Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Deportation numbers under US presidents 2000-2025.
Graphic Truth: Deportation Nation
Donald Trump has unveiled a sweeping crackdown on undocumented immigration, targeting the removal of millions of undocumented immigrants in what he has pledged will be the largest deportation in American history.
But as debates – and protests – over that policy rage on, the title of “deporter in chief” still rests, in fact, with another president, Democrat Barack Obama. He earned that epithet by removing some 3 million people during his time in office, the largest number of any president. With Trump aiming to surpass that, here’s a look at the number of deportations by year, and administration, over the past quarter century.
Palestinians wounded in an Israeli strike near a humanitarian aid distribution centre are rushed to Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis.
HARD NUMBERS: Gaza aid point killings rise, US states approve opioid settlement, and more
59: Israeli forces on Tuesday killed at least 59 Palestinians trying to access a food and aid distribution point in Gaza. This marks the deadliest day in a recent wave of shootings near the distribution points. More than 300 Palestinians have been killed in similar incidents since a private group backed by Israel and the US, called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, launched aid distribution sites in Gaza.
7.4 billion: All 50 US states approved a $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue over the pharma giant’s role in the opioid crisis. $6.5 billion of that will come from the owners of Purdue, the Sackler family. Unlike past opioid settlements, this one allows individuals to keep suing the Sacklers in civil court for another 15 years.
70,000: Nearly 70,000 people have already applied for the “Trump Card,” a VIP visa program that offers US residency to foreigners willing to cough up $5 million for the privilege. The program was officially launched last week.
6: Recent clashes between police and supporters of former Bolivian president Evo Morales have left six people dead and hundreds injured, deepening a political crisis in the gas-rich Andean country ahead of this fall’s presidential election. The courts have banned Morales, who was ousted amid protests in 2019, from running for a fourth term.
Yale Law School's Emily Bazelon on Trump's showdown with the courts
Listen: President Trump has never been shy about his revolutionary ambitions. In his second term, he’s moved aggressively to consolidate power within the executive branch—signing more than 150 executive orders in just over 150 days, sidelining Congress, and pressuring the institutions that were designed to check his authority. His supporters call it common sense. Critics call it dangerous. Either way, it’s a fundamental shift in American governance—one that’s unlike anything happening in any other major democracy.
While Congress has largely collapsed into partisan submission, and the DOJ and other power ministries face political purges, one institution still stands: the courts. In this episode, Ian Bremmer speaks with New York Times Magazine staff writer and Yale Law School’s Emily Bazelon about how the judiciary is holding up under pressure, what rulings to watch, and whether the rule of law can survive the Trump revolution.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published
President Trump has launched a revolution. Will it succeed?
President Donald Trump calls himself a revolutionary—and I actually agree with him. His second term has ushered in sweeping attempts to expand executive power and defang oversight institutions. Congress has rolled over. The DOJ? Under pressure. The only remaining institutional check appears to be the courts—especially the lower ones. So far, federal judges across the country, including some Trump appointees, have pushed back on illegal overreach. As has the Supreme Court on some high profile immigration and trade cases. But what happens when Trump gets tired of losing in court?
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
8 thoughts on Trump’s Los Angeles crackdown
On Saturday, US President Donald Trump activated 2,000 members of the California National Guard to quell protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deportation efforts in Los Angeles, after small but highly visible demonstrations had popped up across the city in the days prior – with some instances of violence, opportunistic looting, and property damage. California Governor Gavin Newsom disputed that federal intervention was necessary and condemned Trump’s deployment decision as illegal and inflammatory, blaming it for stoking the protests.
Though the protests had largely petered out by then, on Tuesday the president dispatched an additional 2,000-plus National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to the area. Downtown LA had a quiet night on the back of a curfew, but anti-ICE (and, more broadly, anti-Trump) demonstrations have started to spread to other major cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Austin, Dallas, and Atlanta, with more planned in Las Vegas, Minneapolis, San Antonio, and Seattle. Texas Governor Greg Abbot has already called in the National Guard ahead of any potential unrest in his state.
Here are my eight key takeaways:
- Trump’s decision to send federal troops into Los Angeles was extreme. It marked the first time in 60 years that the National Guard had been deployed to a US state without the consent of its governor. The last such instance was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized the Alabama Guard in defiance of Governor George Wallace, one of the nation’s leading segregationists, to protect civil rights demonstrators led by Martin Luther King Jr. from violence. Needless to say, federal supremacy over states’ rights is being asserted in a very different context, by a very different president, and in service of a very different goal today.
