Trump's Efforts to Undermine Immigrant Due Process Rights
In his initial 100 days, Donald Trump has taken steps to undermine due process rights within the immigration system, potentially resulting in more lasting effects than during his first term.
TroibNews 
President Donald Trump’s initial 100 days did not feature the dramatic headlines of “mass deportations” or visuals of millions being forcibly removed from the nation as he had pledged.
Instead, Trump and his administration have been focused on undermining the already delicate due process within the immigration system. This effort is part of a significant initiative aimed at prompting the courts to address pivotal legal questions that could fundamentally change the treatment of immigrants and expand the powers of the presidency.
The White House has initiated numerous legal challenges by invoking outdated laws to navigate the overwhelmed immigration courts. Last month, Trump cited a wartime law from 1798, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport hundreds of immigrants the administration linked to gang affiliations back to El Salvador’s overcrowded prison system. This includes Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran who was wrongly deported, and whose case has become a prominent legal dispute. Additionally, the administration has revoked the visas of thousands of students by utilizing a little-known clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act to target pro-Palestinian activists.
More subtle measures have been employed as well, such as halting funding for legal assistance to unaccompanied migrant children. The president has moved to broaden the use of expedited removal, allowing for the swift deportation of certain migrants without hearings. Furthermore, the administration has empowered judges to dismiss asylum claims without holding a hearing.
These initiatives have often been chaotic. U.S. citizens have inadvertently been caught in the sweep of the crackdown, and doubts have arisen regarding whether some Venezuelans deported to El Salvador truly had ties to gangs or valid removal orders. In Abrego Garcia’s situation, the Trump administration admitted to wrongfully deporting him but has refused to comply with a federal judge's order to facilitate his return to the U.S., even as the Supreme Court upheld that order. A judge appointed by Trump has similarly ordered the return of another individual deported to El Salvador against a court's directive.
Collectively, these actions reveal a president who has built his political identity around illegal immigration and is now emboldened to leverage all available powers—some possibly beyond his legal scope—to reshape the nation’s immigration laws. If successful, the implications of these changes could be far-reaching, affecting both citizens and noncitizens in the long term.
“This is not just how we treat immigrants, it is about how any of us want to be treated when accused of a crime,” stated Michelle Brané, former executive director of the Biden administration’s Family Reunification Task Force. “This is about power and eliminating the rules and saying, ‘we don’t need to play by the rules, just trust us.’ It’s undermining one of the main principles of what the U.S. is founded on.”
The rapid push to redefine due process in the immigration system reflects preparation during Trump’s four years outside the White House, a time when the Biden administration sought to reverse many of his policies and create pathways for millions of undocumented immigrants. Now, Trump’s aides and supporters are working to implement changes that would be more resilient to future presidential reversals, embracing litigation that may ultimately strengthen their agenda in the long term.
“The administration is going to have to keep pushing through the courts to attempt to exercise its legitimate authority,” remarked Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group advocating for reduced immigration.
Top Trump aides, including Stephen Miller, a principal figure in his immigration plans, assert that not all immigrants can receive a court hearing if the administration intends to curb “the invasion.” This sentiment has been echoed by Trump, who has stated that the U.S. “would need hundreds of thousands of trials for the hundreds of thousands of Illegals we are sending out of the Country.” He added that this was “not possible” and represented a “ridiculous situation.”
A senior White House official informed PMG that the president is utilizing longstanding federal law provisions and tools provided by Congress while “meticulously complying with the law” to fulfill commitments made to the American public.
“It cannot be the case that we can give every single one of these people an immigration court hearing — and all of these procedures — and ever have enough resources to do so. You cannot judge your way out of a crisis of this magnitude,” stated the senior White House official. “The federal courts have been clear. Congress has been clear on needing to speed this process up.”
Miller did not respond to requests for comment.
Trump's approach recognizes the obstacles his deportation agenda faces, including funding shortages and overcrowded immigration courts—a challenge encountered by previous administrations, as over 3.6 million cases remain pending, according to the Transactional Records Clearinghouse, a research organization at Syracuse University.
“If every single one of these folks, even under something that’s supposed to be as stripped down as the Alien Enemies Act, still gets a federal court hearing, this will take forever, and it’s an incredibly asymmetric, one-sided situation when you can have a jack wagon president like Joe Biden who just opened the border,” commented Ken Cuccinelli, Trump’s former Deputy of Homeland Security. “The Trump administration is working very hard to find all the most streamlined ways they can to move quickly.”
