What is mass deportation?

Mass deportation refers to a drastic and sweeping policy aimed at removing all of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S., in addition to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders; Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients; and parolees who may have arrived through nationality-specific programs such as the CHNV process or have been processed through CBP One at the border.

As of March 2024, there were more than 860,000 TPS holders, 528,000 DACA recipients, and about 1 million parolees in the U.S., all of whom are eligible for work permits. If implemented, mass deportation could target more than 2.38 million individuals who are legally eligible to work in the U.S., stripping them of their status and expelling them from the country.

Mass deportation would kneecap individual businesses, entire industries and our economy. Such a large-scale operation would also have chaotic consequences within individual families and in neighborhoods, churches and schools. It would require an enormous mobilization of resources and actions across the country, including widespread raids and sprawling detention camps. Local law enforcement agencies would face enormous pressure, as they would be tasked with identifying, arresting, and removing millions of individuals, creating a state of fear and uncertainty for many immigrants, both documented and undocumented. The social and economic consequences would be severe.

What is former President Trump proposing?

Since he launched his political career, former President Donald Trump has made reducing immigration to the U.S. central to his political message. While campaigning in 2016, he promised to deport “11 million illegal immigrants — or however many there may be.” During his first term in office, Trump sought to increase interior enforcement and alter deportation priorities significantly.

However, his administration faced a stark reality: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) resources to deport immigrants are limited. The administration also faced significant resistance from state and local jurisdictions. These operational constraints, as well as the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, meant that the Trump administration had presided over the removal of 936,000 individuals, a relatively modest number compared with prior administrations, by the time Trump left office in 2021. Nonetheless, Trump succeeded in elevating the deportation of immigrants in the national political discourse.

With unauthorized crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border increasing to high levels until June 2024, when the Biden administration announced major restrictions on asylum, Trump once again has focused his campaign on immigration and deportation. He incorrectly claimed there will be “probably 15 million [unauthorized immigrants] and maybe as many as 20 million by the time Biden’s out.” Moreover, Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance, have argued that TPS holders and parolees, who have lawful presence and are eligible for work authorization, should be regarded as “illegal.” A Trump-Vance administration could end current protections that cover hundreds of thousands of authorized temporary residents and workers, making them unauthorized and subject to removal.

Using the inflated numbers, Trump vowed to launch “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country.” The message has stuck in some quarters, and “Mass deportation now!” has become a rallying cry for the Trump campaign in 2024, appearing on signs and in chants in support of the former president.

Trump’s platform

Trump has campaigned aggressively on mass deportation, to the point that it is enshrined in the official 2024 GOP Platform. The platform’s second tenet reads: “CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY.” As part of his “Plan to End Crime and Restore Law and Order” in his official campaign platform, Agenda 47, Trump pledges to “increase interior enforcement” and “require local law enforcement agencies receiving DOJ grants” to engage in immigration enforcement activities, including extensive cooperation with ICE to carry out arrests and deportations. Trump also has promised to “immediately” invoke the Alien Enemies Act, an unrepealed provision of the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, to expand his administration’s capacity for expedited removals of “suspected gang members” by sidestepping many requirements for due process.  

Pushed to explain how he would accomplish this plan, Trump said he would “start with the criminals that are coming in … using the National Guard and, if necessary, I’d have to go a step further,” alluding to the potential use of the military. He since has promised to “start with Springfield and Aurora,” referencing Springfield, Ohio, and Aurora, Colorado —cities with large populations of migrants from Haiti and Venezuela. These migrants have become the subject of rampant conspiracy theories, especially following the Sept. 10 presidential debate, in which Trump repeated a baseless rumor about Haitian migrants. Many — if not most — of these populations have received TPS or humanitarian parole and are lawfully present and working.

Project 2025

Although Trump has attempted to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, meant to serve as the blueprint for a second Trump administration, many of Trump’s close allies and former advisors crafted and contributed to it. The plan outlines many of the steps necessary to accomplish the former president’s proposed mass deportation scheme without ever using the term “mass deportation” specifically.

Project 2025 calls for expanding ICE’s authority to arrest and deport unauthorized individuals across the U.S. and proposes rescinding protections for “sensitive zones” such as hospitals, schools, and churches, where enforcement actions are currently restricted. To compel state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with ICE in these efforts, the authors suggest withholding federal emergency funding from jurisdictions that refuse to participate in federal immigration enforcement. The plan also argues that ICE should be empowered to take custody of all foreign-born individuals with criminal records, as well as those deemed national security or public safety threats, and that ICE “should make full use of existing Expedited Removal (ER) authorities” to ensure swift deportations.

