Category: Politics

With help from Amira McKee

CUOMO CONUNDRUM: Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani looks to be cruising toward victory, capturing 50 percent of the vote in a new general election poll of the mayor’s race paid for by his allies.

In the five-way contest, Andrew Cuomo trailed him with 22 percent, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa came in third at 13 percent and Mayor Eric Adams captured 7 percent of the vote among likely voters. Attorney Jim Walden received 1 percent.

“Our independent poll — the first in this cycle to be offered in four languages and to drill down into national origin and religious denomination — makes one thing clear: Black union households, young Jews, South Asians, East Asians, Latinos, and New Yorkers in every income bracket are all on the same Zohran Mamdani bus, and it’s headed in the direction of the Democratic Party’s future,” said Amit Singh Bagga, the principal of Public Progress Solutions and a veteran of federal, city, and state government.

Bagga’s firm designed and analyzed the poll along with Adam Carlson’s Zenith Research. It was funded through private donations to Bagga, who advised Mamdani’s campaign during the primary on a variety of city government issues, and was fielded by Verasight.

It quizzed 1,453 registered voters — 1,021 of whom were “likely” voters — and was conducted between July 16 and 24, concluding four days before a gunman walked into a Midtown Manhattan office building on Monday and killed four people, including one NYPD officer.

Mamdani was celebrating his wedding in Uganda at the time. He’s scheduled to be back in the city Wednesday morning.

According to the poll, even if the former governor could achieve his unlikely goal of neutralizing the rest of the field to face Mamdani one-on-one, the democratic socialist assemblymember is still up 52-40 in a head-to-head matchup with likely voters. But Mamdani’s head-to-head lead shrinks to just 3 points with registered voters.

And it’d be worse for Adams — Mamdani clocks him 59-32 with likely voters and 55-32 with registered voters.

Three months out from the Nov. 4 election, Mamdani is in a commanding position. Just 32 percent of likely voters say they would not consider voting for him, while Cuomo is at 60 percent and Adams at 68 percent.

“With a majority of voters saying they wouldn’t even consider voting for Cuomo, Adams’ net favorability being lower than Trump’s, and Sliwa mired in the low teens, it’s hard to see how anyone can put a serious scare into Mamdani in a split field,” Carlson said in a statement.

The survey is the first significant public poll after the ex-governor announced he’d mount a campaign after losing the primary.

Respondents were surveyed via a hybrid online panel, the firms said. The poll had a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.

Cuomo took issue with the poll’s model assumption that Mamdani’s campaign would boost turnout among younger and college-educated voters as it did in the primary.

“The only thing that I think is material for accuracy is what the poll says about the registered voters,” Cuomo told Playbook. “As we learned in the primary, when you’re assuming turnout levels, there are many variables. In the primary, they underestimated the number of young people. You have to make another set of assumptions on the general. Some people will assume you’re going to see a young voter surge. Some people believe you’re going to see an anti-socialist surge. Some people think you’re going to see a pro-Israel surge. So who knows?”

Mamdani still holds a 16-point lead over Cuomo among registered voters, according to the poll. Mamdani gets 42 percent in a five-way race, followed by Cuomo at 26, Sliwa at 12, Adams at 7 and Walden at 1. — Jeff Coltin & Jason Beeferman

HEASTIE WILL VOTE DEMOCRAT (WE ASSUME): Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie implied he is likely to vote for Mamdani — but continues to avoid explicitly saying the democratic socialist will earn a spot on his ballot.

“Do we ask people who they vote for?” Heastie quipped when a reporter asked him this afternoon who he would vote for in the general election. “Listen, I’m a Democrat, and I support Democrats. I’ve never voted for someone that’s not a Democrat.”

The speaker was in Schenectady today for a visit to a local musical theater in need of state investment.

When asked if his record of voting strictly along the Democratic line could change for the upcoming mayoral election, Heastie chuckled. After a brief silence, his press aide cut in to solicit other questions from reporters.

The speaker did say he is in frequent contact with the mayoral nominee.

“Zohran and I have had loads of communications,” Heastie said. “What people have to understand is that when I’m the speaker of [a] body, I have to communicate concerns of the body, and Zohran and I have communicated what I think he needs to do to get me there.” — Jason Beeferman

GUN CONTROL PLEAS: New York Democrats pleaded for Congress to approve tighter gun control laws in the wake of a Midtown shooting that left six people dead — including an NYPD officer.

There’s little chance any measures will pass given Republicans holding all levers of power in Washington.

