An Examination of What a Second Trump Presidency Might Look Like

Trump's 2024 campaign centered around themes of mass deportation and stringent border enforcement. The anticipated incoming Trump administration is expected to focus on specific aspects of the immigration system, likely introducing policies aimed at reducing immigration numbers and tightening entry controls.

During his campaign, Trump attempted to distance himself from Project 25. However, shortly after securing the presidency, his supporters took to the social media platform X to declare, "I can finally say that Project 25 is the agenda." Project 25, a political initiative released by the Heritage Foundation in 2023, outlines a conservative blueprint for the United States, featuring plans for government restructuring, policy reform, and social changes. CBS News noted that at least 270 proposals from Project 2025—the framework for the next Republican presidency—align with Trump's historical policies and current campaign commitments. Moreover, 28 of the 38 authors credited in Project 2025 have previously worked in Trump's administration.

Project 2025 includes directives for constructing a border wall, carrying out mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, and limiting student and work visas. The Heritage Foundation had previously released a similar policy framework called "Mandate for Leadership" in 2015, before Trump's initial term. A few years into his presidency, the Heritage Foundation claimed that Trump had enacted 64% of its policy recommendations, including his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords, increased military spending, and expanded drilling activities.

Trump has stated that he will initiate mass deportation on his first day in office, regardless of the financial implications. While the specific targets of these actions remain unclear, an examination of Trump's 2016 administrative measures can provide some insights into potential priorities.

Major Immigration Policy Shifts Under Trump

During his four years in office, President Trump executed 472 executive actions that reshaped the U.S. immigration landscape. The U.S.-Mexico border saw increasing restrictions, while humanitarian protections were notably diminished. Immigration enforcement appeared more capricious, making legal immigration avenues less accessible for many.

Trump Intends to End Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

TPS allows individuals from designated countries facing unsafe conditions, such as armed conflict or natural disasters, to remain in the United States. Currently, citizens from 16 countries hold TPS in the U.S. However, the Trump administration made significant changes to the TPS program between 2016 and 2020, terminating designations for several nations, including Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, and Honduras. This decision placed hundreds of thousands of immigrants at risk of deportation, prompting numerous legal challenges. Some courts issued injunctions to block immediate deportations, resulting in a contentious political landscape rich with legal battles and congressional debates.

While a few TPS designations were extended, these extensions often proved temporary, leaving beneficiaries in a state of anxiety regarding their futures and employment prospects. The uncertainty surrounding TPS renewals not only hindered beneficiaries' ability to plan but also led to the loss of work authorization for many, significantly affecting the U.S. economy.

On the campaign trail, Trump pledged to eliminate protections for Haitian immigrants and to deport Haitians. Project 25 proposal included a plan to revoke all TPS designations, potentially resulting in nearly 700,000 individuals losing their work authorization and facing deportation.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Under Trump

DACA program was established by former President Barack Obama in 2012, in response to Congress's failure to pass legislation that would provide a pathway to legal status and citizenship for individuals brought to the U.S. as children.  

Throughout the Trump Administration, DACA faced substantial legal challenges and policy shifts. In 2016, the administration attempted to dismantle the program by officially announcing its rescission and outlining plans to phase out DACA. This move led to numerous lawsuits asserting that the termination was unlawful and infringed upon due process rights. Many federal courts issued rulings that blocked the Trump administration's efforts to end DACA.  

President Joe Biden later sought to revive the program, hoping to obtain legal validation for it. Although new DACA applications were halted, existing recipients were permitted to renew their status for a limited time. Currently, President Biden is appealing a Texas district court's ruling declaring DACA unlawful.  

Since the Trump administration's rescission, first-time applications for DACA have been restricted. While current DACA recipients can renew their status, the process has grown increasingly complex and uncertain. The future of DACA remains in limbo, facing ongoing legal challenges and political discourse.  

It's important to note that applicants must indicate their unlawful presence in the U.S. on their applications, which leaves them vulnerable to deportation if the program were to end, as the government would possess information about their residences.

Asylum and Refugee Policies Under Trump

Between 2016 and 2020, U.S. asylum and refugee policies underwent significant changes. The Trump administration notably reduced the annual cap on refugee admissions, resulting in a steep decline in the number of refugees resettled in the U.S. It implemented stricter screening processes and heightened security measures that made it increasingly difficult for refugees to gain entry. The administration prioritized resettling refugees from certain countries while limiting admissions from others, particularly from Muslim-majority nations.

Additionally, new policies were introduced that made it harder for asylum seekers to qualify for protection. One such policy required asylum seekers to remain in Mexico as their cases were processed, often exposing them to dangerous conditions and depriving them of adequate access to legal representation. Although this rule was eventually rescinded, it had the potential to discourage asylum seekers from applying for public benefits, hindering their ability to survive and rebuild their lives.  

The Biden administration has attempted to reverse some aspects of these policies and increase refugee admissions. However, in a bid to secure political support for re-election, Biden has reinstated certain Trump-era asylum policies through executive orders.  

