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 }}
Salvadoran police officers escort an alleged member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua recently deported by the U.S. government to be imprisoned in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison, as part of an agreement with the Salvadoran government, in Tecoluca, El Salvador, in this handout image obtained March 16, 2025.
Where does Trump’s immigration crackdown stand, nearly 100 days in?
President Donald Trump’s actions against migrants have generated among the most controversy of any of his policies during the first few months of his presidency. His administration’s deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a Salvadoran maximum security facility has drawn comparisons to the worst abuses of totalitarian regimes, and Trump’s approval rating on immigration issues has slipped a bit in several polls.
Here’s a brief rundown of three of the most salient actions Trump has taken on migration.
1. Mass deportations of alleged criminal migrants
In March, the Trump administration defied court orders to remove over 200 Venezuelan migrants whom it alleged – without providing proof or due process – were criminals without legal status in the United States. The White House claimed it had the authority to do so thanks to the 1789 Alien Enemies Act, which it invoked to target the Tren de Aragua, a gang it alleges to be conducting “irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.”
The Supreme Court ruled on April 8 that while the administration could use this act to deport alleged gang members, it must provide them the opportunity to challenge their removals in court first. Eleven days later, it ruled that the administration must halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act pending a further ruling from the court. The White House derided challenges as “meritless litigation” – even though it admitted in one case, that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, it mistakenly deported him to a potential life sentence in El Salvador. Despite another Supreme Court ruling that the administration must facilitate his return to the United States, the administration says it cannot retrieve him from El Salvador.
2. Executive Order “Protecting the American People Against Invasion”
Trump issued this broad executive order, aka PAPAI, within hours of his inauguration. It revokes several Biden-era executive orders related to immigration and attempts to further the crackdown Trump promised on the campaign trail.
For example, it removed restrictions on immigration authorities attempting to make arrests at sensitive locations like churches, schools, or certain workplaces. It urges state and local law enforcement to aid in immigration arrests, which are usually outside their jurisdictions, and threatens so-called sanctuary cities with the loss of federal funds if they do not assist. The order also mandates the creation of “Homeland Security Task Forces” in each state, reporting to the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. These task forces are meant to marshall more manpower and resources to make arrests, but the White House has expressed frustration with the pace of detentions.
3. Militarized border protection
In another executive order signed on his first day in office, Trump declared a national emergency on the southern border, enabling military forces to take a greater role in securing the region. He also assigned the Roosevelt Reservation, a 60-foot wide strip of land running along much of the border from New Mexico to California, to the Defense Department. DoD has announced it will administer part of the reservation as a section of Fort Huachuca, a military base in Arizona. Doing so will allow military personnel to put up barriers and make arrests as part of their security duties, but those actions are likely to be challenged in court.
Despite – or perhaps because of – the crackdown along the border, apprehensions are way down compared to the Biden administration. Authorities detained just 11,017 attempted migrants along the southern border in March 2025 compared to 189,359 in March 2024.
US Supreme Court
US Supreme Court stays deportation of Venezuelan migrants – for now
The US Supreme Court issued a decision early Saturday temporarily halting the Trump administration’s imminent deportation of Venezuelan migrants. The men, accused of belonging to criminal gangs, were to be removed under the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law usually used in wartime.
Instead, the justices instructed the government “not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.” Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
What was the basis for the decision? Time. While the Supreme Court had upheld the use of the statute in other cases, it required that deportees have adequate time to contest their removal. The American Civil Liberties Union claimed that in this case the men had not had adequate time to do so: Detainees were told they would be removed that evening or the next day, and some had reportedly already been loaded onto buses.
What’s next? In response, on Saturday afternoon the Trump administration asked the justices to reject the migrants’ stay after its additional review. There was no indication that the administration would defy the Supreme Court in the meantime – a move that would have sparked a constitutional crisis.
U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 17, 2025.
Trump versus the courts
A federal judge set up a showdown with the Trump administration on Wednesday with a ruling that threatens to find the government in contempt if it fails to comply with a judicial order to provide due process to Venezuelans deported to a prison in El Salvador.
This is separate from the ongoing clash between the White House and the courts over the fate of Kilmar Abrego García, the undocumented immigrant who was sent to an El Salvador prison on suspicion of being a gang member, in defiance of a court’s stay of deportation.