Yet Gov. Kathy Hochul and Heastie on Tuesday urged national action — a tacit acknowledgement that the state’s comparatively strict gun laws can’t stop someone obtaining a weapon in another state. The alleged shooter reportedly traveled to New York from Nevada.

“We need a national awakening here. People need to be talking about this once again and it shouldn’t just happen in the wake of a tragedy like this. It should be an ongoing conversation where we force the Republicans to understand lives could be saved if we only do what’s smart and common sense,” Hochul told CNN.

The governor pushed through a package of gun law changes after the U.S. Supreme Court determined New York’s concealed carry measure was unconstitutional. In the wake of a Buffalo mass shooting in 2022, Hochul won approval of tighter restrictions on gun ownership, including raising the age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21.

Heastie echoed Hochul’s sentiment with reporters in Schenectady.

“When is this country going to wake up on allowing citizens to have these military-style weapons?” he said. “No other industrial nation in this world allows the citizens to do it.” — Nick Reisman 

AMEND TO THAT: Heastie is ready to change New York’s redistricting laws as red states move this year to redraw their House lines.

“At this point we should look to try to see what we can do to counteract Republican actions,” Heastie told reporters today.

There are very few options for New York Democrats to impact next year’s election, though, even as Hochul last week signaled she is open to making changes to the state’s House lines.

One potential long-term response is a constitutional amendment — a multi-year effort that ends with a voter referendum — that would allow New York to redistrict in the middle of the decade if another state undertakes the process.

Heastie said he is open to passing the measure, which was introduced by state Sen. Mike Gianaris and Assemblymember Micah Lasher, POLITICO first reported on Monday.

“It doesn’t have to be done now; it can be done in the following year,” he added. — Nick Reisman

DELGADO WANTS SPECIAL SESSION: Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado, a gubernatorial primary candidate, is calling for the state Legislature to hold a special session to protect against incoming federal cuts — but Heastie indicated an early return to Albany for lawmakers is unlikely.

Delgado is slated to appear with Assemblymembers George Alvarez, Amanda Septimo, Phara Souffrant Forrest and Claire Valdez on Thursday in Manhattan to make a public plea for a special session.

It’s a sign of support from the group of lefty lawmakers even as the vast majority of Democratic lawmakers are leery of backing the lieutenant governor over Hochul.

The event is organized by Citizen Action, VOCAL-NY, Make the Road and other left-leaning advocacy groups.

Still, Heastie indicated this afternoon a special session is unlikely.

“We haven’t had any discussions about that,” he said.

While it’s early, Heastie said his “biggest priority” for the upcoming legislative session will be to “limit as best we can the damage that Republicans have done to us that they keep trying to sugarcoat.” — Jason Beeferman

— SINCE 2000: The mass shooting in a Midtown building Monday night was New York’s deadliest shooting in 25 years. (New York Times)

— CONTESTED BALLOTS: The New York City Board of Elections is set to certify the results of a GOP primary for a Brooklyn City Council seat Tuesday amid allegations of voter fraud. (New York Daily News)

— ‘YOU AND YOUR EGO’: Cuomo slammed Adams as a “spoiler” driven by his own ego while speaking with reporters at the Columbian Day Parade. (New York Post)

— MTA OUTAGE: A slew of subway lines were delayed and suspended today as a power outage wreaked havoc on the system. (Gothamist)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

NOTE: This article has been updated to accurately reflect the elected officials planning to attend Thursday’s rally with Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado. POLITICO was informed following publication that Sen. Kristen Gonzalez did not plan to attend. In addition, an earlier version of this newsletter misstated the subject of Bagga’s advising for Mamdani. He advised on city government issues.

​Politics

As the United States edges up to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 2026, one of the core principles the founders sought to advance – that the government must act with accountability and in accordance with the rule of law – is being strongly tested.

In their deliberations leading up to the declaration, the founders would not just raise deep concerns that the government of King George III was violating the Colonists’ rights, which they described in the declaration. They would also enshrine these principles in the U.S. Constitution over a decade later through the concept of “due process.”

What did the framers likely mean when they did so? That’s no longer simply an academic question for legal scholars like me. The meaning and application of due process has become a crucial issue in the U.S., most often with respect to the Trump administration’s migrant deportation efforts.

Over the past several months, the U.S. Supreme Court has made several rulings in deportation-related cases with respect to what’s called the due process clause of the Constitution.

