Trump Claims that Democrats are the Enemy!

There is NO factual basis for saying that Democrats—or for that matter, any mainstream American political group—are “America’s enemy.” Trump’s claim is political rhetoric, not an evidence‑based assessment of national security threats. It reflects a pattern in which Donald Trump labels political opponents as internal enemies.

Democrats are a constitutionally recognized political party representing tens of millions of Americans. They participate in elections, hold office, and operate within the same constitutional framework as Republicans. Disagreement over policy is normal in a democracy. It does not make one side an “enemy.”

Trump has increasingly described political opponents as “the enemy from within,” even calling them more dangerous than foreign adversaries. This is a rhetorical strategy, not a factual assessment. It’s meant to mobilize supporters and delegitimize critics.

This kind of language serves several political functions. It creates an “us vs. them” narrative, and it frames politics as a battle between patriots and traitors rather than a difference of ideas. By calling investigators, journalists, or opponents “enemies,” Trump casts any scrutiny of his actions as sabotage. His allegations heighten polarization, encouraging supporters to see compromise as betrayal. This is not unique to Trump, but he uses the tactic much more aggressively and more frequently than most modern presidents.

Historically, labeling fellow Americans as “enemies” is a warning sign. Democracies weaken when political opponents are treated as existential threats rather than competitors within the same system. When a political leader labels a domestic opponent as an “enemy,” it’s rarely about literal national security. It’s about reframing politics as existential conflict rather than policy disagreement. Trump is mobilizing supporters by creating a sense of threat—stolen elections, criminal immigrants, nuclear threats, WOKE, and DEI. According to Trump, critics are bad actors, particularly the “fake” media. He implies that his actions are normal and those opposed are anti-American. Political scientists call this antagonistic populism—a style that divides the nation into “the people” and “the enemies of the people.”

This tactic isn’t new in American history. For example, McCarthyism labeled political opponents (Socialists/Communists) as internal threats. Nixon framed critics as part of a “silent war” against him. Trump’s version is more direct and more personal. The “enemy” is not an ideology or a faction—it’s the opposing party itself. And to him, Democrats do not represent the core values of Americans. Make America Great Again!

One thing that stands out in Trump’s post‑2025 communication style is how his political rhetoric has become part of his governing posture. In his first term, the boundary between campaign language and governing language was porous; now, it’s almost nonexistent. That’s why statements like “Democrats are the enemy” aren’t just rhetorical flourishes—they’re signals about how he intends to wield power. When he labels Democrats as enemies, it’s often paired with threats of executive action, or accusations of sabotage and claims that the opposition is illegitimate. That pairing is what turns rhetoric into a governing tool. It’s not just messaging—it’s groundwork for policy justification.

When a president frames one party as an “enemy,” institutions that try to act independently get pulled into the conflict. They’re either “with him,” or “with the enemy.” That binary framing is powerful because it pressures institutions to choose sides. Consider the Supreme Court immunity debates or the almost blind loyalty of Congressional Republicans.

The more he escalates the language, the more his supporters expect confrontation. And the more they expect confrontation, the more he escalates. This loop is part of why his rhetoric has grown sharper since returning to office.

When setbacks occur—legal, bureaucratic, or geopolitical—he can immediately attribute them to “the enemy,” which protects his image of dominance, reframes failures as sabotage, and keeps his narrative intact. For example, Trump tried to bully a New York Times reporter. Donald Trump attacked NYT chief Washington correspondent David Sanger when he reported that Trump was backing away from his own goals in Iran, using Trump’s own words to prove it. Trump lashed out, “NYT’s lightweight analyst, David Sanger, says that I haven’t met my own goals. Yes, I have, and weeks ahead of schedule!” The Times could have let it slide. But they saw the pattern. It builds, and builds… until journalists lose all credibility. And they decided to break it.

Charlie Stadtlander, ED of Communications responded. “David Sanger brings more than 40 years of experience as a foreign and Washington correspondent for The Times — and a reputation for non-partisanship — to his work. His piece is a fair and thorough analysis of what the US military and American diplomats have and have not accomplished so far, and helps the country understand the state of the war and the president’s choices going forward. It’s exactly the type of analysis an independent journalist is supposed to be doing.”

