Last week marked President Trump's first 100 days in office. As one of few modern U.S presidents to run and win on an immigration-centered platform, his second term has already proven to be consequential for immigration policy. His second term promises for immigration can be summed up as follows: 1) secure the U.S. southern border, 2) enhance immigration enforcement and, 3) implement more restrictive immigration measures. Has he made measurable progress on fulfilling these promises to voters thus far?
During his first term, immigration was a central focus for President Trump. His administration undertook a broad range of actions, including expanded immigration enforcement, limiting access at our southern border – most notably through serious efforts to build a wall along the southern border, and directives to immigration agencies to apply extreme vetting and scrutiny to visa applications and benefit requests. However, after his term ended, lasting reform remained elusive. Unauthorized border crossings continued to rise, and our immigration system remained plagued by persistent backlogs. These delays block legal immigration paths and slow the removal of individuals with criminal records – something many Americans support.
Trump's second term has intensified the immigration priorities of his first, maintaining the same fast-paced rollout of policy. Within the first 100 days, the administration issued sweeping changes aimed at reshaping enforcement priorities and limiting both legal and unauthorized immigration. On day one, Trump signed several Executive Orders (EOs), including the "America First Policy Directive," reaffirming a focus on U.S. citizens' interests. The directive echoes the 2017 "Buy American Hire American" (BAHA) EO from his first term requiring immigration agencies to issue rules, guidance, and regulations to "protect the interests of U.S. workers" and reducing the perceived risks posed by foreign labor to the domestic workforce.
Several proposed rules under the BAHA initiative were blocked based on procedural grounds, just as these EOs have faced legal setbacks. One of the first to be halted was the order "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The EO seeks to redefine the scope of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees citizenship to individuals born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. Specifically, the EO would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if 1) their father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident; and 2) their mother was either unlawfully present in the U.S. or lawfully present but in a temporary status. This policy would end our country's 200 plus year recognition that birth in the U.S. confers U.S. citizenship on the child, regardless of immigration status of the parents. This order was met with swift legal opposition and was blocked by several federal courts via preliminary nationwide injunctions. The administration has since taken the case to the Supreme Court which is scheduled to hear oral arguments on May 15th.
On his first day in office, President Trump also issued EOs titled "Securing Our Borders" and "Guaranteeing the States Protections Against Invasion". Consistent with the themes of his first term. The EOs frame unauthorized entry of migrants constitutes an "invasion" and seek to block entry into the U.S. on that basis. These EOs effectively suspend asylum at the border and allows border officials to remove individuals without due process. This approach conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act, which guarantees the right to seek asylum and provides for individualized assessments in detention and removal proceedings. While legal challenges have been filed contending that these measures seek to bypass the framework established by Congress, federal courts have so far affirmed the president's broad authority to regulate entry into the U.S.
The administration has also moved to terminate, under the "protection against invasion" and "securing the border" orders, humanitarian parole benefits created under the Biden Administration. These programs were designed to provide legal pathway for the orderly entry of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans in need of protection, helping to reduce the volume of unauthorized border crossings. A federal judge in Massachusetts has since blocked the administration's notice to end this humanitarian parole program, halting its termination for now.
In related action, in February, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem moved to end Temporary Protection Status (TPS) for around 350,000 Venezuelans which provided them legal status to reside and work in the U.S. If implemented, this action would subject Venezuelans under TPS protections to potential deportation to Venezuela, a country that the U.S. has designated as a "Level 4: Do Not Travel" due to the high risk of terrorism, kidnapping and other dangers. The move to end TPS for Venezuelans has been temporarily stayed nationwide by the Northern District of California. Additional lawsuits have challenged the administration's actions against TPS, including TPS for Haitians, in Federal district court in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York.
Another EO signed on President Trump's first day, "Protecting the U.S. from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats", paves the way for the administration's expected travel bans similar to the bans from his first term, which largely affected nationals from Muslim-majority countries. The administration has not yet announced a new travel ban, likely due to the expectation that such a move would face immediate legal challenges.
The EO also reinstates extreme vetting for all visa and immigration benefit applications, including refugee and temporary work programs—reviving policies that caused major processing delays and disrupted U.S. businesses during Trump's first term. Meanwhile, Customs and Border Protection has expanded its authority to detain travelers and deny entry to both nonimmigrants and green card holders, sparking panic across immigrant communities.
Arguably the most notable achievement of the Trump administration has been at the southern border, where illegal border encounters have significantly dropped. Southern border patrol agents have recorded the lowest monthly apprehensions since at least fiscal year 2000. Despite strict border policies, migrant arrivals surged periodically after Trump's first term—a trend likely to continue if root causes in Central America and Mexico go unaddressed. A court backlog of over 1 million cases also slowed deportations and will remain a major hurdle without broader reforms to improve processing and uphold due process.
Beyond gains at the southern border, key questions remain: Will the administration's approach—marked by rollbacks of humanitarian protections and legal safeguards—lead to lasting reform and economic growth, as promised? Or will legal challenges again block policies seen as undermining core American values like family unity and due process? The coming years will reveal whether this strategy delivers results or repeats the setbacks of Trump's first term.
Reprinted with permission from the May 8, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer© 2024 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. ALMReprints.com – 877-257-3382 – reprints@alm.com.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
