indicated during his campaign that he would commence his deportation efforts in Aurora, Colorado, a Denver suburb he frequently portrayed—despite local opposition—as a “war zone” “invaded and conquered” by members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Phil Weiser, Colorado's attorney general, emphasized his commitment to ensuring that Trump’s immigration officials uphold due process, labeling any denial of that right as “unAmerican.”
Attorneys general across the states, from Colorado to California, are also bracing for renewed confrontations over federal funding. Trump threatened during his first term to withhold funds from states and cities with sanctuary policies that limit local law enforcement's engagement with federal immigration authorities. His administration also sought to impose immigration-enforcement conditions on local law enforcement grants but was unsuccessful in court.
“We won’t take that lying down, just as we didn’t last time,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta asserted.
In response to a request for comment for this article, Steven Cheung, Trump’s communications director, stated that the president-elect has “nominated the most highly qualified and experienced attorneys to lead the Department of Justice” and that they will focus on “enforcing the rule of law.”
Democratic prosecutors’ resistance will extend beyond legal arguments. Advocacy groups like the ACLU are already urging attorneys general to leverage available tools—such as providing guidance to state and local agencies on handling federal immigration requests—to slow the implementation of Trump’s immigration directives.
Additionally, these attorneys general are launching a communication campaign to counter Trump’s broad portrayals of migrants as “bloodthirsty” criminals while advocating for immigrants who contribute positively to local communities. They are joining other Democratic leaders in framing Trump’s deportation plans as economically detrimental, highlighting the vital role that the immigrant workforce plays in supporting the nation’s agriculture sector and, consequently, affecting grocery prices.
Trump has perpetuated the notion that “every immigrant who is here in, say, Massachusetts, or this country, illegally is committing crimes,” remarked Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell. “It’s just not true.”
Shia Kapos and Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.
Ian Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
In interviews with PMG, six prominent blue-state prosecutors expressed their readiness to take legal action against Trump for potential misuse of military troops on domestic soil, attempts to enlist local or state law enforcement for federal immigration duties, and violations of individuals' constitutional rights to due process.
These attorneys general stated they would challenge Trump if he seeks to federalize the National Guard or directs active-duty military units or National Guard forces from red states into blue states. They also anticipate pushing back against any efforts by his administration to deploy immigration agents in schools and hospitals to target vulnerable communities.
Moreover, they are preparing to contest Trump’s efforts to cut federal funding to local law enforcement agencies to coerce them into executing deportations, a tactic that proved unsuccessful during his first term.
The preparations reflect the significant concern among blue-state leaders regarding Trump’s deportation intentions and foreshadow the crucial role that state prosecutors will play in influencing the nation’s immigration policy. Following a wave of legal challenges from red states against President Joe Biden’s immigration policies in recent years, blue-state attorneys have positioned themselves to initiate another round of legal battles, this time aiming to counter Trump on his signature issue.
“There are ways to [handle immigration] that are in line with American values and conform to American law. But they don’t seem to be interested in pursuing that,” New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, a former federal prosecutor with experience in immigration enforcement, stated regarding Trump and his allies. “And that’s where someone like me has an important role to play.”
**MOVES AND COUNTERMOVES**
While some skeptics have dismissed Trump’s commitment to the largest deportation in U.S. history as unrealistic, Democratic attorneys general are taking him at his word. They are preparing legal briefs and analyses while identifying potential courts to file their lawsuits in anticipation of a mass roundup of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants.
This sets the stage for a legal duel between a president-elect eager to push the boundaries of executive power and a group of state prosecutors familiar with his strategies and ready to adapt to his changing tactics. The situation is unfolding alongside broader political shifts regarding border security.
Trump’s policy team is already devising executive actions designed to endure legal scrutiny from organizations and state attorneys — aiming to avoid early defeats reminiscent of the 2017 travel ban targeting predominantly Muslim nations.
Every move Trump makes during his transition, including appointing immigration hardliners to his Cabinet and revealing plans to declare a national emergency while using military support for deportations, provides Democrats with more insight into how to counter his efforts once he assumes office.
