President Donald Trump has wasted no time in reshaping the U.S. immigration system. Within his first 100 days in office, he launched a sweeping crackdown that has fundamentally altered federal immigration policy. Through executive orders, legal battles, and a series of high-profile enforcement actions, the administration has ushered in one of the most aggressive immigration overhauls in modern American history.
The administration’s efforts have sparked widespread protests, created uncertainty in immigrant communities, and led to a constitutional showdown between the executive and judicial branches. Supporters applaud the aggressive stance—87% of Republicans back Trump’s immigration approach, according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll. However, the partisan divide remains stark, with just 11% of Democrats and around one-third of independents in favor.
Here are the five most significant immigration developments from the early days of Trump’s second term:
Use of the Alien Enemies Act
President Trump has invoked the rarely used Alien Enemies Act—an 18th-century law—to expedite the deportation of noncitizens, raising alarm about violations of constitutional due process.
Why it matters:
Historically used only three times since its enactment in 1798, the law permits the detention or deportation of nationals from enemy countries during wartime. On March 15, Trump applied it to members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., claiming they are engaged in “irregular warfare” against the country. The order targeted all noncitizen Venezuelans over the age of 14 suspected of gang involvement.
What happened:
Despite a federal judge’s emergency order halting deportations, the administration proceeded, deporting 137 individuals to El Salvador’s CECOT megaprison. Civil rights groups argue that some deportees had no known gang ties and were flagged based on tattoos or vague indicators. A federal appeals court later upheld the lower court’s injunction, criticizing the administration for denying individuals a chance to contest their removals.
What’s next:
The Supreme Court allowed limited use of the act under strict procedural conditions, but later paused deportations again after the ACLU warned of potential violations. The matter is expected to face further scrutiny at the high court.
Deportation Case of Mahmoud Khalil
The detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a Syrian-born graduate student and legal U.S. resident, has ignited debate over free speech and retaliation against pro-Palestinian activists.
Why it matters:
Khalil is among the first of several international students and academics targeted for deportation due to political speech. He and his attorneys argue his arrest was retaliatory and unconstitutional. The case has become emblematic of the administration’s campaign against pro-Palestinian activism on U.S. campuses.
What happened:
Khalil was arrested on March 8 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and detained in Louisiana. Secretary of State Marco Rubio used a Cold War-era provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act to strip Khalil of his green card, claiming his activism conflicted with U.S. foreign policy goals. The administration has not publicly provided evidence supporting the claim.
What’s next:
An immigration judge ruled she could not challenge the secretary of state’s order, clearing the way for deportation. However, a federal court temporarily blocked his removal pending the outcome of Khalil’s legal challenge. He remains in detention, having recently missed the birth of his child after a request for supervised release was denied.
The Mistaken Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
A Maryland man who had been granted protection from deportation in 2019 was mistakenly removed in March, fueling legal and political backlash.
Why it matters:
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador despite a standing court order prohibiting it, raising concerns about due process and the administration’s compliance with judicial authority. The case highlights the tension between the White House and the courts over immigration enforcement.
What happened:
Abrego Garcia was arrested by ICE while driving with his son and placed on a deportation flight with suspected gang members. Though he has no criminal record, the administration claims—without presenting evidence—that he belongs to MS-13.
What’s next:
The Supreme Court sided with a lower court judge who ordered his return to the U.S., but the administration has resisted. A federal judge has demanded an explanation for the government’s actions. Meanwhile, legal experts warn the case may set a dangerous precedent for defying court orders.
Challenge to Birthright Citizenship
Trump has moved to limit birthright citizenship by executive order, in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment, prompting a wave of lawsuits and judicial rebukes.
Why it matters:
The 14th Amendment guarantees U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Trump’s order, issued on his first day in office, seeks to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders—a move many legal scholars consider unconstitutional.
What happened:
Multiple lawsuits have been filed, including by 22 state attorneys general, the ACLU, and advocacy groups. Federal courts in three states blocked the order, with one Reagan-appointed judge calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
What’s next:
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on May 15, with a ruling expected in the summer. The case could have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of the Constitution.
Near-Ban on Asylum Access
Trump’s latest executive actions have nearly halted asylum at the southern border, sparking lawsuits and renewed scrutiny of America’s humanitarian obligations.
Why it matters:
Long a cornerstone of U.S. immigration law, asylum offers protection to individuals fleeing persecution. Trump’s measures, including fast-tracking deportations and freezing refugee programs, have sharply reduced access to this legal protection.
What happened:
The administration paused the refugee program and ended several humanitarian protections. It also overhauled the CBP One mobile app, previously used to request asylum appointments, rebranding it as CBP Home to promote voluntary departures instead.
What’s next:
Legal battles are ongoing over the administration’s authority to end asylum programs and protected status. While some courts have issued temporary halts, others have deferred to the president’s broad discretion over immigration policy.
These changes represent a sweeping transformation of the U.S. immigration system and have set the stage for major legal and political fights in the months ahead.
Related topics:
- ICE Deports U.S. Citizen Child and Mother Amid Legal Controversies
- Foreign Students Seek Court Order to Reverse Immigration Status Terminations
- Trump’s Immigration Crackdown: 3 Ways It Could Affect U.S. Citizens
