Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Just The Facts: Mass Deportations

News

Just The Facts: Mass Deportations
barbed wire
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Our ongoing series, “Just the Facts,” strives to approach news stories with both an open mind and skepticism, so we may present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we look to remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces.

How many deportations have there been since President Trump was elected?


Since Donald Trump was re-elected, deportation numbers have been a key focus of his administration. In February 2025, the first full month of his second term, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported around 11,000 migrants. This is slightly lower than the 12,000 deportations during the same month in 2024 under the Biden administration.

The administration has emphasized prioritizing deportations of individuals with criminal records or national security concerns, but about half of those deported in February 2025 had no criminal convictions. Deportation rates have been slower than in President Joe Biden's presidency, partly due to fewer border crossings and limited resources.

During the Presidential campaign, how many mass deportations did Trump promise?

During his campaign, Donald Trump pledged to launch the "largest deportation program in American history." He emphasized targeting undocumented immigrants, particularly those with criminal records and referenced historical deportation efforts like "Operation Wetback" from the 1950s. His campaign rhetoric often highlighted using military resources and invoking laws like the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite deportations.

It was a bold promise, but the feasibility and legality of such a large-scale operation have been widely debated.

Where is the Trump Administration deporting immigrants?

The Trump administration has been deporting immigrants primarily to Latin American countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. These destinations have historically received the majority of deportation flights, and this trend continues under the current administration. Additionally, deportation flights have been sent to countries like Ecuador, Colombia, and even India.

Interestingly, the administration initially used military aircraft for deportations to reinforce its stance on immigration, but this practice was deemed costly and inefficient and has since been suspended. Most deportations now occur via civilian flights.

Who or what department in the Trump Administration oversees mass deportations?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) oversees mass deportations, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) playing a central role. ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) division is specifically responsible for identifying, arresting, and deporting individuals who are in the U.S. unlawfully.

Under the Trump administration, Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, has been a key figure in orchestrating these efforts. ICE's acting director, Todd Lyons, has also successfully implemented the administration's aggressive deportation policies. These leaders have emphasized a "results-driven" approach to immigration enforcement.

Are children being separated from their parents as a result of the mass deportations, or are the children deported along with their parents?

The Trump administration's deportation policies have led to both scenarios. In some cases, children are deported alongside their parents, especially when families are detained together and processed for removal. However, there have been instances where children are separated from their parents during deportation proceedings. This can happen if the parents are detained for criminal prosecution or if the children are classified as unaccompanied minors.

The administration has faced criticism for these separations, with concerns about the psychological impact on children and the challenges of reuniting families.

Has the Trump Administration targeted specific immigrants for deportation based on their politics?

The Trump administration has faced criticism for targeting certain immigrants based on their political activities. For example, Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently stated that lawful permanent residents who support groups like Hamas or engage in anti-Israel protests could face deportation. This policy has already affected individuals like Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian rights advocate and green card holder, who was arrested and is now facing deportation.

The administration has also considered using the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law, to deport individuals from countries deemed adversarial to the U.S. This law allows for deportation without a hearing, based solely on someone's country of origin.

These actions have sparked debates about balancing national security and immigrants' rights.

Are there any court challenges pending against the Trump Administration's mass deportations?

There are several legal challenges against the Trump administration's mass deportation policies. For instance, the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations has drawn criticism and legal scrutiny. Experts argue that invoking this 18th-century law during peacetime may violate detainees' rights, and lawsuits are expected to challenge its application.

Additionally, the backlog of immigration court cases—over 4 million as of January 2025—has raised concerns about due process and the feasibility of mass deportations. Some courts have already issued temporary injunctions against specific deportation orders, such as the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist currently detained but protected from deportation while his case is heard.

The legal landscape is complex and evolving, with ongoing debates about the balance between national security and individual rights.

All data and information were obtained from Copilot, an AI-powered chatbot owned and operated by Microsoft Corporation.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.



Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less