Legal experts from both parties affirm that immigrants enjoy rights protected under the Constitution, including due process. Immigrants must be informed of the reasons for their removal, and they reserve the right to a hearing before an immigration court—an administrative entity within the Department of Justice. They may also bring legal counsel at their own expense and present evidence, although federal rules of evidence do not apply. Additionally, they have the right to bring witnesses and appeal decisions.
“Most Americans would be really quite shocked, and many would be appalled at just how much due process an alien can receive who goes through the ordinary immigration court proceedings,” noted the senior White House official.
The federal government can revoke a noncitizen's presence in the U.S. for specific reasons, including serious crimes—an argument Trump officials are currently leveraging in court as they maintain that immigration is a privilege and that the president holds ultimate authority over who remains and who must depart.
This situation poses a significant test regarding the future handling of due process for noncitizens—a debate exemplified in Abrego Garcia’s case. The administration has alleged that he is a member of the "MS-13 gang," designated as a foreign terrorist organization, having built a case against him amid Democratic critiques and increasing judicial scrutiny.
However, Abrego Garcia has not been charged with any crime, and while he entered the country illegally, a 2019 court order prohibits his deportation back to El Salvador to avoid persecution from gangs.
“I’m not an attorney. I’ll let DOJ argue this in court, but I think we can remove the public safety threat, gang member, designated terrorist from the United States who has been ordered deported twice by a federal judge,” said Border Czar Tom Homan during a recent White House briefing. “I think he got plenty of due process.”
Abrego Garcia’s case illustrates a core dilemma in the Trump administration's immigration strategy: the aggressive challenge to court orders aimed at pressing higher courts to issue broader rulings favorable to their stance. They seek several clarifications from the Supreme Court regarding Abrego Garcia’s case and others, including validating the president’s authority to remove individuals without standard immigration hearings and further defining what constitutes an “invasion,” as well as confirming the president’s powers to address such situations. Furthermore, in the matter of the students' revoked visas, they are asking the Court to affirm the Secretary of State's authority to revoke residency based on foreign policy concerns. More broadly, they want the Supreme Court to clarify the extent of lower court judges' powers to obstruct a president's policies nationwide—a question the high court is expected to address next month.
“Allowing one person, including an elected president, to make huge decisions about the liberty of another person without any check is a recipe for tyranny, and the founders of this country knew that,” cautioned Kagan. “It’s not surprising that a president would be tempted to push the limits or try to find their way around it, because due process is meant to frustrate the executive. That’s the whole idea. It is someone looking over your shoulder and saying, ‘let me make sure you did your work correctly.’”
While the administration applies its legal strategy, allied voices are urging Congressional Republicans to legislate responses to these issues. Lawmakers are currently working on a funding bill aimed at infusing billions into immigration enforcement, and discussions for a separate border security bill are anticipated.
“This all needs to be codified into law to prevent precisely the sort of thing that we saw going on during the Biden administration, where it’s just, ‘let anybody in that I want,’” stated Ira Mehlman, media director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organization advocating for reduced immigration.
Illegal border crossings have continued to decline since Trump's inauguration, but his aides frame immigration as a pressing national security issue as they seek to broaden presidential power through judicial means. They have placed the nation in a quasi-war footing, akin to the post-9/11 context, from designating gangs as terrorist entities to deploying the military for border enforcement and establishing a national immigrant registry.
“It’s both a legal and rhetorical strategy,” explained Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a lawyer and policy analyst at the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. “It’s also a funding strategy. An invocation of an emergency or an invasion allows them to use these extraordinary means.”
This approach carries political risks. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that 45 percent of Americans support Trump's immigration approach so far, while nearly two-thirds—50 percent to 28 percent—advocate for the return of Abrego Garcia, according to a The Economist/YouGov poll.
Democrats believe they have a compelling political argument against Trump regarding immigration: emphasizing due process concerns and arguing that if the president can bypass court orders in Abrego Garcia's case, he could similarly act against U.S. citizens.
Some prominent Trump supporters have also expressed alarm over this strategy. Podcast host Joe Rogan, who endorsed Trump for 2024, voiced concerns that if sending alleged gang members to El Salvador “with no due process” became the norm, it could set a precedent for accusing anyone of gang affiliation without providing them an opportunity to defend themselves in court.
