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.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.