In less than 100 days, President Trump has significantly transformed U.S. immigration policy, asserting he has an overwhelming mandate to revamp the system.
Using a series of executive orders, lawsuits, and intensive enforcement measures, Trump has initiated a crackdown that has generated widespread fear and confusion in migrant communities.
The aggressive deportation strategy has ignited street protests and raised fundamental questions about due process and freedom of speech, leading to a historic clash between the executive and judicial branches.
Support for this immigration strategy is largely split along party lines, with approximately 87% of Republicans approving Trump’s actions, according to a recent NPR/PBS News/Marist poll.
In stark contrast, only 11% of Democrats and about a third of independents surveyed expressed approval of the president’s approach to immigration.
As Trump continues his immigration reform agenda, NPR has outlined five critical issues that have emerged, fundamentally altering the immigration landscape during his administration’s ongoing term.
**ALIEN ENEMIES ACT**
One of the most controversial moves has been Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, an obscure law from the 18th century, to expedite and broaden deportations.
This act enables the president to detain or deport individuals from enemy nations but is allowed only during a declared war or invasion.
On March 15, Trump utilized this act against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which he claimed was waging irregular warfare against the United States.
Consequently, Trump directed a measure that allows expedited removal of Venezuelan citizens aged 14 and older who are classified as gang members, specifically if they are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
However, this order was met with immediate backlash from organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward, which filed a lawsuit to halt deportations under this act.
On the same day, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled in favor of the ACLU, issuing an order preventing the administration from deporting anyone under the Alien Enemies Act.
Despite this ruling, the administration proceeded with deportations, leading to the removal of 137 Venezuelans who were placed into El Salvador’s CECOT prison.
Immigrant rights advocates have argued that many of those deported had no criminal records and have been erroneously targeted based on superficial indicators such as tattoos.
By late March, an appellate panel from the D.C. Circuit Court upheld Boasberg’s ruling, citing the government’s failure to provide due process for those accused.
Judge Patricia Millett, a Democratic appointee, emphasized the lack of any formal proceedings, stating that the deportation process had denied these individuals a fair chance to contest their cases.
As this legal saga continues, the Supreme Court may play a critical role in resolving the conflicts sparked by Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act.
In early April, the Supreme Court temporarily upheld the government’s right to use the act but stipulated that individuals must be afforded adequate notice and an opportunity to contest deportation claims on a case-by-case basis.
The ACLU subsequently filed an emergency appeal, highlighting the imminent threat faced by detainees at risk of being deported without their day in court.
The justices warned the government against removing any detainee from the alleged class until further notice, amid dissent from Justices Alito and Thomas who criticized the decision for granting questionable legal relief.
**MAHMOUD KHALIL**
The case of Mahmoud Khalil, a 30-year-old Syrian-born graduate student, exemplifies Trump’s aggressive stance against free speech rights.
Khalil, a legal green card holder, was detained after participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University.
His arrest has raised alarms about retaliation against individuals advocating for Palestinian rights, as he was swiftly placed in a rural Louisiana detention center despite being legally in the country.
The government has accused him of radical activism, while Khalil asserts that his deportation is a violation of his constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
Khalil’s situation is part of a broader crackdown against noncitizen students and activists, with the administration revoking visas for many involved in similar protests.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed disdain for campus dissent, indicating that their presence in the U.S. undermined domestic stability.
Khalil was arrested by ICE agents on March 8 and has since been fighting his deportation, which the administration claims is based on a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that gives the Secretary of State broad authority over noncitizens deemed a threat to U.S. foreign policy.
Despite the lack of evidence supporting these claims, Rubio argued that Khalil’s activism undermines efforts to combat antisemitism.
An immigration judge ruled in early April that Khalil could be deported, citing that she had no authority to overturn Rubio’s decision detailed in a brief memo.
Khalil’s legal team is appealing this ruling, and he is not facing imminent deportation due to a federal judge’s order preventing removal while the case is ongoing.