- It’s legal – for now. Trump’s deployment pushes the envelope politically, but as long as the troops limit their role to protecting federal personnel and facilities while refraining from taking law-enforcement actions (as they reportedly have thus far), it will stay within the bounds of presidential authority. That’s a key legal distinction, as the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act bars active-duty forces from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless the president invokes the 1807 Insurrection Act. That’s a step Trump hasn’t taken (yet at least), suggesting that he still sees as high a bar for it as he did during the George Floyd protests in 2020.
- The door is open to a more radical use of emergency powers. The counterpoint is that Trump referred to the LA protesters as a “violent insurrectionist mob” (he does know a little something about those) and on Tuesday refused to take the invocation of the Insurrection Act off the table. He also warned that any protesters at this weekend’s military parade in Washington, DC – peaceful or not – “will be met with very big force,” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hinted at a desire to use military forces on domestic soil more extensively going forward. This pattern suggests that Trump’s threshold for activating emergency powers or using troops against Americans is lower than last time around, when he was repeatedly talked out of extreme steps by institutionalist advisors. I wouldn’t be shocked if the administration invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (aka IEEPA, the same law it used to levy reciprocal tariffs on Liberation Day) to freeze the assets of individual American citizens and organizations it accused of aiding and abetting “foreign invaders” (aka undocumented aliens). Or if it used the Communications Act to pressure internet platforms into throttling protest-related content. These scenarios may sound far-fetched, but so did the unilateral deployment of the National Guard and Marine Corps to Los Angeles less than 200 days into the first year of the Trump presidency. In his second term, Trump has proven willing to push the legal and political limits of executive power, against precedent and despite long odds of success.
- Trump’s LA deployment was designed to score political points, not restore peace. The City of Los Angeles was unaffected by the protests, which were confined to a handful of downtown city blocks. The Los Angeles Police Department had things under control (at least until Trump escalated the situation), and local officials saw no reason to request federal help. In fact, they warned that adding federal troops to the mix would risk heightening tensions and endanger public safety. But Trump wasn’t trying to solve a security problem – he was playing politics.
- Trump is eager to pick public fights over immigration. This is the one issue area where the president has had consistently positive approval ratings, save for a brief dip underwater caused by the administration’s mishandling of the Abrego Garcia case. For Trump, the political upside of doubling down on the migrant crackdown is twofold. First, it shifts attention toward his biggest strength and away from headlines that are more problematic for the administration, such as his failure to secure trade deals, his inability to end the Russia-Ukraine war, and his messy breakup with Elon Musk. Second, it forces Democrats into defending politically unsympathetic targets and positions, much like they did with Abrego Garcia (before the White House overplayed its hand) and Harvard University.
- The optics of the LA protests play straight into Trump’s hands. Images of burning Waymos and protestors flying Mexican flags lend credence to the White House’s false claim that undocumented immigrants are dangerous foreign invaders and their defenders are radical anti-American traitors, allowing the president to discredit opponents of mass deportations as threats to public order and safety. That only a small number of troublemakers were illegal aliens doesn’t matter; Trump is betting (correctly, in my view) those visuals will drive public opinion away from the demonstrators and toward more aggressive deportation policies.
- More deportations are coming. Trump has made measurable progress in curbing illegal border crossings, but so far, deportations have fallen far short of his campaign pledge (and even of deportations during Joe Biden’s last year in office). That’s not surprising; large-scale interior removals are much more politically, economically, and logistically fraught than border enforcement. But according to the Wall Street Journal, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller recently ordered ICE to step up its game, demanding that they stop targeting migrants with criminal records, asylum requests, and court petitions and instead “just go out there and arrest illegal aliens” at their jobs and schools. In other words, snag anyone who looks illegal, no probable cause (let alone warrant) needed. That approach was reportedly what sparked the LA protests last week. The backlash was instrumental to Miller’s goals: by signaling that Trump is making good on his deportation promise, standoffs with law enforcement can make deportations more popular and give Trump the political capital to ramp up more visible and disruptive workplace and neighborhood raids, particularly in Democratic-run cities. These operations will trigger more protests, which will in turn be met with more repression and stepped-up enforcement, and so on.