What would mass deportation entail?

Mass deportation of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. would entail a severe disruption of life in communities across the country and lead to humanitarian concerns on an unprecedented level.

ICE activity in the interior

To execute a mass deportation plan in the interior of the U.S., ICE would need to expand its operations and workforce considerably. Currently, ICE has around 20,000 employees, with only about 6,000 Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers actively conducting arrests and deportations. To identify and apprehend all of the estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., ICE likely would require hundreds of millions of dollars to hire thousands of additional agents throughout the U.S.

The expanded ICE workforce would need to conduct widespread raids and sweeps across houses and apartment buildings, workplaces, and other public locations throughout the country. Enforcement actions could occur in schools, hospitals, and churches, previously protected as “sensitive zones,” with agents possibly conducting checkpoints to request proof of legal status. Agents engaged in such operations are likely to rely on racial and ethnic profiling in many instances, potentially ensnaring and even deporting U.S. citizens and other legal residents.

Targeting unauthorized immigrants with criminal records, particularly those convicted of felonies or serious offenses, has traditionally been a priority for deportation under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Expanding deportations beyond this group to include long-term residents and those with deep community ties, including people with U.S. citizen spouses and children, almost certainly would face significant challenges and deep public opposition. Many unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade, with some having resided in the country for 20 years or more. A large number have U.S. citizen children, own homes, and are well-established members of their neighborhoods, towns, and cities. 

Attempting to deport these individuals likely would result in widespread protests, litigation, and resistance from local governments and law enforcement agencies. Enforcement actions would disrupt local businesses, schools, and places of worship, disturbing previously sacred and safe community spaces.

Local, state, and military involvement

In addition to expanded ICE activity across the interior, close coordination and cooperation with local and state law enforcement would be crucial for carrying out deportations on a mass scale.

Trump’s plan involves deputizing local law enforcement officials to identify and arrest unauthorized individuals within their communities, expanding along the lines of the existing 287(g) program, which permits state and local law enforcement agencies to collaborate more closely with federal immigration enforcement authorities. This approach would significantly expand ICE’s reach and capacity for interior enforcement on an ongoing basis. Many local and state law enforcement agencies already cooperate with ICE at least to some extent, but only a relative handful voluntarily enter into the 287(g) program, which is resource-intensive and requires significant investments of officer time.

To force local law enforcement agencies across the country to take on new immigration enforcement responsibilities, a second Trump administration would withhold federal funding from “sanctuary” jurisdictions, which it defines very broadly in lieu of a formal statutory definition. These jurisdictions would comprise localities that place certain limits on how they engage with federal immigration authorities, including those that choose not to put themselves at risk of significant legal liability by honoring voluntary immigration detainers.

In addition to local and state enforcement agencies, Trump has promised to deploy the National Guard to assist in the implementation of mass deportation. Although there is precedent for deploying National Guard units to the U.S.-Mexico border to assist with immigration control in a support role, expanding this role to include interior enforcement operations would present significant legal and logistical hurdles. Additionally, military personnel lack appropriate training in civilian law enforcement and immigration law, increasing the risk of civil rights violations.

Several Republican-controlled states, such as Texas, already have attempted to empower state-deployed National Guard troops to arrest unauthorized immigrants, but these efforts have consistently faced legal challenges. While the Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of federal military personnel to engage in law enforcement activities within the U.S., Trump has argued that unauthorized immigrants are not “civilians.”

Although courts may be skeptical of this argument, even a deployment of troops satisfying legal requirements could have severely negative impacts. The visible presence of troops in communities for immigration enforcement could foster an atmosphere of occupation, damaging community-police relations and eroding public trust, particularly among immigrant communities. In addition, that approach would threaten to set a dangerous precedent for further militarization of domestic law enforcement and its interactions with U.S. citizens.

Last and far from least, the use of military personnel for immigration enforcement could strain military resources and potentially undermining military readiness by diverting personnel and equipment, undercutting our national security.

Expansive detention

ICE currently has funding for 41,500 detention beds at any given time, a number glaringly short of what would be required to house millions of immigrants in removal proceedings. Project 2025 suggests increasing funding for a daily capacity of 100,000 beds.