Trump had an opportunity to respond. He didn’t. THIS is how you do it. Bullies only win when people give in. The New York Times did not give in! American need to support every news organization that stands up to Trump’s attacks on journalists. Demand the truth.

Funding Homeland Security: What’s the Problem?

Democrats have made it clear that they wish to fund Homeland Security programs but not Customs Border Patrol (CBP) or Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE). Democrats have made multiple attempts—at least four distinct legislative pushes in early 2026—to fund most Homeland Security programs while excluding ICE and CBP, but every attempt was blocked by Republicans. These efforts centered on funding Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Coast Guard, and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components while holding back ICE/CBP funding until reforms were negotiated.

For example, House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) introduced a Funding Bill (February 11, 2026) which would have provided a full‑year of DHS funding covering every agency except ICE, CBP, and the Secretary’s office. The billExplicitly withheld all ICE/CBP funding until reforms were enacted. While it passed the House, the Senate voted 51- 46 against the measure. However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune voted “no” for procedural reasons, which allows him to bring the motion back up at a later date.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee (March 6, 2026), said “This isn’t complicated: if Republicans won’t agree to rein in ICE and Border Patrol, they should at minimum work with us to pay TSA agents and fund disaster relief. But they won’t. Right now, Republicans are holding TSA agents’ paychecks hostage because they want to provide more money to ICE, without basic reforms to protect Americans’ rights and safety. Democrats will keep fighting to get TSA workers paid and fund FEMA and the Coast Guard, and we’ll keep pushing to enact common-sense steps to prevent more Americans from being hurt, or even killed, by masked federal agents.” Murray sought to fund TSA, FEMA, CISA, Coast Guard, and other DHS agencies, but explicitly excluded ICE and CBP. The request was blocked by Sen. Katie Britt (R‑AL).

Senator Tim Kaine (D-Virgina) later made a public push for partial DHS funding (March 8, 2026) where democrats proposed passing funding for four DHS agencies (TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, CISA) while continuing reform negotiations for ICE and CBP. Republicans rejected these partial‑funding attempts.

Senator Patty Murray again pushed her modified bill funding TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA while excluding ICE and the Secretary’s office (March 2026). Again,Republicans blocked it.

Democrats argued that ICE and CBP already had sufficient funding from the previous summer. After incidents in various cities including Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, Minneapolis, Democrats believe that reforms are needed for judicial warrants, body cameras, bans on masks, limits on roving patrols, better training, etc., before additional funding is a given.

Why did Republicans block the efforts to fund all the other agencies in the Homeland Security Bill as offered by Democrats? The Republicans framed Democrat actions as attempts to “defund” immigration enforcement and refused to allow partial DHS funding. This is a political move aimed at making the Democrats the bad actors, keeping funding from TSA workers, and other needed service agencies. The actions of Representative DeLauro, Senators Murray and Kaine make this narrative false. Democrats believe in supporting all DHS initiatives except for CBP and ICE. Senate Majority Leader Thune knows this. That is why he cast his “no” for allowing him to bring the bill back for a future vote. It is time he did so! Republican Senators need to focus on the good of the people and less on political maneuvers!

Trump’s Presidency and Behavior:

As Compared to Jackson, Nixon, and Biden

Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson was one of those presidents who didn’t just tweak the traditions he inherited—he bulldozed several of them and replaced them with a new model of executive power. If Washington, Jefferson, and Madison built the early presidency, Jackson re‑engineered it into something far more assertive and personal. There are some similarities between Jackson and Trump. However, Jackson did not use the presidency for his own benefit.

Before Jackson, presidents generally saw themselves as stewards of the constitutional system, not as tribunes of the people. Jackson claimed he alone represented the entire nation, not Congress or the courts. Jackson used popular support as a political weapon, something earlier presidents avoided. And he treated the presidency as an independent power base rather than a modest executive office. This shift laid the groundwork for the modern, personality‑driven presidency.