- On immigration, don’t bet on TACO. Trump faces fewer internal constraints in implementing his policy agenda on immigration than in any other area. Unless and until it starts dragging on his approval ratings, he is likely to double down: more aggressive raids, more confrontations with Democratic governors and mayors, more troop deployments to quell public protests. Mass deportations will disrupt local life in places like Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. Backlash to aggressive enforcement tactics, family separations, and mistaken detentions will be the primary source of domestic unrest in the coming months, but Trump won’t back down. This is a fight the White House is happy to fight.
Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles was less about taking control of the streets and more about taking control of the narrative. The strategy is confrontational by design, with immigrants and Democrats as foils and civil unrest as a feature, not a bug. This playbook may work politically. But in the long term, the result will be more conflict: between cities and Washington, between red and blue, between civilians and the military, and between competing visions of American identity. The most politically divided and dysfunctional industrialized nation will only become more so.
Trump deploys National Guard to LA amid immigration protests
The deployment, which has sparked protests across the city, marks the first such federal action without a governor’s approval since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators from segregationist Governor George Wallace.
“This is obviously very different kind of politics,” said Ian, “but nonetheless reflecting of where the country… is increasingly oriented—not in becoming more progressive… but instead in securing the border.”
Images of protests featuring Mexican flags, Ian notes, feed a narrative the president is eager to promote.
“If Trump continues to respond in a public and aggressive way, there’s certainly a risk that tensions could escalate,” Ian warned, “especially as deportation operations ramp up in the coming months.”
- Where does Trump’s immigration crackdown stand, nearly 100 days in? ›
- Trump-appointed judge strikes down use of wartime powers to fast-track deportations ›
- What does Trump’s mass deportation mean for Canada — and immigration policy? ›
- Trump’s immigration plan faces hurdles ›
- What We're Watching: Trump calls out National Guard, US-China trade talks, Russia-Ukraine violence escalates ›
On immigration, Pope Leo XIV will advocate for the "dignity of the human" says Fr. James Martin
As part of a larger conversation about the role of religion in modern politics and society, Father James Martin discusses Pope Leo's approach to immigration. Then Father Martin reflects on his own advocacy for LGBTQ issues, emphasizing the Gospel's moral imperative over political convenience.
When it comes to migration, Martin says the Pope’s stance isn’t political, it’s biblical: “His orientation is the Gospel, and the Gospel talks about welcoming the stranger.” He pushes back against Vice President JD Vance's interpretation of "love thy neighbor," noting that Catholic teaching calls on people to care for those they don't know. While the Vatican usually avoids direct political confrontation, Martin says sometimes "directness is called for."
Later, Martin turns to the cultural backlash against transgender people, especially in the US, saying the Church’s call is clear: accompany and affirm their dignity. "The more that they are attacked, the more urgent it becomes for us to stand with them," he says. He points to the late Pope Francis’s quiet but consistent engagement with the trans community as a model of compassion over doctrine.
In both cases, Martin underscores the same theme: whether the issue is immigration or gender identity, the Church's mission is to recognize and protect the dignity of every person.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Tourists in the center of Madrid, Spain, after the announcement of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to block almost 66,000 illegal ads, on May 19, 2025.
HARD NUMBERS: Spain clamps down on Airbnb, Cat busted smuggling drugs in Costa Rica, and More
66,000: Amid growing concerns from residents, the Spanish government is calling for the removal of 66,000 Airbnb listings for violating tourist accommodation regulations. Protests have been erupting across the country – the second most popular tourist destination in the world, behind France – as frustration mounts over over-tourism and a housing crisis.
50: Of the 240 Venezuelans deported from the United States to El Salvador, at least 50 entered the United States legally and violated no immigration laws, according to an analysis from the center-right CATO Institute. This study follows an earlier report that 75% of the 240 men had no criminal record.
100: Israel allowed the United Nations to bring 100 aid trucks into Gaza on Tuesday, caving to mounting international pressure to provide relief for residents affected by an eleven-week blockade. UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher called for more aid, estimating that 14,000 babies could die in Gaza in the next 48 hours without immediate access to more aid.
$5 million: The Trump administration is discussing whether to offer $5 million to the family of Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran who was killed as she stormed the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as part of a settlement over a wrongful-death lawsuit. President Donald Trump granted clemency to all those involved in the Jan. 6 riot, but this move would go a step further.
235.65: Officers at Pococi Penitentiary in Costa Rica apprehended a paws-itively furry culprit caught up in a prison drug-smuggling scheme: a cat carrying 235.65 grams of marijuana and 67.76g of heroin. The drugs have since been confiscated, and the animal was put into the care of the National Animal Health Service.