In April 2025, in the case Trump v. J.G.G., the court seemed to state quite clearly that deportations could not take place without due process. More recently, however, in D.H.S. v. D.V.D., the Supreme Court prevented a lower court from providing due process protections to a group of men the administration wanted to deport to South Sudan, where they are at risk of facing torture and even death.

These seemingly contradictory rulings not only make it unclear when due process applies but probably leave many asking what the term “due process of law” even means and how it works.

The origins of due process

The American concept of due process can be traced from medieval England to its modern formulation by the U.S. Supreme Court. Doing so allows the meaning of due process to come into focus. It also calls into question the court’s most recent ruling on this issue.

The concepts of due process and the rule of law largely emerged in the 13th century in the Magna Carta, a formal, written agreement between King John of England and the rebel aristocracy that effectively established legal constraints on government.

One key passage from the Magna Carta provided that “No Freeman shall be taken, or any otherwise imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or destroyed; nor we will not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.”

This accord established formal constraints on a previously unrestrained regent, setting English law on the course that would prioritize rule of law over the whims of the monarch.

Over a century later, Parliament would pass the English statute of 1354 that said “That no Man of what Estate or Condition that he be, shall he put out of Land or Tenement, nor taken nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in Answer by due Process of the Law.”

These principlesd evolve over time in British law and then informed the emerging revolutionary spirit in the American Colonies.

Released in January 1776, Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense would help galvanize and steel many Colonists for the revolutionary conflict to come. The work shifted the focus of Colonists’ anger from trying to force the king to treat them better to more radical change: independence and a country governed by the rule of law.

What the Colonists wanted, Paine wrote, was not a monarch: “So far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

Defining due process

After independence, many of the original 13 states adopted their own constitutions that would enshrine principles akin to due process to protect their constituents from government overreach, such as that government was to be bound, as it was in Virginia’s Declaration of Rights in 1776, by “the law of the land.”

But it was not until the nation adopted the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the Constitution – in 1791 that the federal government could not act in a way that deprived the populace of life, liberty or property without due process of law. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment would apply these same protections to all government action, state and federal.

The contemporary and most comprehensive formulation of what due process requires can be found in the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1970 case Goldberg v. Kelly, brought by welfare recipients challenging their loss of such benefits without a hearing.

In that case, the court determined that when governments attempt to deprive someone of their life, liberty or property, the target of those attempts must receive fair notice of the charges or claims against them that would justify that loss; be given an opportunity to defend against those claims; and possess the right to have such defenses considered by an impartial adjudicator.

The Supreme Court in 1976 would accept that due process protections in different settings will vary based on a number of variables. Those include what is at stake in the case, the likelihood that government might make a mistake in a particular setting, and the benefits and burdens of providing certain forms of process in a given situation.

When someone’s life is literally on the line, for example, more exacting procedures are required. At the same time, regardless of how important the interest that is subject to due process – whether it is one’s life, one’s home, one’s liberty, or something else – the components of fair notice, an opportunity to be heard, and to have one’s case decided by an impartial adjudicator must be meaningful.

As the court said in Mullane vs. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. in 1950: “Process which is a mere gesture is not due process.”

Ray Brescia does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Project 2025 architect Paul Dans on Monday is launching a bid to primary Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, joining an increasingly crowded field.

“What we’ve done with Project 2025 is really change the game in terms of closing the door on the progressive era,” Dans told the Associated Press. ”If you look at where the chokepoint is, it’s the United States Senate. That’s the headwaters of the swamp.”

Dans on Monday morning also reposted the Associated Press’ story announcing his South Carolina senate primary challenge, saying “Have some news this morning.”

Dans worked in the White House during President Donald Trump’s first term. His bid may present a unique challenge for Graham, who — though he has already secured Trump’s endorsement — has found himself at odds with the president on several occasions. In 2024, after Graham urged Trump to focus more on policy during his reelection campaign, Trump responded he doesn’t “care what he says.”

“Lindsey wouldn’t be elected if I didn’t endorse him,” Trump said.

One of the leading voices on Project 2025, Dans told the AP he expects to have the support of the project’s allies as well as some of Trump’s supporters.

Graham is seeking his fifth term as Republicans attempt to hold onto their 53-47 majority in the Senate during the 2026 midterms. Dans said it’s “time to show him the door.”

Chris LaCivita, senior adviser to Graham’s campaign, said in a statement Dans has “parachuted himself” into South Carolina after being “unceremoniously dumped in 2024 while trying to torpedo Donald Trump’s historic campaign.”