Judge James E. Boasberg’s threat regarding the Venezuelan deportations is the latest round of a deepening legal fight with a White House that insists that judges seeking to ensure oversight and due process in deportation procedures are interfering with lawful (and popular) measures that are necessary to remove illegal immigrants and criminals.
So far, Trump and his officials have openly challenged the courts’ authority but have yet to overtly defy lawful orders. When the Associated Press won a First Amendment case challenging their expulsion from the White House press pool, for example, the administration simply eliminated the pool position rather than comply with the ruling.
Trump has said he won’t challenge the authority of the Supreme Court, something that would set off a far-reaching constitutional crisis. But so much of his governing agenda is eliciting judicial challenges that the High Court will be repeatedly called on to define the limits of executive power. Seems these fights are only just beginning.
US President Donald Trump alongside Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, back when the latter was the nominee for his current position, in Washington, D.C., USA, on November 2, 2017.
Could the Fed’s independent streak be over?
The United States’ judicial branch is set to reexamine an old decision that could have huge new consequences for the credibility and stability of the world’s largest economy.
The Supreme Court has requested briefs in a case that concerns the so-called “Humphrey’s Executor” precedent, a 90-year-old ruling that stops presidents from firing the leaders of quasi-governmental institutions without cause.
The Trump administration, which wants more power to sack appointees,says the precedent wrongly limits executive authority, and should be reversed.
What this is really about. Though the case concerns members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Supreme Court’s decision could allow the president to fire a much more important figure: Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. That’s because the Federal Reserve, like the NLRB and MSPB, is also a quasi-governmental organization, meaning that it works for the public interest but is independent of the executive branch.
With Donald Trump’s trade war already putting US financial and bond markets on edge, the last thing the central bank wants is a loss of independence, which would compromise markets’ confidence that the regulator is acting based on its economic mandates rather than Trump’s political whims.
Carveout possible. The top US court is reportedly skeptical of the Humphrey’s Executor precedent, but there is a world where it overturns this 1935 ruling while explicitly safeguarding the Federal Reserve’s independence.
There’ll be a new sheriff. Whatever happens, Powell’s term ends in May 2026, giving Trump the chance to nominate a successor. We’ll be keeping an eye on whether Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has emerged as a leading voice in the White House, starts interviewing potential candidates sooner than that...
Trump’s inaction on wrongful deportation may spark constitutional crisis
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
If the US won't work to return a wrongly deported man to El Salvador despite a Supreme Court ruling, are we headed towards a constitutional crisis?
It certainly appears that way, and I think this is the constitutional crisis that the Trump administration would love to have. Because wrongfully deporting someone without evidence who is in the country illegally and therefore guilty of a misdemeanor, but sending them to a max security prison, which the Supreme Court says you shouldn't do, but now is in another country. Very few Americans are sympathetic to the case of this person. And indeed, Trump won on the basis in part of being sick and tired of allowing illegal immigrants to spend enormous amounts of time in the United States without recourse.
So he's breaking the law here. He's flouting independent judiciary and their decision-making, but he's doing it on an issue that most Americans have no sympathy on the other side. So the Democrats would have to be very wary of making this a hill they want to die on, and Trump knows exactly what he's doing. It is pretty impressive playbook for undermining rule of law and checks and balances on an increasingly authoritarian leaning executive. That's where we are.
Trump claims China-Vietnam talks are intended to "screw" the US. Does this run the risk of pushing Vietnam to China?
Certainly, most Vietnamese now are more well-disposed towards China than the US. First time we've seen that since the war. It's not true across Southeast Asia. Philippines, about 80% still pro-US, not pro-China. But it is a problem, and Xi Jinping understands that. And that's why he went in and was received directly by the president as opposed to the prime minister last time who met him at the airport. 45 big deals that they're signing on trying to improve economic coordination. Clearly a bit of a surprise to Trump, just as the direct retaliation from the Chinese, even though the Americans warned them, "Negotiate, don't retaliate." But that's exactly what China did, and Trump frankly should have expected that was coming. Now he looks a little bit weaker in the way he's backing down and creating exemptions for a lot of people in this space.
Saudi Arabia plans to pay off Syria's World Bank debt. Could this be a major turning point for Syria's future and its ties with regional allies?