Tragically, Khalil’s situation has prevented him from being present for significant personal events, such as the birth of his first child, due to constraints imposed by ICE.
**KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA**
Kilmár Abrego Garcia’s situation illustrates the potential for wrongful deportation under the current administration, triggering concerns over due process rights.
Garcia, a 29-year-old man from Maryland, was mistakenly deported to El Salvador—a country from which he was previously protected by a court order that forbade his removal.
The Supreme Court has intervened, siding with a district judge who demanded the administration facilitate Garcia’s return to the U.S., highlighting blatant contradictions in the administration’s claims.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the White House continues to assert that Garcia is a gang member, but this allegation remains unproven and is vehemently contested by his family and legal advocates.
Garcia’s arrest occurred after ICE officers stopped him while he was driving home with his child.
Following his arrest, he was placed on a deportation flight alongside actual gang members and sent to a megaprison in El Salvador despite his lack of a criminal record.
During the deportation proceedings, federal judges have expressed disbelief at the government’s rationale for his removal, questioning the violation of due process at play.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit pointed out that allegations against Garcia, whether true or false, should warrant entitlement to due process under the law.
The Trump administration has been slow to respond to a federal judge’s order seeking clarity on Garcia’s status, further complicating the case.
Public sentiment surrounding Garcia’s deportation has been largely disapproving, even among independent voters.
**BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP**
Trump’s controversial attempts to redefine birthright citizenship have drawn widespread criticism from legal experts.
He signed an executive order on his first day, asserting that children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or temporarily present would not automatically receive citizenship.
Legal analysts have denounced this initiative as blatantly unconstitutional, invoking the 14th Amendment, which secures birthright citizenship established in 1868.
Trump has repeatedly argued that there is no automatic citizenship guaranteed in the Constitution, a stance that is widely regarded as extreme and controversial.
Multiple states’ attorneys general, alongside advocacy groups and affected individuals, have mounted legal challenges against this executive order.
Several district judges in various states have temporarily blocked the order’s enforcement, prompting the administration to appeal these rulings.
In a notable decision, Judge John Coughenour in Washington state ruled against Trump, calling the order “blatantly unconstitutional” and expressing disbelief that a legal professional would assert its validity.
The case is set to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 15, with a decision expected by early summer.
**ASYLUM ACCESS**
Trump’s overhaul of the U.S. immigration system has led to a drastic decrease in border crossings at the onset of 2025, as a near-total asylum ban took effect via executive action.
The limitations placed on asylum access have sparked outrage among refugee advocates, igniting concerns over the fates of numerous individuals seeking refuge from dire circumstances.
Trump’s actions have considerably altered the asylum process, complicating the paths available to individuals fleeing violence and persecution.
His administration has moved to halt the U.S. refugee program and suspend asylum applications at the southern border.
In addition, temporary protections for various groups have been rescinded, impacting individuals from countries facing turmoil such as Haiti, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and Ukraine.
Legal challenges against Trump’s executive directives are ongoing, as advocates suit over the cancellation of appointments for asylum seekers who utilized a mobile application for entry.
Previously, these appointments were handled through the CBP One app, allowing individuals to schedule asylum requests under humanitarian parole, but this function has been scrapped.
The Trump administration is now pushing for a new app system that ostensibly encourages self-deportation, moving away from asylum acceptance.
As courts consider the legality of Trump’s asylum reforms, many judges have issued pauses on specific policies, even as the administration argues for its right to restrict entry into the U.S.
The tension surrounding Trump’s immigration agenda reflects a nation grappling with contrasting values of security and compassion, where legal battles continue to unfold amid a climate of fear and uncertainty.
As the administration’s policies face ongoing challenges and scrutiny, the path forward for countless individuals remains fraught with complexities and obstacles.
image source from：https://www.npr.org/2025/04/30/g-s1-63415/top-5-immigration-changes-trump-first-100-days
