Trump’s Expanded Deportation Campaign: Policies, Targets, and Legal Challenges

Introduction

Since returning to office on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump has swiftly implemented a series of aggressive immigration enforcement actions, fulfilling his campaign promise to conduct “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.”

In just under two months, his administration has signed over 21 immigration-related executive orders, expanded deportation mechanisms, invoked rarely used wartime legislation, and faced multiple legal challenges. This comprehensive analysis examines Trump’s latest immigration enforcement initiatives, the specific groups targeted, and the reactions from civil rights organizations and courts as of mid-March 2025.

Expanding Deportation Authority and Mechanisms

The Trump administration has rapidly implemented multiple strategies to expand deportation capabilities, beginning with a proclamation declaring a national emergency at the southern border on inauguration day. This emergency declaration has served as the foundation for subsequent policy changes.

Expedited Removal and Detention Expansion

A cornerstone of Trump’s deportation strategy is significantly expanding expedited removal procedures. Previously limited to immigrants found within 100 miles of the border and 14 days of entry, the policy now applies nationwide and to anyone who cannot demonstrate continuous U.S. residency of two years or more.

This change allows immigration authorities to deport individuals without hearings before immigration judges.

The administration has also moved to end what Trump calls “catch and release,” instructing US Customs and Border Protection to detain migrants rather than release them even if this results in extended custody periods. This policy shift has affected organizations that previously assisted released migrants.

For instance, Catholic Charities San Diego, which had been receiving 200-300 migrants daily from federal authorities, was notified that the “policy has changed at the federal level” and the government would cease releasing migrants into their care.

Military Involvement and Deportation Flights

The Department of Defense has provided military aircraft to deport migrants detained by Border Patrol in San Diego and El Paso, Texas. These deportation flights have become central to the administration’s enforcement strategy and public relations campaign.

The White House Press Secretary has shared images of these operations on social media, and the Department of Homeland Security launched a $200 million advertising campaign featuring footage of deportation flights, including what one report described as “an ASMR video which isolates specific audio of a deportation flight that includes the sound of chains.”

According to Border czar Tom Homan, deportations have been steadily increasing, with ICE reporting the removal or repatriation of over 1,000 people on the fourth day of the Trump administration alone.

By mid-March 2025, Homeland Security officials announced that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had carried out more than 32,000 arrests in the first 50 days of the administration.

Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act

In perhaps the most controversial recent development, on March 15, 2025, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to target Venezuelan nationals allegedly affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang, which his administration has newly classified as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

This law, last used during World War II to detain Japanese, German, and Italian Americans, allows the president to detain or deport “natives and citizens of an enemy nation.”

Trump’s proclamation states explicitly that “all Venezuelan nationals aged 14 and above are members of Tren de Aragua, are present in the United States, and are not naturalized or lawful permanent residents are subject to being apprehended, detained, secured, and deported as Alien Enemies”.

The invocation empowers the Attorney General and Department of Homeland Security Secretary to implement these deportation actions.

Targeting Specific Groups and Demographics

Trump’s deportation efforts target diverse groups across various ethnicities and immigration statuses, organized into a new classification system.

The Nationality Classification System

According to reports, the Trump administration has developed a nationality-based ranking system categorizing countries as “red,” “orange,” “yellow,” or “green”:

“Red” nationalities face a total ban on entry and expedited deportation

“Orange” nationalities are subject to partial restrictions

“Yellow” nationalities must meet new requirements or risk reclassification

“Green” countries presumably face no restrictions

Countries reported to be on the “Red” list include Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

This classification system effectively reinstates a nationality-based discrimination approach that Congress had explicitly rejected in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

Foreign Students and Activists

The administration has specifically targeted non-citizen activists participating in pro-Palestinian protests at college campuses.

A high-profile case involves Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student detained by Department of Homeland Security agents because Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined his activities could pose “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

The government has reportedly revoked approximately $400 million in grants and contracts from Columbia University, citing concerns over antisemitism. This targeting of activists has raised significant constitutional questions, with Khalil’s attorneys arguing that the “government’s illegal strategy targeting noncitizens for removal based on protected speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination, violating the First Amendment.”

Families and Non-Criminal Immigrants

Despite the administration’s rhetoric characterizing undocumented immigrants as “criminals,” many deportees have no criminal history. One particularly controversial case involved the deportation of a family, including a 10-year-old U.S. citizen recovering from brain cancer.

After the family was stopped by Customs and Border Protection while trying to reach the girl’s hospital in Houston, they were deported to what was described as “a pretty dangerous part of rural Mexico” despite having documentation of the child’s citizenship status and medical condition.