Project 25 seeks to impose stricter eligibility criteria for asylum, making it significantly more challenging for individuals to qualify for asylum in the U.S. This could include more rigid definitions of persecution and requiring applicants to prove they have exhausted all legal remedies in their home countries.  

Also, the initiative, officially referred to as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), would continue to require asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their applications are processed. Project 25 also proposes extending this policy to additional countries and points of entry, while advocating for a reduction in the annual refugee admissions cap, which could result in fewer refugees being resettled in the United States.

U/T Visa and VAWA Policies under Trump

U visas are designed for victims of certain crimes who have experienced significant physical or mental abuse and are willing to cooperate with law enforcement in prosecuting the offenders. Similarly, T visas are granted to victims of severe human trafficking under the same conditions. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) offers legal protection and status to immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other abusive situations.

During the first Trump administration, definitions for U and T visas regarding serious crimes and trafficking were refined and broadened. The application processes were made more efficient, and enhanced protections for victims were introduced. Many of these advancements stemmed from the 2013 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which widened eligibility criteria for U visas, increased the annual cap on available visas, simplified qualification for T visas, and extended the authorized stay for T visa holders. The 2013 reauthorization also expanded the categories for VAWA self-petition eligibility, including victims in same-sex relationships or those who have endured severe abuse.

Project 25 has proposed a policy shift aimed at eliminating the visa categories for crime and trafficking victims, suggesting instead the use of the S visa. This visa is intended for individuals who provide critical information to the U.S. government in exchange for immigration benefits, but it does not serve the purpose of victim protection. Project 25's stance on VAWA remains ambiguous; they may argue that the legislation promotes illegal immigration or is ineffective in tackling domestic violence.

Trump's Family-Based Green Cards

President Trump has consistently indicated his preference for a merit-based immigration system. His administration implemented stricter eligibility guidelines and reduced funding for immigration agencies, leading to significant backlogs in family-based visa categories, especially impacting those with lower priority. Although proposed cuts to family-based visas were not fully enacted into law, the administration did expand the public charge rule. This made it more challenging for immigrants to obtain or maintain legal status if they had used or were likely to use certain public benefits, instilling fear and uncertainty within immigrant communities and resulting in decreased participation in public assistance programs.

Additionally, travel bans targeting specific countries adversely affected family reunification efforts for individuals from those nations. Under tighter financial and background checks for sponsors, bringing relatives to the U.S. became increasingly difficult. Project 25 advocates for phasing out family-based visas in favor of a merit-based system centered on skills and education. Such a move could fundamentally disrupt family unity, leaving U.S. citizens unable to sponsor their spouses, children, or parents. Furthermore, Project 25 also seeks to end the automatic acquisition of citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizens.

Trump's Employment-Based Immigration

The Trump administration introduced tighter visa vetting processes, notably increasing the scrutiny surrounding H-1B visa applications. Through executive action, Trump enacted the Buy American, Hire American Executive Order, which emphasized the hiring of American workers for federal contracts and grants, thereby influencing the landscape of employment-based visas.

In response to Trump's immigration policies, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2020 gained bipartisan support in Congress. This legislation aimed to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by eliminating the existing per-country limits on employment-based visas, which often resulted in significant delays for applicants from certain nations. The proposed legislation sought to establish a more equitable system, affording skilled workers from all countries equal opportunities for obtaining green cards. Additionally, it aimed to increase the per-country cap for family-based immigrants from 7% to 15% of the total number of family-sponsored visas. Unfortunately, the act didn't become law, largely due to opposition from Trump and his supporters.

Project 25 does not explicitly oppose employment-based immigration but promotes several policies that could indirectly affect it. The project advocates for a system prioritizing skills and education over familial connections, which may lead to a reduction in the number of employment-based visas granted. Furthermore, Project 25 aims to significantly lower overall immigration levels, potentially impacting employment-based immigration as well. Enhanced border security and stricter enforcement measures could also pose challenges for foreign workers seeking to enter and remain in the United States legally.

Trump's Travel Ban

Initially, Trump’s travel ban targeted citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. This executive order temporarily halted the admission of all refugees into the U.S. for four months; and called for a review of the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which permits travelers from 38 nations to renew their travel authorizations without participating in an in-person interview. Following a series of legal challenges, Iraq was removed from the list of banned countries.

Subsequently, Trump expanded the ban to include six additional nations—Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania—arguing that these countries did not meet U.S. security and information-sharing standards. He was also critical of the Diversity Visa Program and excluded Sudan and Tanzania from its provisions while suspending the issuance of visas leading to permanent residency for nationals from Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, and Nigeria during his administration.

It's worth noting that President Biden rescinded Trump’s travel ban in January 2021. However, Trump has expressed intentions to reinstate his previous executive orders. Project 25 emphasizes the necessity for stringent border security and comprehensive vetting processes for immigrants and visitors, which might result in heightened scrutiny of individuals from certain nations, especially those with predominantly Muslim populations.