“Like everything Paul Dans starts, this too will end prematurely,” said LaCivita.

Dans will officially announce his campaign at a Charleston event Wednesday.

Project 2025, the 900-page set of conservative policy proposals, dominated conversations during the 2024 presidential election. Though Trump insisted the plan — created by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation — was unrelated to his campaign, many of its architects, including Dans, have been involved with the Trump administration at some point or another.

​Politics

Democratic leaders are feeling pressure to join a brewing redistricting battle that is threatening to upend the midterms landscape — an effort that is likely to slam into legal and political reality.

As Texas Republicans pressed forward with a redistricting blitz designed to increase the number of red seats in the state, officials in the biggest Democratic states scrambled for a response. In New York, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke with Gov. Kathy Hochul in recent days to discuss what a counter-effort could look like. California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration talked to state election officials about the logistics and timing of a special election to overturn its nonpartisan commission. And Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker joined Newsom in meeting with Texas Democratic lawmakers on Friday about a strategy for stalling the GOP’s brazen attempt to carve out five new seats, per President Donald Trump’s demand.

The problem is Democrats don’t have many options. In conversations with more than a dozen state lawmakers and redistricting experts, Democrats’ best shot at redrawing a map lies in California, a heavily blue state with a huge number of congressional districts. They see the second-best option in New York, which saw Democratic gerrymandering efforts sputter in recent years, and Illinois, which is already a heavily pro-Democrat gerrymander. Far less likely options lie with Maryland and New Jersey, which have just four Republican-held seats between them.

Discussion of these options come as a debate rages within the party over whether to play hard ball to the same degree as Republicans.

“At this moment, it seems very clear that self defense is something we have to put as a priority,” said Maryland House Majority Leader David Moon, who introduced a bill this week that would force open Maryland’s redistricting process if another state pursues redistricting ahead of the U.S. Census. “If that’s where we are, and that’s where we’re forced to go, then I think that’s where Democratic states need to be prepared to go.”

Trump is pushing Republicans in an aggressive effort to redraw maps in hopes of holding onto the House in a potentially unfriendly midterms cycle. Efforts are already underway in Texas, where Trump wants to draw five additional GOP seats, and in Ohio, where Republicans hope to draw additional red districts during a legally mandated redistricting. Punchbowl News recently reported Trump is pressuring Missouri to rip up its own map ahead of the midterms, too.

All of this has sparked outrage from the Democratic base, but Republicans feel bullish about a midterms map that is reshaped by partisan redistricting.

“In an arms race where there’s a race to gerrymander the most, there’s not a scenario where they have more seats than we do,” said a GOP operative, granted anonymity to speak about party strategy.

Newsom has been the most strident of all the Democratic governors who lead trifectas in his vow to counter Texas Republicans, vowing on Friday to “put a stake into the heart” of the Trump administration by preventing Republicans from retaining the House.

But the obstacles are steep: Redrawing California’s map would require either calling a special election and convincing voters to return line-drawing power to politicians after they specifically voted to entrust a nonpartisan commission with that authority, or simply having the Legislature draw maps and effectively daring the courts to stop them.

“I don’t think it’s doable. I think there are too many constitutional constraints,” said Bruce Cain, a Stanford political scientist who was deeply involved as a staffer in the partisan gerrymanders from a prior era of California politics.

It’s not just a legal obstacle. Undertaking redistricting would open up a huge “political fight” within the party by redrawing districts some politicians have run in for multiple cycles, he said. “You’d be borrowing from different kinds of Democrats and sticking them into other seats and the politics of that would be very complex,” Cain added.

But Newsom, who has his eye on running for president in 2028, has been steadily laying the groundwork anyway. He hosted Texas Democrats at the governor’s mansion in Sacramento on Friday, doing his part to project a united national front against Republicans, and told reporters he was weighing several options to expand Democrats’ margins beyond their current, disproportionate hold on 43 of 52 House seats.

“The question I imagine many folks are asking here in California is: what do the politics of Texas have to do with the politics here in California?” Newsom told reporters on Friday, flanked by Texas lawmakers. “The answer is everything.”

Lawmakers and operatives who were initially caught off guard or skeptical of Newsom’s proposal are increasingly becoming convinced California has the authority and the political will to respond to Texas in kind. Sharing maps of a potential Democratic gerrymander has become a favorite pastime.