“That’s dangerous,” he said. “We gotta be careful that we don’t become monsters while we’re fighting monsters.”
Alejandro Jose Martinez for TROIB News
Instead, Trump and his administration have been focused on undermining the already delicate due process within the immigration system. This effort is part of a significant initiative aimed at prompting the courts to address pivotal legal questions that could fundamentally change the treatment of immigrants and expand the powers of the presidency.
The White House has initiated numerous legal challenges by invoking outdated laws to navigate the overwhelmed immigration courts. Last month, Trump cited a wartime law from 1798, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport hundreds of immigrants the administration linked to gang affiliations back to El Salvador’s overcrowded prison system. This includes Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran who was wrongly deported, and whose case has become a prominent legal dispute. Additionally, the administration has revoked the visas of thousands of students by utilizing a little-known clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act to target pro-Palestinian activists.
More subtle measures have been employed as well, such as halting funding for legal assistance to unaccompanied migrant children. The president has moved to broaden the use of expedited removal, allowing for the swift deportation of certain migrants without hearings. Furthermore, the administration has empowered judges to dismiss asylum claims without holding a hearing.
These initiatives have often been chaotic. U.S. citizens have inadvertently been caught in the sweep of the crackdown, and doubts have arisen regarding whether some Venezuelans deported to El Salvador truly had ties to gangs or valid removal orders. In Abrego Garcia’s situation, the Trump administration admitted to wrongfully deporting him but has refused to comply with a federal judge's order to facilitate his return to the U.S., even as the Supreme Court upheld that order. A judge appointed by Trump has similarly ordered the return of another individual deported to El Salvador against a court's directive.
Collectively, these actions reveal a president who has built his political identity around illegal immigration and is now emboldened to leverage all available powers—some possibly beyond his legal scope—to reshape the nation’s immigration laws. If successful, the implications of these changes could be far-reaching, affecting both citizens and noncitizens in the long term.
“This is not just how we treat immigrants, it is about how any of us want to be treated when accused of a crime,” stated Michelle Brané, former executive director of the Biden administration’s Family Reunification Task Force. “This is about power and eliminating the rules and saying, ‘we don’t need to play by the rules, just trust us.’ It’s undermining one of the main principles of what the U.S. is founded on.”
The rapid push to redefine due process in the immigration system reflects preparation during Trump’s four years outside the White House, a time when the Biden administration sought to reverse many of his policies and create pathways for millions of undocumented immigrants. Now, Trump’s aides and supporters are working to implement changes that would be more resilient to future presidential reversals, embracing litigation that may ultimately strengthen their agenda in the long term.
“The administration is going to have to keep pushing through the courts to attempt to exercise its legitimate authority,” remarked Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group advocating for reduced immigration.
Top Trump aides, including Stephen Miller, a principal figure in his immigration plans, assert that not all immigrants can receive a court hearing if the administration intends to curb “the invasion.” This sentiment has been echoed by Trump, who has stated that the U.S. “would need hundreds of thousands of trials for the hundreds of thousands of Illegals we are sending out of the Country.” He added that this was “not possible” and represented a “ridiculous situation.”
A senior White House official informed PMG that the president is utilizing longstanding federal law provisions and tools provided by Congress while “meticulously complying with the law” to fulfill commitments made to the American public.
“It cannot be the case that we can give every single one of these people an immigration court hearing — and all of these procedures — and ever have enough resources to do so. You cannot judge your way out of a crisis of this magnitude,” stated the senior White House official. “The federal courts have been clear. Congress has been clear on needing to speed this process up.”
Miller did not respond to requests for comment.
Trump's approach recognizes the obstacles his deportation agenda faces, including funding shortages and overcrowded immigration courts—a challenge encountered by previous administrations, as over 3.6 million cases remain pending, according to the Transactional Records Clearinghouse, a research organization at Syracuse University.
“If every single one of these folks, even under something that’s supposed to be as stripped down as the Alien Enemies Act, still gets a federal court hearing, this will take forever, and it’s an incredibly asymmetric, one-sided situation when you can have a jack wagon president like Joe Biden who just opened the border,” commented Ken Cuccinelli, Trump’s former Deputy of Homeland Security. “The Trump administration is working very hard to find all the most streamlined ways they can to move quickly.”