During his campaign, Trump promised to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite the removal of immigrant gang members. He is expected to eliminate parole options for individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and to deactivate the CBP One mobile application that migrants use to schedule asylum appointments.
His future border czar, former acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement director Tom Homan, has pledged to intensify workplace raids. Incoming deputy chief of policy Stephen Miller has discussed the possibility of empowering the National Guard as immigration enforcement officers and even moving troops across state lines to bypass resistance. While federal law largely restricts the military's use for domestic law enforcement, Miller previously identified a loophole in the Insurrection Act that permits military deployment on domestic soil during periods of turmoil.
On Monday, Trump confirmed via social media that he intends to declare a national emergency and mobilize military resources to aid in deportations.
State prosecutors argue that these plans face substantial legal challenges. The notion of utilizing the military has already sparked political divisions among Republicans, with libertarian-leaning GOP Senator Rand Paul labeling Trump’s plan for mass military-assisted deportations a “huge mistake”—an early indication that Democrats may find allies in this arena.
“I don’t think the theories that they have comport with federal laws, so there would be a direct challenge to the legal basis the president would use to deploy the United States military,” Torrez stated.
“Separate and apart from the legal arguments that we would be advancing in court, I think there’s a broader context that most Americans are simply not comfortable and do not support utilizing military assets in that way,” he added.
**WHERE TO PUSH BACK — OR NOT**
Attorneys general are not poised to obstruct lawful immigration enforcement. They often collaborate with federal authorities to manage public safety threats and to apprehend and deport criminals, as they have historically. As they prepare for what they perceive as potential overreach from a second Trump administration, their forthcoming actions will largely depend on how the president-elect implements his plans, which remains uncertain.
Trump’s advisors have suggested that the Republican administration will pursue a more “targeted” approach to deportations, beginning with individuals recognized as national security threats or those with criminal records. However, attorneys general are doubtful this strategy will hold, fearing that he might also target undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for years and those who have entered through legal means—outcomes that could lead to family separations and chaos in communities.
“If he’s going to want to achieve that type of scale, the largest deportation in U.S. history, as he says, by definition he’s going to have to target people who are lawfully here and … go after American citizens,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin stated. “And we’re not going to stand for that.”
Trump indicated during his campaign that he would commence his deportation efforts in Aurora, Colorado, a Denver suburb he frequently portrayed—despite local opposition—as a “war zone” “invaded and conquered” by members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Phil Weiser, Colorado's attorney general, emphasized his commitment to ensuring that Trump’s immigration officials uphold due process, labeling any denial of that right as “unAmerican.”
Attorneys general across the states, from Colorado to California, are also bracing for renewed confrontations over federal funding. Trump threatened during his first term to withhold funds from states and cities with sanctuary policies that limit local law enforcement's engagement with federal immigration authorities. His administration also sought to impose immigration-enforcement conditions on local law enforcement grants but was unsuccessful in court.
“We won’t take that lying down, just as we didn’t last time,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta asserted.
In response to a request for comment for this article, Steven Cheung, Trump’s communications director, stated that the president-elect has “nominated the most highly qualified and experienced attorneys to lead the Department of Justice” and that they will focus on “enforcing the rule of law.”
Democratic prosecutors’ resistance will extend beyond legal arguments. Advocacy groups like the ACLU are already urging attorneys general to leverage available tools—such as providing guidance to state and local agencies on handling federal immigration requests—to slow the implementation of Trump’s immigration directives.
Additionally, these attorneys general are launching a communication campaign to counter Trump’s broad portrayals of migrants as “bloodthirsty” criminals while advocating for immigrants who contribute positively to local communities. They are joining other Democratic leaders in framing Trump’s deportation plans as economically detrimental, highlighting the vital role that the immigrant workforce plays in supporting the nation’s agriculture sector and, consequently, affecting grocery prices.
Trump has perpetuated the notion that “every immigrant who is here in, say, Massachusetts, or this country, illegally is committing crimes,” remarked Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell. “It’s just not true.”
Shia Kapos and Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.
Ian Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