“I’ve seen a map that’s legal, upholds the Voting Rights Act, and produces 49 to 50 Democratic seats,” said Matt Barreto, a pollster and director of UCLA’s Voting Rights Project who polled for the Harris campaign and advised the Biden White House. California currently has 43 Democrats and 9 Republicans in Congress. “This is something lawmakers should consider if Texas goes first.”

In New York, Jeffries’ staff spoke with Hochul’s office recently to discuss redistricting New York’s House seats, two people with direct knowledge of the conversation said. On Thursday, Hochul declared that “all’s fair in love and war” regarding returning to contentious congressional map redraw.

“If there’s other states violating the rules and are trying to give themselves an advantage, all I’m going to say is, I’m going to look at it with Hakeem Jeffries,” she said.

Even if state lawmakers plow ahead with redistricting, something the state Constitution says can only be done once per decade, the process would likely take more than a year to complete and may not be finished in time for the 2026 midterm elections.

New York tried an aggressive gerrymander that got blocked by the courts in 2022, and a court-drawn map was used instead. Democrats later drew a new map that is far less aggressive.

Hochul’s political allies believe there is little upside to drawing new lines.

“I understand those in New York who are watching what’s happening in Texas and Ohio want to offset their unfair advantage,” said New York Democratic Chair Jay Jacobs. But “the constitution seems pretty clear that this redistricting process should be done every 10 years. I don’t know where someone could interpret it as something you can do every two years.”

Beyond Texas, Republicans have their eye on picking up seats in other states like Missouri and Florida — which would put Democrats in a tough spot, given they don’t have as much leeway to squeeze out extra seats.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy was noncommittal when asked by reporters earlier this week if he plans to pursue redistricting, noting that it’s “too early to make any definitive statement about it.” But he echoed what many other Democrats across the country have said when talking about the possibility of early redistricting: “Never bring a knife to a gunfight.”

New Jersey has its own constitutional impediment, which states that congressional districts, which are drawn by an independent commission, “shall remain unaltered through the next year ending in zero in which a federal census for this State is taken.”

Even if they were able to circumvent the state constitution, Democrats already have the majority in the New Jersey congressional delegation, and just two seats — the 7th, held by Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr., and the 9th, held by Democratic Rep. Nellie Pou — are considered battlegrounds.

Even some other Hail Mary options seem off the table. State lawmakers in Washington, Minnesota and Colorado balked at the suggestion they should pursue drawing new maps in the next few months.

“It’s just not in the cards,” said Washington House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, citing the requirement that a two-thirds majority is needed in both the state House and Senate to reconvene the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission.

And Minnesota State Sen. Aric Nesbitt shut down the idea quickly: “We’re not power-crats, we’re Democrats. We should do things that improve democracy, even if that means sometimes we don’t get our way.” Democrats hold the governorship and state Senate in Minnesota, but Republicans narrowly control the House.

In Colorado “there’s really no debate,” said former Senate Leader Steve Fenberg, who helped create the state’s independent redistricting commission in 2018.“We’re at a juncture right now where the threat is so overwhelming that I don’t think Democrats should rule out responding in kind,” he said. “But in a state like Colorado, I don’t think it’s really in our DNA to do this kind of action and it’s not constitutionally allowed.”

Still, with a potentially tougher cycle ahead of them than they were anticipating given all of Trump’s strategy, redistricting is sure to be a hot topic of conversation as Democratic governors gather at the National Governors Association meeting this weekend in Colorado.

“I suspect as the Democratic governors get together for a drink or a coffee, this will be high on the agenda,” Murphy said.

CORRECTION: This article originally misstated the partisan balance of California’s congressional districts.

​Politics

FDA head Marty Makary on food dyes, ultra-processed foods and the MAHA agenda | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics

FDA’s Makary on ‘male-dominated’ culture of medical research | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics

Food dye and ADHD: FDA commissioner says listen to parents | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics

All modern U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have attempted to reduce the population of millions of undocumented immigrants. But their various strategies have not had significant results, with the population hovering around 11 million from 2005 to 2022.

President Donald Trump seeks to change that.

With harsh rhetoric that has sowed fear in immigrant communities, and policies that ignore immigrants’ due process rights, Trump has pursued deportation tactics that differ dramatically from those of any other modern U.S. president.

As a scholar who examines the history of U.S. immigration law and enforcement, I believe that it remains far from clear whether the Trump White House will significantly reduce the undocumented population. But even if the administration’s efforts fail, the fear and damage to the U.S. immigrant community will remain.

