Feasibility of Trump's Mass Deportation Plan

Former President Donald Trump's mass deportation plan, if implemented, would face daunting obstacles, both practically and legally. A plan of this magnitude would require massive federal and local law enforcement mobilization, immense financial resources, and unprecedented inter-agency coordination. Key agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), along with detention centers and immigration courts, are already operating at or above capacity. Expanding these operations would demand substantial investment and staffing increases. Given the divided Congress, approval of such funding seems unlikely, especially if Democrats control the House, meaning Trump’s plan could struggle to secure the necessary resources.

A mass deportation initiative would also depend on state and local law enforcement, as well as possible deployment of the National Guard. However, cooperation would likely vary significantly by state: Republican-led states such as Texas and Florida may support Trump's efforts, while Democrat-led states may resist implementation. This would result in disproportionate effects on migrant communities in Republican states, according to César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, an immigration law professor at Ohio State University.

Trump has suggested using the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations, but the legality of this approach is questionable. The act, originally intended for wartime threats, could face challenges under the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Katherine Yon Ebright, from the Brennan Center, points out that the law’s broad targeting of noncitizens based on ancestry could be deemed unconstitutional. Trump would also face challenges framing the border situation as a wartime scenario, though he has described it as the “greatest invasion in history,” positioning immigration as a threat to national security.

Even if Trump overcomes logistical and legal challenges, he could face considerable political pushback. A stricter stance on immigration may initially resonate with segments of the electorate who favor tougher border policies. Yet, if the deportation measures become too aggressive, it could shift public opinion and increase support for immigration, as occurred during Trump’s first term when public support for immigrants rose in response to his hardline policies. Legal experts note that Trump’s influence over the judiciary, with a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, may offer him some leeway. However, the broader social impact could mobilize opposition, sparking protests and advocacy efforts reminiscent of those seen in his previous administration.