Legal Challenges and Judicial Responses

Trump’s aggressive deportation policies have faced multiple legal challenges, with federal courts issuing several temporary restraining orders against specific actions.

Challenge to the Alien Enemies Act

Shortly after Trump invocates the Alien Enemies Act, a federal judge temporarily halted the deportation of five Venezuelans whom the administration claimed were members of Tren de Aragua.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg conducted an urgent hearing on March 15, 2025, to determine whether the administration must delay potential deportations of individuals slated for repatriation under the proclamation.

Legal experts have questioned the constitutionality of using the Alien Enemies Act in current circumstances.

The Brennan Center for Justice noted that the act's application is limited to wartime conditions, “a state that has not yet been formally acknowledged by Congress.” Critics argue that using the Act in peacetime would set a dangerous precedent.

Constitutional Challenges to Activist Deportations

Mahmoud Khalil's legal team has petitioned U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman for immediate release from immigration custody, arguing that his First Amendment rights have been violated.

Judge Furman has provisionally halted Khalil’s deportation while his habeas corpus petition is resolved.

This case raises important questions about the distinction between protected speech for citizens and non-citizens under the First Amendment versus the executive branch’s view that specific protests can undermine foreign relations.

Khalil’s attorneys have characterized their client as a “mediator and negotiator” rather than supporting radical positions, countering the administration’s depiction.

Civil Rights Organizations’ Responses

Civil liberties and human rights organizations have strongly condemned Trump’s deportation policies, documenting violations and preparing legal challenges.

ACLU Warnings and Preparation

The American Civil Liberties Union published a detailed analysis warning about Trump’s immigration agenda, identifying three major threat areas: mass deportation, attacks on children and families (including birthright citizenship challenges), and dismantling asylum protections.

The ACLU emphasized that Trump’s deportation plans would face significant challenges without “the acquiescence and participation of states and localities,” suggesting a strategy of resistance through federalism.

They have urged elected officials at all levels of government to begin planning “a sustained and coordinated response” to these threats.

Human Rights Watch Documentation

Human Rights Watch has documented what it terms “Ten Harmful Trump Administration Immigration and Refugee Policies,” focusing on how these policies “obliterate programs built over decades to enable avenues to safety for people fleeing war and persecution.”

They warn that the impact extends beyond those directly affected, as the U.S. example may cause other countries to “turn their backs on people fleeing for their lives.”

The organization criticizes explicitly the administration’s declaration of an “invasion” by “millions of illegal aliens” and its orders to seal the border and mandate detention. HRW notes that this approach dismantles more humane and cost-effective alternatives to incarceration that had previously demonstrated high compliance rates.

Impact on Communities and Foreign Relations

Implementing Trump’s deportation policies has created significant diplomatic tensions and community disruption.

Diplomatic Tensions

Trump’s deportation flights have already caused diplomatic incidents. For example, Colombia’s government initially barred two military planes carrying deported Colombians from landing, with President Gustavo Petro declaring that “the US can’t treat Colombian migrants like criminals” and demanding they be “treated with dignity.” The Colombian government eventually relented after the Trump administration threatened punitive tariffs.

Other countries have responded differently to Trump’s deportation threats—some bending to demands, others attempting negotiations, and some suggesting they might seek stronger ties with China instead.

Community and Institution Impacts

The aggressive deportation campaign has caused fear and uncertainty in immigrant communities. Following CBP’s policy change notification to Catholic Charities San Diego, the organization’s CEO reported that the “200 individuals in their care are facing an uncertain future,” noting that “refugees here are panicking. They’re very fearful”.

Academic institutions have also been affected. Columbia University, which has been at the center of anti-Israel protests, has become a significant target for the Trump administration.

The university has expelled several students who participated in protest activities, and Department of Homeland Security agents have conducted searches at student residences based on judicial warrants.

Conclusion

As Trump’s second administration approaches its third month, his promised “largest deportation in American history” is taking shape through expanded detention, expedited removal, military deportation flights, and the invocation of centuries-old wartime legislation.

The policies target a wide range of immigrants, from gang members to student activists to families with no criminal records.

These actions face significant legal, diplomatic, and practical challenges. Courts have already begun to review and temporarily halt some deportation efforts, while civil liberties organizations are mobilizing legal and advocacy resources.

The diplomatic repercussions and community impacts continue to unfold, raising questions about the sustainability and legality of Trump’s aggressive approach.

Vice President J.D. Vance and Border Czar Tom Homan have both suggested that the administration’s ability to achieve its ambitious deportation targets remains uncertain despite its determined efforts.

What is clear is that the constitutional, humanitarian, and practical questions raised by these policies will continue to shape the national debate on immigration enforcement throughout Trump’s term.