It certainly helps. We've also seen the Qataris already say they're going to offer gas through Jordan into Syria. I think that this is all promising. The Saudis were never going to do that, provide any support as long as Assad was in place. Now they are. The Americans are pulling troops out, and Turkey is going to be the most important country on the ground. But economically, it's going to be the Gulf States, and that gives this new Syrian regime a better chance to succeed. Something we all clearly are rooting for in terms of one of the places that we'd like to see a little more stability from. Anyway, that's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Zelensky snubs China’s peace push, Trump vows to end war “very quickly” ›
- China’s vows to pump up its economy — with one eye on Trump’s tariffs ›
- El Salvador's president wins big. What does this mean for the country and its neighbors? ›
- El Salvador's Bukele refuses to return wrongly-deported Maryland man, and offers to jail US citizens too ›
Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro walks after the Supreme Court voted that he should stand trial for allegedly attempting a coup after his 2022 electoral defeat, in Brasilia, Brazil, on March 26, 2025.
Brazil’s top court greenlights Bolsonaro trial
Much like Jair Bolsonaro’s beloved Seleção, which lost its soccer match to Argentina this week, the former Brazilian president has reason to be concerned about his own defensive strategy. On Wednesday, the country’s Supreme Court ordered him to stand trial for his alleged efforts to overturn the last election. The ruling raises the prospect of the 70-year-old ending up behind bars and imperils his hopes of running for office in 2026.
The case at hand: Brazil’s Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet charged Bolsonaro and 33 others in February with attempting a coup on Jan. 8, 2023, and accused them of forging a plot to poison President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and kill a Supreme Court justice. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing.
It is “highly likely” that the court will also find Bolsonaro guilty, said Eurasia Group Managing Director Chris Garman, but that wouldn’t stop him from holding significant sway at the next election in 2026.
“From an electoral point of view, he will remain a kingmaker on the right for the 2026 presidential election,” said Garman. “Polls consistently show his public support hasn’t dropped since the last presidential election, and he will be seen as a martyr among the conservative voters who will agree with claims he is being politically persecuted.”
Supreme Court orders release of foreign aid funds
The terse, unsigned ruling was issued by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett together with the court’s three liberal justices. It upholds an earlier order by US District Judge Amir Ali, now tasked with craftingcompliance requirements for paying the money. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the dissenting justices,said he was “stunned” by the decision, arguing that it rewarded “judicial hubris” and imposed a significant financial burden on taxpayers.
What was the lawsuit about? The dispute arose from US President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 executive order imposing a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid to ensure “alignment” with his foreign policy objectives. The orderprompted aid organizations to sue, alleging that the freeze exceeded presidential authority and violated federal law.
What could this mean for other lawsuits? Eurasia analyst Noah Daponte-Smith says, “The SCOTUS ruling yesterday was more of a procedural than a substantive matter. That said, this is the second time that the court has allowed lower-court injunctions against Trump’s actions to go into effect, which may be an indication of how it will rule once substantive issues reach the court.”
“It is also notable that Barrett — a Trump appointee — sided with Roberts and the three liberal justices, suggesting that a 6-3 conservative majority is by no means unified on the questions of executive authority that the DOGE cases involve.”
Supreme Court rules against Trump on foreign aid, spelling potential problems for DOGE
On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court decided against the Trump administration, refusing to halt a judge’s order to resume billions in foreign aid payments.
In an unsigned 5-4 emergency ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals to uphold the decision by the Biden-appointed Judge Amir Ali to unfreeze nearly $2 billion in payments from the US Agency for International Development pledged under previous administrations.
“I am stunned,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent signed by the bench’s other three conservatives.
The majority did not explain the decision. Noting that the deadline for resuming payments passed last week, it sent the case back to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to “clarify” when the Trump administration needed to comply with the order.
Dog days ahead for DOGE? USAID isn’t the onlyagency facing steep cuts mandated by White House adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. The various funding slashes are facing mounting legal challenges that are winding their way through lower courts. With rulings stacking up against DOGE, conservative legal scholar John Yoo complained to Fox News last week that “activist judges” in lower courts “misunderstand their proper role,” and surmised that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the Trump administration.
In a post on X, Boston University law professor Robert L. Tsai said Wednesday’s ruling represented an “important though limited brushback of DOGE and the strategy to evade constitutional constraints – though judicial battle lines are starting to be drawn.”