Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Five Significant Changes to Immigration Policies Under Trump (so far)

Five Significant Changes to Immigration Policies Under Trump (so far)

President Donald Trump signs a series of executive orders at the White House on January 20, 2025, in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Jabin Botsford /The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Less than a week after assuming office, President Donald Trump launched a comprehensive initiative aimed at addressing undocumented migration in the United States.

Key officials from the Trump administration, including "border czar" Tom Homan and the acting deputy attorney general, visited Chicago on Sunday to oversee the commencement of intensified immigration enforcement in the city. Specific details regarding the operation, such as the number of arrests made, were not disclosed at that time.


“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with federal partners, including the FBI, ATF, DEA, CBP and the U.S. Marshals Service, began conducting enhanced targeted operations today in Chicago to enforce U.S. immigration law and preserve public safety and national security by keeping potentially dangerous criminal aliens out of our communities,” the statement reads.

On the same day, Trump imposed tariffs and visa restrictions on Colombia after President Gustavo Petro declined to allow two U.S. military aircraft to land while transporting migrants being deported under the new immigration policies.

President Petro criticized this approach, arguing that it unfairly criminalizes migrants. He stated on social media platform X that Colombia would facilitate the return of deported migrants via civilian flights.

"The U.S. cannot treat Colombian migrants as criminals," Petro wrote.

Additionally, Mexico also declined a request last week for a U.S. military aircraft to land with migrants. However, Trump did not impose similar measures against Mexico, the U.S.'s largest trading partner.

Below is a summary of five other notable immigration-related actions taken by Trump during his first week back in office.

The Chihuahua State Police, in cooperation with the U.S. Border Patrol, conduct a joint operation to prevent illegal border crossings in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico on January 24, 2025. (Photo by David Peinado/Anadolu via Getty Images)

  1. Fortifying the US-Mexico border

Last week, the Pentagon announced the deployment of 1,500 active-duty troops at the southern US border. This is in addition to 2,500 active-duty personnel already there, officials said - marking a 60% increase in Army troops in the area.

The troops will fly helicopters to help Border Patrol agents with monitoring, said acting Defense Secretary Robert Salesses. They will also help construct barriers to stop migrants from coming in.

January 2025, Mexico, Tijuana: Silvia Martinez and her daughter, both Salvadoran migrants, hug after learning that their appointment to apply for asylum in the US has been canceled. (Photo by Felix Marquez/picture alliance via Getty Images)

2. Halting the Processing of Migrants and Asylum Seekers

In an executive order, President Trump suspended the entry of all undocumented migrants into the United States, directing border patrol agents to deny entry without providing asylum hearings. Before this order, migrants arriving at the US border had the legal right to seek asylum.

hands using mobile phone apps Getty Images//Guido Maieth

3 . Canceling Existing Migrants' Appointments

A significant change that occurred shortly after Trump took office was the discontinuation of the CBP One smartphone app, which allowed migrants to schedule appointments with US border patrol agents.

The app had been introduced by the Biden administration to help organize and streamline the entry process for migrants fleeing persecution. Following the app's removal, reports indicated that approximately 30,000 individuals were left stranded in Mexico, all of whom had previously scheduled appointments that were subsequently canceled.

Posters plastered in Little Village, a predominantly Mexican neighborhood, warn residents of ICE raids, emphasizing 'DON'T OPEN ICE! ICE OUT OF OUR COMMUNITIES!' on January 22, 2025. (Photo by Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images)

4. Expanding ICE Powers and Conducting Raids

Several of President Trump's executive orders aimed to enhance the authority of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in apprehending and detaining undocumented migrants within the United States. One order rescinded a long-standing guideline that restricted immigration raids in "sensitive" locations, such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship. Another directive sought to broaden a program that permits ICE to delegate its immigration enforcement responsibilities to state and local law enforcement agencies.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA. Birthright citizenship concept. Getty Images//Stock Photo

5. Ending Birthright Citizenship

Through an executive order, the Trump administration has sought to challenge the citizenship status of certain U.S.-born children of immigrants, a right protected by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. More than 20 states have initiated legal action to contest the order and defend this constitutional right. Additionally, a federal judge temporarily blocked the executive order, labeling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

These actions reflect a shift in the language and practices surrounding the United States ‘immigration system. The ultimate impact will likely depend on the ensuing political and legal developments. Experts suggest that immigration flows may decrease, and enforcement measures could become significantly stricter, potentially affecting the economy and other areas.

. Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is also the publisher of the Latino News Network.

Read More

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

Supreme Court.

Equality Now

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

A quick recap:

  • The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban, weakening equal protections.
  • Tennessee’s law denies care based on sex assigned at birth, despite claims it doesn’t.
  • The Supreme Court decision and Tenessee’s law violates international human rights standards on health and non-discrimination.
  • To reach a decision, the Court revived harmful legal reasoning.
  • Without stronger protections, discrimination can be hidden in neutral language.

On June 18, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Court held that Tennessee’s law does not rely on a sex-based classification and therefore does not warrant heightened judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The decision sidestepped the central role sex plays in the Tennessee law, effectively signaling that states may target gender-affirming care for transgender youth without triggering the constitutional protections typically afforded in such cases.

The Court accepted Tennessee’s claim that the law at issue merely regulates “based on age” and “medical use,” not on sex or transgender status. But this framing misrepresents how the law functions in practice: access to treatment is determined entirely by a patient’s sex assigned at birth. It’s not the treatment itself that is restricted, but who is seeking it and for what purpose.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Democrat’s Answer to the Immigration Issue

"America would not have been able to become the economic powerhouse it is without...immigrants," writes Ronald L. Hirsch. "So what's the political and humane solution to the immigration problem?"

Getty Images, Thanasis

A Democrat’s Answer to the Immigration Issue

Polls show that the issue of immigration—actually, it's just illegal immigration—has become a major concern to a majority of Americans. No doubt that is largely because of Trump's vilification of undocumented immigrants.

But illegal immigration has, in fact, been a major problem for many years. Why? Mainly because roughly 11 million undocumented individuals have been living here for years, working and paying taxes, yet they are outside the legal framework of our society. That is the problem.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement
Police car lights.
Getty Images / Oliver Helbig

The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement

Immigration is governed by a patchwork of federal laws. Within the patchwork, one notable thread of law lies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Act authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work in tandem with local agencies and law enforcement on deterrence and enforcement efforts. Like the now-discontinued Secure Communities program that encouraged information sharing between local police agencies and ICE, the law specifically authorizes ICE to work with local and federal partners to detain and deport removal-eligible immigrants from the country.

What are Sanctuary Policies?

Keep ReadingShow less
Lady Justice

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States.

the_burtons/Getty Images

Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful: How the “Nondelegation Doctrine” Limits Congress

This guest post from Eric Bolinder, a professor of law at Liberty University, is based on his recent law review article on the constitutionality of President Trump's tariffs. Before Liberty University, Eric was counsel at Cause of Action Institute, where he helped litigate Loper Bright, the case that overturned Chevron deference, and at Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States. Without congressional action, these tariffs are highly vulnerable to legal challenges as they may violate something called the "nondelegation doctrine." Recently, two courts, the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, enjoined the tariffs (though both decisions are stayed), finding that the President had no statutory authority to implement them. These courts echoed what I'll discuss below, that if the statute does authorize tariffs, then they may be unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine.

Keep ReadingShow less