Presidents Bush and Obama

To increase deportations, in 2006 President George W. Bush began using workplace raids. Among these sweeps was the then-largest immigration workplace operation in U.S. history at a meat processing plant in Postville, Iowa in 2008.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deployed 900 agents in Postville and arrested 398 employees, 98% of whom were Latino. They were chained together and arraigned in groups of 10 for felony criminal charges of aggravated identity theft, document fraud and use of stolen Social Security numbers. Some 300 were convicted, and 297 of them served jail sentences before being deported.

In 2008, Bush also initiated Secure Communities, a policy that sought to deport noncitizens – both lawful permanent residents as well as undocumented immigrants – who had been arrested for crimes. Some 2 million immigrants were deported during Bush’s two terms in office.

The Obama administration limited Secure Communities to focus on the removal of noncitizens convicted of felonies. It deported a record 400,000 noncitizens in fiscal year 2013, which led detractors to refer to President Barack Obama as the “Deporter in Chief.”

Obama also targeted recent entrants and national security threats and pursued criminal prosecutions for illegal reentry to the U.S. Almost all of these policies built on Bush’s, although Obama virtually abandoned workplace raids.

Despite these enforcement measures, Obama also initiated Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in 2012. The policy provided relief from deportation and gave work authorization to more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children.

Obama deported about 3 million noncitizens, but the size of the undocumented population did not decrease dramatically.

The first Trump administration and Biden

Trump’s first administration broke new immigration enforcement ground in several ways.

He began his presidency by issuing what was called a “Muslim ban” to restrict the entry into the U.S. of noncitizens from predominantly Muslim nations.

Early in Trump’s first administration, federal agents expanded immigration operations to include raids at courthouses, which previously had been off-limits.

In 2017, Trump tried to rescind DACA, but the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s effort in 2020.

In 2019, Trump implemented the Remain in Mexico policy that for the first time forced noncitizens who came to the U.S. border seeking asylum to wait in Mexico while their claims were being decided. He also invoked Title 42 in 2020 to close U.S. borders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump succeeded in reducing legal immigration numbers during his first term. However, there is no evidence that his enforcement policies reduced the size of the overall undocumented population.

President Joe Biden sought to relax – although not abandon – some immigration enforcement measures implemented during Trump’s first term.

His administration slowed construction of the border wall championed by Trump. Biden also stopped workplace raids in 2021, and in 2023, he ended Title 42.

In 2023, Biden sought to respond to migration surges in a measured fashion, by temporarily closing ports of entry and increasing arrests.

In attempting to enforce the borders, his administration at times pursued tough measures. Biden continued deportation efforts directed at criminal noncitizens. Immigrant rights groups criticized his administration when armed Border Patrol officers on horseback were videotaped chasing Haitian migrants on the U.S.-Mexico border.

As of 2022, the middle of the Biden’s term, an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants lived in the U.S.

A second chance

Since his second inauguration, Trump has pursued a mass deportation campaign through executive orders that are unprecedented in their scope.

In January 2025, he announced an expanded, expedited removal process for any noncitizen apprehended anywhere in the country – not just the border region, as had been U.S. practice since 1996.

In March, Trump issued a presidential proclamation to deport Venezuelan nationals who were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, designated a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department. In doing so, he invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – an act used three times in U.S. history during declared wars that empowers presidents to remove foreign nationals from countries at war with the U.S.

Declaring an “invasion” of migrants into the U.S. in June, Trump deployed the military to assist in immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

Trump also sought to dramatically upend birthright citizenship, the Constitutional provision that guarantees citizenship to any person born in the U.S. He issued an executive order in January that would bar citizenship to people born in the U.S. to undocumented parents.

The birthright executive order has been challenged in federal court and is mostly likely working its way up to the Supreme Court.

Under the second Trump administration, immigration arrests are up, but actual deportation numbers are in flux.

ICE in June arrested the most people in a month in at least five years, roughly 30,000 immigrants. But deportations of noncitizens – roughly 18,000 – lagged behind those during the Obama administration’s record-setting year of 2013 in which more than 400,000 noncitizens were deported.

The gap between arrests and deportations shows the challenges the Trump administration faces in making good on his promised mass deportation campaign.

Undocumented immigrants often come to the U.S. to work or seek safety from natural disasters and mass violence.

These issues have not been seriously addressed by any modern U.S. president. Until it is, we can expect the undocumented population to remain in the millions.

Kevin Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

White House struggles to shake off Epstein files storm | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics