The biggest impact of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack was on public understanding to realize that it wasn't just a single day, says Luke Broadwater, a Congressional reporter in the Washington bureau of The New York Times.
Broadwater has written hundreds of articles covering the causes and consequences of the January 6, 2021 attacks on the U.S. Capitol and the House Select Committee’s investigation.
We received a question through our Instagram account asking "if it's true what people say" that President Barack Obama deported more immigrants than Donald Trump. To answer our follower, Factchequeado reviewed the public deportation data available from 1993 to June 2025, to compare the policies of both presidents and other administrations.
Deportation statistics ("removals") are not available in a single repository, updated information is lacking, and there are limitations that we note at the end of this text in the methodology section.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not have publicly available deportation figures for Trump's second term. It has data through December 2024, but not all of it is in the same link or in a statistical record that breaks it down by year.
Because of this, we obtained the number of deportations from January to June 2025 via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the Deportation Data Project, an academic and litigation initiative that collects and publishes datasets on U.S. government immigration control. The project is led by David Hausman, professor at UC Berkeley School of Law, Graeme Blair, professor at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and Amber Qureshi, an attorney specializing in federal immigration and FOIA litigation.
The Deportation Data Project leaders are concerned about the reliability of ICE's record regarding the deportation table from late June 2025: "It may not include all relevant records." They warn that associated fields, such as departure dates, "may also create an incomplete picture of deportations."
This demonstrates the limitations in accessing and analyzing the data.
Despite the challenges posed by current migration figures, data compiled and analyzed by Factchequeado shows that President Obama deported more immigrants than any other president in the last three decades.
Obama's immigration policies primarily focused on deporting immigrants with criminal charges and those considered national security threats, especially during his final years in office. By contrast, under President Trump, criminal priorities were eliminated, categorizing all undocumented individuals as deportable.
For instance, in this article, we explained that 80% of immigrants taken to detention centers in the first months of Trump's second term had no criminal record. Yet authorities publicly describe them as "the worst of the worst." Additionally, detentions of immigrants without crimes rose from 1,048 in January 2025 to 11,972 in June 2025.
Our analysis covers fiscal year 1993 through June 26 of fiscal year 2025, encompassing the administrations of Democrat Bill Clinton, Republican George W. Bush, Democrat Barack Obama, Democrat Joe Biden, and Republican Donald Trump.
We provide a breakdown of the statistics by president and by period of government.
863,958 deportations | Annual average: 107,994 | Daily average over 8 years: 296
All figures are based on fiscal years (October-September)
Context of the period: Under Clinton, deportations focused primarily on people with criminal backgrounds and immigration violations. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 expanded deportation categories and reduced available legal defenses.
2,021,965 deportations | Annual average: 252,745 | Daily average over 8 years: 692
Context of the period: Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001, Bush prioritized deportations for national security reasons. He expanded the operations of the newly created ICE (2003) and intensified workplace raids. Deportations included both criminals and those accused of civil immigration violations.
1,589,451 deportations | Annual average: 397,362 | Daily average: 1,088
In 2012, a historic peak was reached, with an average of 1,123 deportations per day. This unprecedented figure led immigrant organizations to label Obama the “Deporter in Chief.”
Context of the period: Obama's first administration maintained the Secure Communities program launched in 2008 under Bush's presidency, a system where local police sent fingerprints to the FBI for identification, and the FBI sent the information to ICE to detect immigrants without legal status or with deportation orders. Deporting people with serious crimes and recent border crossers became a priority. Expulsions of immigrants without
criminal records in the country's interior decreased.
However, of the 375,000 immigrants expelled during the 6 years the program operated (active until 2014), more than 70% did not have crimes considered a national security threat, according to data from Syracuse University's TRAC Center (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse).
At a time when he faced criticism for the high number of deportations, Obama approved the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in June 2012.
1,160,255 | Annual average: 290,063 | Daily average: 794
FY 2013: 368,644 deportations (1,010/day).
FY 2014: 315,943 deportations (866/day).
FY 2015: 235,413 deportations (645/day).
FY 2016: 240,255 deportations (658/day).
Context of the period: During the first fiscal year of Obama's second administration, thousands of immigrants were deported for entering without authorization (46,759 cases), a misdemeanor; driving under the influence of alcohol (29,852 cases); and for traffic violations (15,548 cases), despite the goal being to focus on level 1 criminals.
In 2014, Secure Communities closed, and DHS created the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) with 4 categories for deportation:
The Obama years: From 2009 to 2016, his administration deported 2,749,706 individuals, averaging 343,713 deportations per year—the highest in 32 years. In 2012, the daily peak reached 1,123 deportations.
935,346 deportations | Annual average: 233,836 | Daily average: 641
Context of the period: Trump reversed the changes with PEP, and his administration eliminated the DHS's 4 deportation priority categories. He signed an executive order to return to the Secure Communities system and arrests intensified in the country's interior. Deportations due to traffic violations increased again (138% after 9 months of the government change).
He implemented, with the endorsement of former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the "Remain in Mexico" policy, a program that forced non-Mexican asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for months or years while U.S. immigration courts resolved their cases.
Migrant communities, including families with children, set up tents on the Mexican side of the border and were exposed to extortion, kidnapping, and other crimes. The measure faced judicial restrictions.
545,252 deportations | Annual average: 136,313 | Daily average: 373
Context of the period: Biden ordered a 100-day pause on interior deportations for people with final removal orders, except for national security threats, recent border crossings (after November 1, 2020), and cases where the law required deportation. But a federal judge in Texas blocked it after 6 days.
His administration formally ended the "Remain in Mexico" program, and implemented more selective interim priorities focused on 3 categories: (1) national security threats, (2) recent border crossings, and (3) people released from prison with convictions for serious aggravated felonies who represent a public threat.
The DHS established "Prosecutorial Discretion Guidelines" that maintained the three categories but added mitigating factors (age, time in the United States, military service, family ties) that agents had to consider before arresting or deporting someone, even if they were in a priority category.
Interior deportations fell and returns at the southern border and immigrants convicted of serious crime increased. He launched the CBP One program, a mobile application to request an appointment from outside the United States to process asylum.
Title 42 Expulsions under Trump and Biden from March 2020 to May 2023
Between March 2020 and May 2023, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) carried out 2,381,810 expedited removals under Title 42 at the southern border. Expelled immigrants had no right to asylum process, and these figures are not included in formal removals.
Title 42 is a 1944 public health provision that allows restricting entry to prevent disease.
Trump began using it for immigration expulsions in March 2020 as a COVID-19 measure, and Biden maintained it during part of his term.
Expedited removals by fiscal year:
128,039 deportations | 5.2 months* | Daily average: 810 (over 158 days).
Context of the period: Trump began his second administration with more than 1,000 deportations per day in the last weeks of January, according to ICE data obtained by the Deportation Data Project and analyzed by Factchequeado.
On January 23, 2025, alone, his administration deported more than 2,000 people, according to our analysis. Although deportations decreased in February and March to less than 800 per day, they increased in May and June 2025 to an average of 860 per day. However, these numbers did not reach the daily averages recorded during Obama's peak years.
While deportees are fewer, the number of arrests have hit record highs. According to ICE data, the number of people in detention centers exceeded 60,000 on August 11, 2025, and, as we previously reported, 8 out of 10 have no criminal record.
Trump has signed anti-immigrant executive orders, carried out large-scale coordinated raids, and expanded cooperation with local authorities.
Additionally, among other things, he has signed agreements with third countries to receive expelled immigrants without due process rights. For example, he sent 238 Venezuelans to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act and labeled most of them as Tren de Aragua members based on their tattoos, although they weren't. He has also sent migrants to Sudan and other third countries.
*Monthly breakdown with data provided by ICE to the Deportation Data Project. The January to June period analyzed corresponds to the second part of fiscal year 2025 that began under Biden on October 1, 2024, and will end on September 30, 2025, under Trump.
Editor's Notes: "Who deported more migrants? Obama or Trump? We checked the numbers" was first published by our partners, Factchequeado.
Wendy Selene Pérez is a Fact-checker for FactCheckeado.
The administration’s deployment of the military in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., on a limited basis tests using the military to overthrow a loss in the midterm elections. A big loss will stymie Project 2025, and impeachment may perhaps loom.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the president have said L.A. is “prelude to what is planned across the country,” according to U.C. Berkeley law professor Erwin Chemerinsky. Chemerinsky reports that on June 8, “Trump said, ‘Well, we’re gonna have troops everywhere.’” The Secretary of Homeland Security recently announced that in L.A., “Federal authorities were not going away but planned to stay and increase operations to ‘liberate’ the city from its ‘socialist’ leadership.”
Additional Democratic-controlled cities appear to be targeted.
The president claims that protestors “hate” America. He inveighs against an “enemy within,” including accusing former President Barack Obama of treason. The president roused soldiers at Fort Bragg against his political opposition. MAGA hats were sold on the base. In renaming bases, he seeks to honor Confederate generals who rebelled against the Constitution. The president attacks and demeans the judiciary.
Congress has ceded its power to check the president. The Speaker of the House has declared that California’s governor should be tarred and feathered, a process that can cover a person with hot tar.
Here’s how the election might be undermined.
The president’s executive order on elections, among other provisions, bars counting absentee and mail-in votes that arrive after election day, greatly increases proof of citizenship requirements, and limits permissible voting systems. At least two courts have so far invalidated a number of the requirements, including that absentee and mail-in ballots not be counted after election day. The president now threatens another executive order that would bar mail-in voting altogether.
Confusion, delay, and disorder can arise with the legal status of his executive orders, having them potentially tied up in court or subject to conflicting or unclear court rulings. The president’s call for an atypical reapportionment in Texas can trigger reapportionments in red and blue states that may be tied up in court, adding to the disorder. The Justice Department’s threats of criminal charges against election workers add to the disruption.
Claiming a failed election, red state legislatures or the president, purportedly exercising emergency powers, throw out some or all of the opposition’s votes for U.S. representatives and senators. This way, they install a large Republican majority. The Supreme Court rules these actions unconstitutional. The president and his supporters defy the Court’s orders. As massive protests erupt, the administration completes the overthrow with in-place and additional military under the Insurrection Act, potentially supplementing it with a Brown Shirt-like army of newly recruited 18 to 25-year-old purported ICE agents. Some 15 to 18 million people, who were seemingly willing to support a coup if the president had lost the 2024 election, stood by.
James G. Blaine, the Speaker of the House of Representatives between 1869-1875, observed that by 1869, “Those who anxiously and intelligently studied the political situation in the South could see how unequal the contest would be and how soon the men who organized the rebellion would again wield the political power of their States—wield it lawfully if they could, but unlawfully if they must; peaceably…but violently if violence in their judgment became necessary.” The like-minded progeny of these people and that of other like-minded people now control the national government. They are relentless. They view their opposition as spineless cowards.
In 1875, General of the Army William Tecumseh Sherman wrote to his senator brother, “Outside help sooner or later must cease, for our army is ridiculously small, in case of actual collision. It is only the Memory of the War Power that operates on the Rebel Element now. They have the votes, the will, and will in the End prevail.”
Today, our army is not “ridiculously small.” Its oath is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If the administration issues unconstitutional orders to the military, generals, judges, and the American people must be decisive and relentless in defending the nation’s Constitution. As Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg, we must “highly resolve…that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Daniel O. Jamison is a retired attorney.
“He who saves his Country does not violate any law.”
In February 2025, Donald Trump posted a quote attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte on Truth Social, generating alarm among constitutional experts.
“I am Oz, the Great and Terrible,” the Wizard of Oz declares from behind his curtain.
“In this country everyone must pay for everything he gets.” And, “I never grant favors without some return.” Is this the president speaking? It’s certainly rhetoric we have heard before. No, it is the Wizard in L. Frank Baum’s book, “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz”—which was published in 1900.
Before the 1939 film, “The Wizard of Oz,” starring Judy Garland, and before Gregory Maguire wrote “Wicked”—igniting a phenomenon in the theatre world and now in film, begging the question, was the “Wicked Witch” really wicked—there was Baum’s series of fourteen books about Oz.
So, what of this Wizard? What of this President? Are they as great and powerful as they claim? Or are they both charlatans, great pretenders who claim to have special powers to govern, to grant, to rule?
Yet—and this is a critical point—they have been ordained with this power by their citizens.
President Trump was voted into office a second time, taking the “swing states” to win the Electoral College. And the inhabitants of Oz, seeing a seemingly miraculous flying balloon descend on their city, declared the man in it a wizard.
Of course, there are other players afoot. Oz has witches, Munchkins, and most importantly, Dorothy and her companions, who ultimately challenge and expose the Wizard.
And we have a legislative and judicial branch, and most importantly, our Constitution. In this country, we are governed by a system of checks and balances. It is up to us all to remind each other, and the world, of that fact.
So, what is it that the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Lion want? And what does Dorothy want? They want the same things we do.
The Scarecrow wants a brain. We might wish for a more discerning one lately, one that will not capitulate to fear-mongering and rumor.
And the Tin Man wishes for a heart, presumably an “open” heart, encompassing more than his own small circle. Without such, life in Oz, in the U.S., or anywhere, becomes a cruel, joyless competition, devoid of true meaning.
The Lion needs courage. Don’t we all? Living is not for the faint of heart, in any age. Courage is the difference in every situation. Brains and a heart are essential, but without the courage to use them, they merely fester.
“My life is simply unbearable without courage,” the Lion declares. So are our own.
And of course, Dorothy’s greatest wish is to go home. It is Glinda, the Good Witch, who ultimately grants her wish. “Your silver shoes will carry you…. If you had known their power, you could have gone back the very first day.” (The “ruby” slippers were originally “silver” slippers in the book, but were changed to ruby to take advantage of the new color film in the movie version.)
So, Dorothy had it in her power all along to go home.
As we too, have it in our power to defend and protect our principles, our home. We may begin on the yellow brick road or the wrong road, and we may encounter wicked witches or be imprisoned, but we must keep going on our journey.
Lately, it does seem that our politics are swinging terrifyingly right, and there are those who act as the Winged Monkeys in Oz, willing to “obey any order” they are given. But the pendulum swings, and it will again. It always does.
We have all heard of rose-colored glasses, and there is justification in accusing the MAGA movement of refusing to remove theirs, instead of ordaining all that their “leader” does.
In Oz, the Emerald City was not even green. The Wizard confesses, “I put green spectacles on all the people, so everything they saw was green.”
But we cannot wear rose-colored glasses, or green ones. No distortion of facts, no fairy tales, will work in the end. We must envision our destiny, and live it out in the bright, clear light of day.
“What a world! What a world!” the Wicked Witch of the West screeches in the 1939 film, after Dorothy has thrown a bucket of water on her, and the witch melts.
Many would say the same regarding the state of our country and the world. Others would claim that we are at last approaching justice and common sense.
We must agree to disagree. But we do have a plan that has now stood the test of time, a map that can direct our path. What we cannot ever do is linger long in those intoxicating fields of scarlet poppies. We must not fall asleep.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."
US Capitol
Imagine being told from a young age that your life is already written: the jobs you’ll hold, the obstacles you’ll face, the limits you’ll never cross. What you’re born into is what your life will be. For millions of Americans making a low wage, that’s the reality. Democracy, in theory, is supposed to offer a way out — a chance to shape your own future. That’s the “American dream.” But for too many, it remains just a promise, out of reach. When children grow up believing their circumstances are permanent, they inherit a cycle instead of a chance.
