Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Are Trump’s Mass Deportations Leading to State‑Sanctioned Persecution?

Evidence of unlawful arrests, child detentions, and judicial rebukes raises alarms that Trump’s deportation surge is eroding core American rights.

Opinion

A plane flying above.

Analysis of Donald Trump’s second-term immigration crackdown, mass deportation plan, and ICE policies, examining human rights concerns, due process, and historical parallels.

Getty Images, SCM Jeans

For the past 14 months, Americans of all political persuasions have witnessed how Trump’s ICE-related actions have involved aggressive detention and demonization of immigrants and minorities. Historians have not observed this large-scale scope of discrimination behavior since 1953-1955, when President Dwight Eisenhower (R) deported ~1.3 million Mexicans from America, including U.S. citizens of Mexican descent and, in some cases, anyone of Mexican appearance, because agents assumed they were undocumented.

Actions by Mr. Trump and personnel within the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and the FBI have been widely criticized as violating the core American values of equal protection for all families and respect for basic rights. Across the political spectrum, many see these actions as targeting immigrants and minorities in ways that undermine our nation’s shared commitment to fairness, justice, and constitutional equality. Knowing Americans have witnessed two citizens being killed in Minneapolis and one person in Texas by ICE agents, we may be on the verge of systemic persecution and state‑sanctioned violence on a scale not seen in modern American life.


Mr. Trump’s second-term mass-deportation agenda is projected by major human rights and immigration groups to cause large-scale constitutionally protected violations that affect liberty, family unity, due process, and our democracy. For example, the ACLU warned in a 2025 policy analysis that, “Rushed and sweeping mass deportation efforts will unavoidably ensnare families, long-term residents, and even U.S. citizens, resulting in unlawful detentions and breakdowns of due process.” These projections are based on case reviews, government data, and legal precedent.

Let’s take a closer look at this issue.

Human rights impacts of Trump’s 2.0 mass deportation plan

After Trump’s 2.0 inauguration (Jan. 20, 2025), he shut down the asylum process at America’s borders. Over 30,000 pending asylum cases were cancelled, disproportionately impacting people of color. This also means people who have strong human rights protection claims are being summarily refused to even apply for asylum, which is in violation of U.S. and refugee law.

Mr. Trump has stripped Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from well over a million people, instantly turning away people who have peacefully lived in and contributed to the U.S. economy. The U.S. Department of Justice acknowledges that immigrants, including those with TPS, have lower crime rates and lower incarceration rates than native-born U.S. citizens.

Mr. Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented parents – mostly people of color -- could leave about 222,000 U.S.-born children, born every year, vulnerable to expulsion from the only country they know. Trump’s order is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

During Mr. Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, he called migrants “animals, not human,” “stone-cold killers,” “savages,” people who are “eating cats,” “bad genes,” and that they were “poisoning the blood of our country.” These dehumanizing phrases echo language associated with the far-right and Nazi-accepting “Great Replacement” theory that historically supports ethnic cleansing campaigns. An October 2024 national poll found two-thirds of Republicans endorse some form of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory (The Bulletin).

The "Big Beautiful Bill Act" increased ICE detention funding by over 300 percent. Many allege this permitted a dramatic expansion of an already abusive detention system. Since Trump’s 2.0 inauguration, here’s the data: 212 detention centers, 393,000 arrests, 68,289 in detention centers (as of Feb. 7), 32 people died in ICE custody in 2025 and six in 2026, ~50,000 people in detention centers have no criminal convictions, and the majority of those arrested are of Mexican and Central America descent (USAFacts).

Additionally, at least 3,800 children under age 18 have been booked into ICE detention centers, with over 500 of them under the age of five, and at least 20 were infants. The vast majority of the children are Latino. At least 1,000 of these children were held longer than 30 days, which violates a court-ordered limit on child detention (The Marshall Project).

Violation of rights

Analysts argue that Trump’s mass-deportation policy bypasses citizens’ right to due process and legal representation (guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution). Trump’s deportation procedures greatly weaken America’s 250-year checks and balances posture, with immigration being used as the wedge.