Trump has stated he “would not rule out” constructing new detention centers for migrants, although he suggested deportations would be so rapid as to eliminate the need for greater holding capacity. Stephen Miller, a close advisor to Trump on immigration policy during his first administration, suggested that the administration could build “vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers” for migrants awaiting trial and removal “on open land in Texas near the border.” Such facilities, sometimes referred to as “camps,” would be eerily reminiscent of the use of internment camps to detain Japanese Americans during World War II. The Trump administration previously expanded detention along the U.S.-Mexico border in 2019, constructing two temporary “tent cities”  after facing criticism for detaining migrants in an open-air fenced-in encampment under a bridge in El Paso.

The construction of new facilities, whether temporary or permanent, likely would require the involvement of many federal agencies, including the Interior Department, which manages federal land, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the care and custody of unaccompanied children. These agencies could be excluded if Trump were to use military bases. To the extent they were not circumvented by expedited processes, the immigration courts, which are part of the Department of Justice (DOJ), undoubtedly would struggle to keep pace with the number of individuals brought into ICE custody under Trump’s new enforcement priorities, resulting in prolonged detention times.

Immigration courts and due process

The legal processes inherent to deportation present a significant challenge to Trump’s mass deportation plans. As the Supreme Court underscored in 1993, all immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least two years, even those who entered the U.S. unauthorized, are entitled to due process in deportation proceedings. This constitutional protection requires that each case be individually adjudicated in immigration court, presenting a significant logistical obstacle to any large-scale deportation effort, unless Trump expands expedited removal processes to bypass formal immigration proceedings.

Already the U.S. immigration court system is incredibly overburdened, making it difficult for undocumented immigrants to have their cases resolved in a timely manner and contributing to the large unauthorized population. As of August 2024, more than 3.7 million cases were pending in immigration courts, with an average wait time of 560 days. Processing millions more under a mass deportation plan would require a dramatic expansion of the immigration court system to eliminate the existing backlog and tackle the enormous number of new cases.

Some observers have suggested that to accomplish anything close to Trump’s proposal, the administration would need to “triple the size” of the immigration court system and “build new courthouses, hire support staff, and train judges.” The Biden administration has taken steps to begin addressing backlogs by funding and hiring more immigration judges and implementing new case management systems. However, these efforts have made only a small dent in the overall caseload. Any mass deportation plan would likely face even greater challenges in scaling up the court system to handle millions of additional cases.

Of particular concern, Trump could attempt to exclude unauthorized migrants captured as part of his mass deportation efforts from due process entirely, as his first administration attempted in 2018. By leveraging expedited removal processes, including  policies similar to the Biden administration’s June 2024 “Proclamation Securing the Border” or the use of Title 42 health authority, Trump could seek to bypass immigration courts altogether by summarily excluding large classes of migrants arriving at the border. This approach would enable him to swiftly bar large numbers of individuals arrested within the U.S. from accessing legal proceedings, effectively fast-tracking their removal without the safeguards of the judicial system. These efforts doubtlessly would face legal challenges, as they fly in the face of constitutional due process protections.

Expedited removal

Trump is likely to expand expedited removal processes to their fullest extent. Under expedited removal, unauthorized immigrants can be deported in a single day without an immigration court hearing or other appearance before an immigration judge. Immigration officers exclusively conduct the process, which is usually completed within a couple of hours, affording little to no opportunity for the noncitizen to collect evidence or consult with an attorney. Expedited removal currently applies to individuals who cannot prove they have been in the U.S. for more than 14 days and who are apprehended within 100 miles of a U.S. border.

Under an expanded expedited removal process, noncitizens who are not able to prove that they have been continuously living in the U.S. for two years or more – as opposed to the current two weeks or more – would be susceptible to fast-tracked removal proceedings. The change would also remove the 100-mile border limitation and allow officials to deport unauthorized immigrants from anywhere in the U.S. on an expedited basis.

Transportation

Extensive air and ground transportation systems would be required to accomplish mass deportation on the scale Trump envisions. Buses and vans would be needed to transport detainees from various holding facilities to airports, requiring a significant expansion of ICE’s transportation fleet and personnel. For deportations to Mexico, land transportation might be more feasible but still would require a massive logistical operation to move millions across the border.

Although ICE operates its own removal flights, commercial and charter flights likely would be the primary means of transporting deportees to their countries of origin. However, the sheer volume of deportations would overwhelm existing commercial flight capacity, necessitating a large increase in charter flights. Mass deportations would require substantial coordination with airlines and potentially the commandeering of aircraft for deportation purposes. Repurposing military transport planes for deportation flights, for which Trump has previously advocated, likely would face legal challenges and would impact military readiness for other operations.

Furthermore, the logistics of coordinating such a massive transportation operation would require unprecedented levels of organization and resources across many agencies. This includes scheduling flights, ensuring proper documentation for each deportee, providing security during transport, and managing the health and safety needs of deportees during long journeys. The mass scale of the proposed deportations would necessitate the creation of new transportation hubs or the significant expansion of existing facilities, such as new airport terminals specifically for deportation flights, as ICE has previously struggled to find airports that are willing to facilitate such flights.

Further complicating transportation is the fact that many nations do not cooperate with the U.S. on the return of deportees, and some countries could entirely refuse to accept the deportation of their nationals from the U.S. The Trump administration would need to engage in strategic diplomacy to gain the agreement of nations to accept the return of millions of people. His first administration employed a combination of bluster, threats, and sanctions, while his second administration might consider imposing punitive tariffs on foreign countries that refuse to accept their citizens back. It would be difficult for this tactic to produce results quickly enough to ensure the return of mass numbers of deportees. And, if implemented, punitive measures could lead to additional negative outcomes, with proposed tariffs leading to price increases for U.S. consumers and sanctions hampering international commerce and development.

What would mass deportation cost?

The deportation of all unauthorized immigrants from the U.S. would be an enormously expensive undertaking for American taxpayers. The deportation process involves multiple resource-intensive stages, including apprehension, detention, legal processing, and transportation. As of 2024, the average cost to deport a single individual has risen to nearly $14,000, up from $10,070 in 2015. The total cost can be higher depending on the country to which someone is returned, including factors such as commercial flight prices and schedules.

In fiscal year 2023, ICE spent $420 million on transportation and deportation for 142,580 removals. Detention facilities also incur significant expenses, with ICE managing 41,500 beds across 200 facilities at an annual cost of $57,378 per bed. Scaling up these operations to remove all estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants could cost more than $150 billion, with an additional $15 billion per year needed to maintain enforcement against new unauthorized entries.

These cost estimates do not account for the resources that would be required to deport millions of other migrants currently protected under programs such as DACA, TPS, and parole, all of which Trump has proposed ending.

Economic consequences

Mass deportation’s cost to taxpayers would extend well beyond the immediate cost of the program itself. If a second Trump administration were to carry out its proposed mass deportation plan successfully, the U.S. would have to contend with the loss of millions of unauthorized workers who are essential to critical industries including agriculture, construction, and hospitality. In 2022, the most recent year for which statistics are available, unauthorized immigrants comprised approximately 4.8% of the U.S. workforce (about 7.5 million workers), higher than their 3.3% share of the total U.S. population. Particularly for occupations identified as unpopular among native-born workers, unauthorized workers comprise large shares of the workforce and are difficult to replace.

The economic impact of mass deportations would be even more severe if the effort targeted immigrants with legal work authorization, such as TPS holders, DACA recipients, and parolees. These individuals have been working legally and contributing taxes for years but could face removal if the Trump administration and/or the courts take action to terminate their respective work authorization programs. Moreover, authorized family members of undocumented people could be caught up in a mass deportation effort, causing further economic damage.

The National Bureau of Economic Research calculated in 2016 that deporting all unauthorized immigrants would reduce GDP by 2.6% over a decade. Additionally, such actions would cost the federal government an estimated $860 billion in revenue over the following decade. In 2024, the Peterson Institute of International Economics found that the impact could be greater: Deporting all unauthorized immigrant workers currently in the U.S. between 2025 and 2026 could result in a GDP reduction of 12% and an 8.1% decline in employment hours in just three years.

This decrease reflects the well-known economic relationship between rising unemployment and lower GDP. The removal of all unauthorized workers from the labor market likely would lead to significant labor shortages, which would be difficult to counterbalance. As seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, such labor shortages would reduce production and raise consumer prices. Additionally, as 1.2 million mixed-status households have mortgages, the deportation of a family member could jeopardize their ability to meet payments, increasing default rates and potentially destabilizing the entire housing market.