Legal experts from both parties affirm that immigrants enjoy rights protected under the Constitution, including due process. Immigrants must be informed of the reasons for their removal, and they reserve the right to a hearing before an immigration court—an administrative entity within the Department of Justice. They may also bring legal counsel at their own expense and present evidence, although federal rules of evidence do not apply. Additionally, they have the right to bring witnesses and appeal decisions.
“Most Americans would be really quite shocked, and many would be appalled at just how much due process an alien can receive who goes through the ordinary immigration court proceedings,” noted the senior White House official.
The federal government can revoke a noncitizen's presence in the U.S. for specific reasons, including serious crimes—an argument Trump officials are currently leveraging in court as they maintain that immigration is a privilege and that the president holds ultimate authority over who remains and who must depart.
This situation poses a significant test regarding the future handling of due process for noncitizens—a debate exemplified in Abrego Garcia’s case. The administration has alleged that he is a member of the "MS-13 gang," designated as a foreign terrorist organization, having built a case against him amid Democratic critiques and increasing judicial scrutiny.
However, Abrego Garcia has not been charged with any crime, and while he entered the country illegally, a 2019 court order prohibits his deportation back to El Salvador to avoid persecution from gangs.
“I’m not an attorney. I’ll let DOJ argue this in court, but I think we can remove the public safety threat, gang member, designated terrorist from the United States who has been ordered deported twice by a federal judge,” said Border Czar Tom Homan during a recent White House briefing. “I think he got plenty of due process.”
Abrego Garcia’s case illustrates a core dilemma in the Trump administration's immigration strategy: the aggressive challenge to court orders aimed at pressing higher courts to issue broader rulings favorable to their stance. They seek several clarifications from the Supreme Court regarding Abrego Garcia’s case and others, including validating the president’s authority to remove individuals without standard immigration hearings and further defining what constitutes an “invasion,” as well as confirming the president’s powers to address such situations. Furthermore, in the matter of the students' revoked visas, they are asking the Court to affirm the Secretary of State's authority to revoke residency based on foreign policy concerns. More broadly, they want the Supreme Court to clarify the extent of lower court judges' powers to obstruct a president's policies nationwide—a question the high court is expected to address next month.
“Allowing one person, including an elected president, to make huge decisions about the liberty of another person without any check is a recipe for tyranny, and the founders of this country knew that,” cautioned Kagan. “It’s not surprising that a president would be tempted to push the limits or try to find their way around it, because due process is meant to frustrate the executive. That’s the whole idea. It is someone looking over your shoulder and saying, ‘let me make sure you did your work correctly.’”
While the administration applies its legal strategy, allied voices are urging Congressional Republicans to legislate responses to these issues. Lawmakers are currently working on a funding bill aimed at infusing billions into immigration enforcement, and discussions for a separate border security bill are anticipated.
“This all needs to be codified into law to prevent precisely the sort of thing that we saw going on during the Biden administration, where it’s just, ‘let anybody in that I want,’” stated Ira Mehlman, media director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organization advocating for reduced immigration.
Illegal border crossings have continued to decline since Trump's inauguration, but his aides frame immigration as a pressing national security issue as they seek to broaden presidential power through judicial means. They have placed the nation in a quasi-war footing, akin to the post-9/11 context, from designating gangs as terrorist entities to deploying the military for border enforcement and establishing a national immigrant registry.
“It’s both a legal and rhetorical strategy,” explained Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a lawyer and policy analyst at the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. “It’s also a funding strategy. An invocation of an emergency or an invasion allows them to use these extraordinary means.”
This approach carries political risks. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that 45 percent of Americans support Trump's immigration approach so far, while nearly two-thirds—50 percent to 28 percent—advocate for the return of Abrego Garcia, according to a The Economist/YouGov poll.
Democrats believe they have a compelling political argument against Trump regarding immigration: emphasizing due process concerns and arguing that if the president can bypass court orders in Abrego Garcia's case, he could similarly act against U.S. citizens.
Some prominent Trump supporters have also expressed alarm over this strategy. Podcast host Joe Rogan, who endorsed Trump for 2024, voiced concerns that if sending alleged gang members to El Salvador “with no due process” became the norm, it could set a precedent for accusing anyone of gang affiliation without providing them an opportunity to defend themselves in court.
“That’s dangerous,” he said. “We gotta be careful that we don’t become monsters while we’re fighting monsters.”
Alejandro Jose Martinez for TROIB News