I know this tension firsthand. On paper, I might look like I fit the mold of opportunity: white-passing, educated, and building a career. But beneath the surface, my story goes beyond that. I grew up in a low-income, mixed-race household with a Hispanic father and a white American mother. In my family, the paths laid out were often blue-collar jobs, teen pregnancy, addiction, incarceration, or worse. None of my three sisters graduated from high school, and no one in my immediate family attended college. I became the exception — not because the system was designed for me but because I found a way through it.
I easily could have accepted my situation, which involved living paycheck to paycheck and witnessing close family members enter the criminal justice system. Based on the saying “History repeats itself,” I should have done just that. But education was the key for me. I relied on school to distract from a tough home life. I’m not sure what drove me to invest so much time into studying, but I was determined to finish high school and attend college. Now, I hold two bachelor’s degrees and a master’s degree, with plans to obtain a law degree. I overcame my circumstances; I didn’t become them.
But hard work and determination can only get a person so far. My path wasn’t easy, and neither is the path for the 36.8 million Americans living in poverty. We need an institutional framework in place to prevent a socioeconomic hierarchy that would relegate an entire “class” of people to the bottom. True democracy should not just leave room for outliers; it should make success attainable for anyone. It should uplift those who start with the least, turning what is often called the “American dream” into an American reality.
The problem is that our government too often fails to reflect the communities it serves. When elected officials don’t share the lived experiences of everyday people, they miss what matters most.
Congress is overwhelmingly composed of representatives and senators from upper-class or highly educated backgrounds. In 2023, fewer than 2% of federal legislators came from working-class backgrounds, despite the fact that 27% of the U.S. workforce holds blue-collar jobs.
Wealth disparities are stark. The median U.S. household net worth is $192,700, while Congressmembers’ median net worth in 2020 was over $1 million. The net worth of the wealthiest lawmakers, like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is in the hundreds of millions.
Ninety-six percent of the 118th Congress have college degrees, with the majority coming from white-collar professions, though a few have backgrounds as ride-share drivers, electricians, and carpenters. In 10 states, no lawmaker works or has worked in a working-class job, according to researchers at Duke University and Loyola University Chicago.
“These estimates illustrate the striking disparity between Americans and the people who represent them in elected office,” said Nicholas Carnes, a political scientist at Duke University. “In principle, anyone can run for office, but in practice, the people who are running and serving are overwhelmingly drawn from America’s professional classes.”
Some, however, come from humble beginnings. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., for example, “pulled extra shifts as a waitress and bartender to support her family,” her House biography says. I, too, have worked in restaurants to support myself and my family. My first job was at the age of 16 as a hostess at a Mexican restaurant called Sticky Cactus in McDonough, Georgia, and later I became a waitress there. I remember smiling with pride after receiving a $50 tip, which would go toward my University of Georgia admission fee. My parents couldn’t afford the $500 to secure my spot for freshman year.
An elected official’s economic background shapes their policymaking. Officials from affluent backgrounds may prioritize lowering taxes for high earners or enhancing business incentives. In contrast, officials from working-class backgrounds may focus on raising the minimum wage or expanding affordable healthcare. The former is not inherently wrong; Congress needs members of all socioeconomic backgrounds, and that’s the point. Greater economic diversity is needed.
Representation isn’t about identity politics. It’s about ensuring that policy is shaped by people who understand, from their lived reality, what it means to break a cycle — what it means to overcome your situation, rather than become it. Poor people, to put it bluntly, deserve a seat at the congressional table to bring firsthand understanding of financial insecurity and systemic barriers so many face.
We should elect leaders who reflect the diversity of our communities, not just in terms of race and gender, but also in background, socioeconomic class, and life experiences. For me, democracy means having the chance to turn rejection into redirection and to overcome a situation rather than become it. It means transforming lemons into limonada. And it means ensuring the promise of an “American dream” isn’t reserved for the lucky few but built into the American structure.
Ashley N. Soriano is a graduate student at Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism in the Politics, Policy and Foreign Affairs specialization.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