These risks are not merely theoretical; history reveals the adverse effects of mass deportation. A 2023 study from the University of Colorado found that, for every 1 million unauthorized immigrant workers deported under the Secure Communities Program between 2010 and 2015, approximately 88,000 native-born U.S. workers lost their jobs. These findings suggest that, if Trump were to deport all unauthorized workers in the current labor force, nearly a million American citizens could lose their jobs. On balance, mass deportation would not create job openings for citizens, but rather would deliver a severe blow to the economy, reducing economic output and eliminating Americans’ jobs.

Burden on families and strain on communities

Beyond these direct impacts on the labor market, mass deportation would affect millions of Americans living in “mixed-status” households — those in which some family members are U.S. citizens or lawfully present and others are unauthorized.

While U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants are U.S. citizens and are legally protected from deportation, the financial and social costs of raising them following family members’ deportation would fall on remaining family members and the broader social safety net. However, if Trump were to succeed in eliminating birthright citizenship, as he has repeatedly vowed, these children could be targeted for deportation as well. Trump’s previous attempts to challenge these protections underscore the additional burdens a mass deportation policy could create.

Removing unauthorized residents from these households could reduce median incomes by 47%, pushing millions into poverty. Such financial strains can prompt dramatic changes in family dynamics, as remaining parents (often mothers) must work longer hours at multiple jobs, reducing time spent with children, and older minor siblings frequently must find work to help support the family, impacting their education and future prospects.

Mass deportation would have devastating consequences for families and communities across the U.S., tearing apart the fabric of American society and inflicting profound trauma, especially on children. The impact of deportation ripples through multiple generations and often extends far beyond those directly deported. When parents are deported, the effects on children are severe and long-lasting, and studies have shown that children experience a range of emotional and behavioral challenges, including anxiety, depression, anger, withdrawal, and changes in eating and sleeping patterns. The sudden, forcible separation from a parent because of deportation is deeply traumatic for children, disrupting their sense of security and stability.

The broader community also suffers the consequences of mass deportation, as the stress of potential family separation and enforcement actions at sensitive locations creates a pervasive climate of fear and anxiety. Studies have found that following immigration raids and deportations, community members become more fearful and mistrustful of public institutions. These fears lead to decreased participation in churches, schools, health clinics, and social services, reducing social interaction and communication within communities. Therefore, the climate of fear created by mass deportations has a direct effect on community cohesion, public health, and the well-being of all.

Heightened racial tensions and fear

Carrying out mass deportation inevitably would lead to increased scrutiny of individuals based on their perceived ethnicity or national origin. Law enforcement officials would be tasked with identifying unauthorized migrants, likely forcing them to resort to discriminatory tactics they’ve employed in the past. Such a path could exacerbate existing racial tensions and erode trust between law enforcement and minority communities. Relying on racial and ethnic profiling not only violates the civil rights of everyone, including citizens and legal residents, but also creates an atmosphere of fear and suspicion within communities across the country.

Immigrants, documented and undocumented, would be likely to withdraw from American public life. That would undermine community safety significantly, as crimes may go unreported and public health issues unaddressed. The constant threat of raids and deportations could lead many immigrants to avoid interaction with law enforcement. On the flip side, a mass deportation dragnet that enlists state and local law enforcement would divert their resources from addressing serious crimes and public safety threats, making communities less safe.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s announced plans to carry out mass deportation in a second term of office would have far-reaching consequences that go beyond simply removing unauthorized immigrants from the U.S. Carrying out mass deportations would involve massive and costly expansions of immigration enforcement efforts, disruptions to communities, and wide-ranging racial and ethnic profiling. Furthermore, the trauma inflicted on children and the ripple effects on mixed-status households would destabilize entire communities. The removal of millions of workers from essential sectors would severely damage the economy, leading to labor shortages, reduced economic output, and job losses for American citizens.

These broader implications of mass deportation raise serious concerns about its feasibility, legality, and humanitarian impact. It would require unprecedented resources and divert military and law enforcement personnel from all levels of government, undermining military readiness and public safety. It also would be divisive and chaotic, leading to legal challenges and potential public unrest. Ultimately, mass deportation is not only an extreme and costly policy, but one that would have lasting negative effects on the nation’s security, economy, and society.