Keeping Families Together (KFT) Parole Program Ended

The Biden administration introduced the Keeping Families Together (KFT) program in August 2024. This initiative, enacted by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), aims to provide parole in place for specific noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens, allowing them to legally stay in the U.S. while their immigration cases are processed. The program seeks to address the challenges faced by families separated due to immigration proceedings, enabling eligible individuals to remain in the U.S. and work legally, thereby reinforcing familial bonds and promoting unity.

Opponents of KFT, who support Trump, launched a lawsuit claiming the Act is unconstitutional. On August 26, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled in the case of Texas v. Department of Homeland Security (Case Number 24-cv-306), issuing a 14-day administrative stay that prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from granting parole in place under the KFT process. The stay persisted due to subsequent court rulings. Most recently, on October 4, 2024, the District Court reaffirmed its original temporary stay from August 26, 2024, and issued a restraining order set to expire on November 8, 2024. In line with this order, USCIS continued to:

• Refrain from approving any pending parole-in-place requests under the Keeping Families Together process.  
• Accept submissions of Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens.  
• Schedule biometric services appointments and collect biometrics at Application Support Centers (ASCs).

Just yesterday, Judge Baker ruled that the Biden administration had overstepped its authority by implementing the KFT program, stretching the legal interpretation of relevant immigration laws “past its breaking point.” Notably, during his first term, Trump appointed Judge Baker to the position in Tyler, Texas, which is part of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a preferred venue for those advocating conservative legal positions.

Trump Wants to End Birthright Citizenship

Former President Trump has expressed his intention to abolish birthright citizenship, which automatically grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Critics, including Project 25, argue that the 14th Amendment was not designed to confer immediate citizenship to the children of non-citizens. They contend that birthright citizenship discourages legal immigration by creating incentives for illegal entry into the country. Furthermore, they believe that providing benefits and services to citizen children of undocumented immigrants places an excessive financial burden on taxpayers.

The Trump administration could potentially instruct federal agencies to halt the processing of passports and Social Security numbers for individuals unable to prove that their parents are U.S. citizens. However, such actions would likely provoke legal challenges, as they could be construed as a violation of the 14th Amendment. Individuals denied these essential documents would have valid grounds to pursue lawsuits.

Trump's First Term Mass Deportation

During the Clinton administration, over 12 million individuals were deported or returned from the U.S., while the Bush administration saw more than 10 million removals. In contrast, the Obama administration removed around 5 million, focusing primarily on deporting those convicted of serious crimes and recent arrivals without criminal records. Trump's approach, however, marked a significant shift. He aimed for mass deportations, prioritizing the removal of as many undocumented immigrants as possible, rather than targeting new arrivals or criminals.

In his first week, Trump signed an executive order that expanded enforcement priorities to include nearly all unauthorized immigrants. Early in 2017, ICE conducted numerous targeted operations, resulting in over 680 arrests across various U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, New York, and several others.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claimed that “approximately 75%” of those arrested were “criminal aliens,” suggesting they had criminal records, though many of these convictions were likely minor offenses. Furthermore, anyone who had entered the country illegally or overstayed a visa was categorized as a “criminal alien.” The crackdown also appeared to target immigrants with prior deportation orders, particularly in areas like Los Angeles and Maryland.

ICE agents have increasingly conducted "collateral arrests," detaining unauthorized immigrants found during raids, even without warrants for them. This shift, observed during recent operations, breaks from Obama-era policies, where such practices were less common. During coordinated nationwide raids, many individuals arrested would not have been prioritized for enforcement under previous administrations, including those without criminal records or prior deportation orders.

Notable incidents include the July 2018 raid at Fresh Mark in Ohio, where 146 employees were arrested, and another raid in Texas that apprehended 159 workers at a trailer manufacturing plant. In 2018, ICE also began detaining individuals for civil immigration violations in the Chicago area without warrants, which led to legal challenges from organizations like the ACLU.

Obama’s enforcement strategies aimed to bolster credibility for immigration reform, while Trump has utilized raids as a strategy unto itself. Following Trump's first term, many states enacted laws requiring local agencies to assist in immigration enforcement, with five states mandating local involvement in deportations.

In conclusion, a potential second Trump presidency is poised to bring significant changes to U.S. immigration policy, echoing the aggressive measures of his first term. With a focus on mass deportation, stringent border controls, and the elimination of protections like TPS and DACA, the new administration is likely to create an environment characterized by heightened restrictions and legal uncertainties. The alignment with Project 25 suggests a systematic approach to reshaping not only immigration but also broader government policies, reflecting Trump's long-standing commitment to his supporters' agendas. As these proposed changes unfold, they will undoubtedly lead to substantial implications for millions of immigrants and reshape the landscape of U.S. immigration for years to come. The legal battles and social ramifications that ensue will challenge the nation's values of inclusion and humanitarianism, making it crucial for advocates and policymakers to navigate these issues thoughtfully in the face of such sweeping reforms.

Disclaimer: This information is intended for general knowledge and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. It's essential to consult with an attorney for personalized guidance on your specific situation.