Deportation nation: Trump 2.0 is gunning for new records in immigration prosecutions
By March 2025 — in just the second full month of President Trump's second term — the number of criminal immigration prosecutions jumped by 36 percent over the month prior, reaching 4,550 charges per month. According to TRAC, this marks the sharpest monthly increase in recent years.
The first shot has been fired. After years of 'catch and release,' the deportation machine is running again at full steam, and Southern states have become the main battleground.
From Texas to Florida, sheriffs are bracing for full jails, and everyone knows this is just the beginning. Unlike Biden's slow-moving policy, Trump's forces are moving fast — 70 percent of all cases are now initiated by Customs and Border Protection.
Back in 2019, the number peaked at 10,000 per month. He was already halfway back to that level in just his second full month in office. What happens by fall?
Republicans have tasted blood. Governors are already demanding more funding. The return of priority enforcement and pressure on ICE to deliver faster results with less bureaucracy has pushed the system into high gear — 36 percent growth in just one month.
The Trump administration is building up a new pressure system. Beyond simply reviving its old rhetoric on illegal immigration enforcement, it is building a more aggressive structure, handing real power to field-level actors.
The fact that 70 percent of cases are being opened by CBP, not ICE, shows how federal power is being pushed down to those counties with the most hardline politics. The new rule is already clear: less paper, please, and pass the handcuffs.
At the same time, border crossings fell to just 7,181 in March — a 95 percent drop compared to the same month last year. While some say it's seasonal, the sharp rise in prosecutions seems to be acting as a strong warning. Meanwhile, ICE is quietly speeding up deportations, processing hundreds of thousands of migrants through faster removals in recent months, showing how the system is working behind the scenes to reduce border crossings.
In practice, this means that counties are once again becoming testing grounds, where new rules come as a blank check. Governors in Texas, Florida, and Louisiana are pushing to expand jurisdiction. Sheriffs are rebuilding the jail-to-deportation pipeline. Even minor charges are turning into ICE cases.
This mechanism is familiar to those who remember 2018 and 2019, but this time it started from day one and has been moving even faster. As Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) put it: 'Our National Guard is helping ICE with arrests and deportations.' That's the level of coordination now at play. This is less a return to immigration policy and more a rush into pre-conflict mode.
If this pace continues, we could hit 10,000 prosecutions per month by fall. For now, they are testing the limits. The real goal is not law enforcement, but a broad demonstration of strength.
America has restarted a machine that works not just for justice but also for power. First blood is a test — a signal of how ready the system is to obey. And if the course stays unchanged, a full-scale wave of deportations is coming.
Artem Kolisnichenko writes on crime, immigration, and border policy across the American South and Southwest.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
G7 agrees to avoid higher taxes for US, UK companies
The United States and the Group of Seven countries have agreed to support a proposal that would exempt US companies from some components of an existing global agreement, the G7 says. The group has created a "side-by-side" system in response to the US administration agreeing to scrap the Section 899 retaliatory tax proposal from President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill, it said in a statement from Canada, the head of the rolling G7 presidency. The G7 said the plan recognises existing US minimum tax laws and aims to bring more stability to the international tax system. United Kingdom businesses are also spared higher taxes after the removal of Section 899 from Trump's tax and spending bill. The Government of Canada has published the @G7 statement on global minimum taxes. Read it here: — Finance Canada (@FinanceCanada) June 28, 2025 The UK government said businesses would benefit from greater certainty and stability following the agreement. Some UK businesses had in recent weeks said they were worried about paying substantial additional tax due to the inclusion of Section 899, which has now been removed. "Today's agreement provides much-needed certainty and stability for those businesses after they had raised their concerns," finance minister Rachel Reeves said in a statement, adding that more work was need to tackle aggressive tax planning and avoidance. G7 officials said that they look forward to discussing a solution that is "acceptable and implementable to all". In January, through an executive order, Trump declared that the global corporate minimum tax deal was not applicable in the US, effectively pulling out of the landmark 2021 arrangement negotiated by the administration of his predecessor Joe Biden with nearly 140 countries. He had also vowed to impose a retaliatory tax against countries that impose taxes on US firms under the 2021 global tax agreement. This tax was considered detrimental to many foreign companies operating in the US.