On Jan. 14, Judge William Young – appointed by President Ronald Reagan – called Donald Trump an “authoritarian” and said his administration “conspired to infringe” on the First Amendment rights of activists whom the government has targeted for deportation (USA Today, Feb. 22).

On Jan. 23, Judge Patrick Schiltz – appointed by President George W. Bush – wrote in an opinion, “attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases. This list should give pause to anyone – no matter his or her political beliefs – who cares about the rule of law. ICE is not a law unto itself.” (ibid.)

In total, 373 judges – 44 appointed by Trump – have rejected Trump’s mass detention strategy in at least 3,500 cases (Politico, Feb. 12).

Hitler-Trump resemblance

The mother of a close friend – raised in Austria during Hitler’s Nazi regime and an eventual Illinois resident – shared with her daughter that what she experienced in Austria during 1938-1945 is very similar to what Americans are experiencing under Trump’s regime. The mother and other Austrian girls went to the forest during the daytime to hide and not be captured by the Nazi. Likewise, thousands of American parents are hiding their children from ICE.

Resolve

As of Feb. 2026, nearly two-thirds of Americans say ICE and Mr. Trump have gone too far in the immigration crackdown. "We the People" should demand our 535 Congressional delegates to bring Trump’s ethnic cleansing campaign to an abrupt halt; enough is enough.

To turn this outrage into action, call your House member’s district office this week and urge them to publicly oppose Trump’s mass-deportation plan. Ask them to introduce or co-sponsor legislation that restores legal protections for all families and reaffirms America’s commitment to fairness and equal rights. Your single call can help shift the conversation from fear to justice.


Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.


Read More

​Thomas Albus.

Thomas Albus speaks at a press conference in 2019.

Hillary Levin/Post Dispatch/Polaris

What Meetings Among Trump Lawyers Reveal About the FBI’s Seizure of Election Records in Georgia

The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the 2020 vote in Fulton County, Georgia, has taken part in meetings since last fall with lawyers tasked by President Donald Trump to reinvestigate his loss to Joe Biden.

Thomas Albus, whom Trump appointed last year as U.S. attorney for Missouri’s Eastern District, has had multiple meetings set up with top administration lawyers to discuss election integrity.

Keep Reading Show less
A computer mouse's digital clicker hovering above the image of a gavel.

Administrative subpoenas aren’t new—but in a data-driven world, they can expose identity and chill speech. A deep dive into history, Supreme Court doctrine, and modern risks.

Getty Images, J Studios

Administrative Subpoenas: Old Tool, New Risks

The tool people think is new (and isn’t)

Most people assume administrative subpoenas are a relatively new federal instrument—something that took off after 9/11 or emerged as a modern bureaucratic hack. The truth is they’re rooted in the late nineteenth-century rise of federal regulation, when Congress created agencies tasked with investigating industries shaping national life.

In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Act created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate railroads and investigate abuses. To give the Commission investigatory teeth, Congress authorized it to demand the books, papers, and testimony needed to examine discriminatory practices, alleged safety violations, and other infractions. This early template still defines the tool: agencies can compel information without a judge’s signature upfront. Which is backed, if necessary, by court enforcement if the recipient refuses.

Keep Reading Show less
Person holding a sign that reads, "Get ICE out of our cities."

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) joins the Congressional Hispanic Caucus rally outside of the ICE Headquarters on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform

After the killing of two Minneapolis citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in January, Democrats refused to approve further funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without new reforms. As a result, starting on February 14, no funding has been available for most DHS agencies: TSA, FEMA, CISA, and Coast Guard employees have either been furloughed or are required to work without paychecks (although backpay is expected).

ICE and CBP were given enough funding by last year's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act to continue operations essentially indefinitely in the wake of a shutdown, leaving the rest of DHS as the only leverage Democrats have left.

Keep Reading Show less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep Reading Show less