Los Angeles Times
23 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president's hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
23 minutes ago
A week of shifting descriptions of Iran attack spark ongoing questions about extent of damage and goals
A week after President Donald Trump ordered a U.S. attack on three Iranian nuclear sites, the explanations and descriptions of what happened voiced by him, top aides and early intelligence reports paint contrasting pictures of the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear program. While the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth repeatedly claimed that Iran's nuclear program has been "obliterated," preliminary assessments — including from the Pentagon's own intelligence wing — painted an evolving picture as the week went on. Trump said he ordered the attack on June 21 to strike a uranium enrichment site located in 300 feet deep in a mountain in Fordo in northwestern Iran, an uranium enrichment site in Natanz and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center following reports that Iranian officials failed to comply with international nuclear regulations. And as those early damage assessments cast doubt on the extent to which Iran nuclear program was crippled, several of Trump's top aides and allied lawmakers also appeared to scale back the stated goals of the attack. Here are some of the accounts and characterizations over the last week. Officials label mission a success, but provide few details to start On Sunday morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed Trump's statement from Saturday night, just after the strikes, that the sites had been "obliterated." "It was clear we devastated the Iranian nuclear program," he added. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, however, declined to go as far, saying it would take more time to assess the extent of the damage done. Hegseth acknowledged that damage assessment was ongoing but stuck by the description he and Trump were using. "All of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike and had the desired effect, which means especially the primary target here, we believe we achieved destruction of capabilities there," he said. Pentagon initial damage report leaks Officials and inspectors from outside Iran have not been able to gain direct access to the bombed sites to make a first-hand assessment. Trump officials had a more nuanced take after news reports surfaced Tuesday about an initial Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that said the attack set back Iran's nuclear program only by months. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the leaks of the military's report but did not go as far as to claim that the sites were obliterated. Instead, he insisted that "very significant, substantial damage was done" to key components of Iran's nuclear program, "and we're just learning more about it." At the same time, Rubio provided more details about the attack, including that the bunker-buster bombs were dropped on ventilation shafts leading deep inside Fordo's heavily fortified facility -- buried, officials and experts said, 200 to 300 feet inside a mountain. He ultimately acknowledged that it was difficult to get a read on damage inflicted to Fordo at this point, but asserted "the bottom line is real damage was done." That same day, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claimed in a statement that the three facilities were destroyed. The director general of the U.N.'s nuclear oversight agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, said Wednesday that he believed some of Iran's enriched uranium had been moved from the sites before the attacks. Trump refuted that analysis. "It would have taken two weeks, maybe. But it's very hard to remove that kind of material, very hard and very dangerous. Plus, they knew we were coming, and if they know we're coming, they're not going to be down there," he said Wednesday. Trump reiterated that the sites and the uranium were buried under rubble and inaccessible, adding that trucks seen in satellite images at the plant before the attack -- which some speculated could have been used to move the nuclear material -- were construction vehicles being used to cover the ventilation shaft openings with protective concrete. According to the two people familiar with the DIA's classified report, the bombing sealed off the entrances to two of the three nuclear sites targeted in the attack but most of the damage was done to structures above ground, leaving the lower structures intact. The assessment also found that at least some enriched uranium remained – possibly moved from the nuclear sites ahead of the blasts. The next day, on Thursday, Hegseth held a news conference where he slammed the news media over reporting but did not make the same assessment on the nuclear materials. Asked twice during the briefing if he could be more definitive about whether the enriched uranium was moved before the attack, Hegseth said the Pentagon was "watching every aspect." At that same Thursday briefing, Caine noted it's not his job to assess the damage, saying, "We don't grade our own homework." Facility destruction downplayed by officials, ceasefire emphasized Hegseth also highlighted what appeared to be a different goal of the mission, arguing the attack had succeeded because it led to stopping the fighting between Iran and Israel — rather than the facilities' destruction because it destroyed Iran's nuclear program. "We got that peace, that ceasefire, that option because of strength, because of [Trump's] willingness to use American military might that no one else on the planet can do with the kind of planners and operators that the chairman just laid out," he said. Then, on Friday, Trump echoed that sentiment. "They put out that fire once that happened, once those bombs got dropped out, that war was over," he said. Still, the president claimed again that the sites were obliterated during a news conference. "We finished them off," he said, adding, "I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear anytime soon." Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister said on Iranian State TV Thursday, however, the facilities were not destroyed and his country will have leverage in negotiations. The fate of the enriched uranium On Capitol Hill on Thursday, after administration officials gave lawmakers a classified briefing on the strikes, Republican lawmakers acknowledged that the U.S. strikes may not have destroyed Iran's cache of enriched uranium. But they said that wasn't part of the mission. "The purpose of the mission was to eliminate certain particular aspects of their nuclear program. Those were eliminated. To get rid of the nuclear material was not part of the mission,' Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., told CNN. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the "program was obliterated at those three sites," but added, "I don't know where the 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium exists. But it wasn't part of the targets there."