Jackson asserted that the president’s interpretation of the Constitution was equal to Congress’s and the Court’s. This was a major break from the Founders’ vision of a restrained executive.

He introduced the “spoils system” on a national scale. Before Jackson, presidents generally kept existing civil servants unless there was a clear reason to remove them. Jackson replaced large numbers of federal officeholders with political loyalists. He treated government jobs as rewards for party service. This helped create the modern party machine.

Jackson openly defied the Supreme Court. Earlier presidents sometimes disagreed with the Court, but they did not openly undermine its authority. He famously refused to enforce Worcester v. Georgia, which protected Cherokee sovereignty. He asserted that each branch could interpret the Constitution independently. Using this argument, he used executive power to pursue Indian removal despite legal and moral objections. This was a dramatic break from the tradition of respecting judicial authority.

Jackson broke with tradition by expanding presidential power, using the veto as a political tool, rewarding loyalists with government jobs, challenging the Supreme Court, treating the presidency as a direct democratic mandate, and building a mass political party around himself.

Despite Jackson’s abuse of his presidential power, he is remembered as a great president. While his personality was based on personal confidence, he did not use the office for his personal betterment. While in hindsight his policies may be questionable, his goals were viewed by him and his followers as best for the nation.

Top of Form

Richard Nixon Bottom of Form

Richard Nixon and Donald Trump share controversial presidencies. Both are marked with scandal, impeachment, and divisive leadership. The similarities end there. Nixon was secretive and manipulative, using operatives. Trump is brash, outspoken, and confrontational. He uses social media to connect directly with his base and his critics. Trump likes to be in the news, whereas Nixon operated behind the scenes.

Nixon had to deal with the Watergate scandal where a criminal conspiracy, illegal surveillance, and obstruction of justice eventually came to light. This scandal ultimately led to impeachment proceedings and his 1974 resignation. Trump has been the subject of two impeachment proceedings and ongoing criminal indictments related to the January 6 riots in Washington, D.C. He is also a convicted felon regarding his business practices, and the loser in a sexual assault civil case. Trump’s legal challenges are broader than Nixon’s. Nixon’s problems were contained within his manipulation of government offices to cover up the president’s involvement in the Watergate burglary.

Nixon was able to achieve détente with the Soviet Union, opened relation with China and managed domestic unrest without military intervention. Trump has focused on “America First” using trade tariffs to gain deals with other nations. He has withdrawn from international agreements, alienating many traditional allies. Nixon’s approach to foreign affairs was strategic and secretive. Trump’s approach is direct and transactional.

Both Nixon and Trump experienced historically low approval ratings. Just before his resignation, Nixon’s approval rating fell to 36%. Trump’s approval ratings have recently dropped to under 40%.

While Nixon and Trump share scandals, impeachment proceedings, and polarization, they are very different in style, context, and legal resolution. Although Nixon resigned in disgrace, his presidency was marked by many foreign policy achievements. While Trump claims to have resolved numerous wars, and views himself as the “peace president” the state of America’s involvement in national conflicts makes his claims questionable. Like Jackson, Nixon may have been a flawed person, but his interests as president served America.

Joe Biden

Since the Republican leadership has questioned the ethics of the Biden administration, a comparison between the two presents stark differences. Did Joe Biden use his political clout for family benefit? This claim has been investigated several times and will be examined later in this article.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden are very different people and ran very different presidencies. Biden expanded the Affordable Care Act (ACA), increased subsidies, and proposed a public option to improve accessibility to healthcare. Donald Trump has sought to repeal and then replace the ACA. He has introduced the American Health Care Act, which reduces federal involvement and increases state control of health policies. He has proposed direct payment to Americans in lieu of supporting insurance programs.

Trump has pulled back from environmental activism by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. He has promoted fossil fuels such as coal, and one of his favorite sayings is, “Drill baby drill.” He has also decimated the Environmental Protection Agency. Biden, on the other hand, invested in renewable energy and implemented policies to reduce greenhouse gases.

Donald Trump has reduced the size and influence of the Department of Education. His policies favor school choice and local controls. Biden increased federal funding for public schools, expanded access to pre-school programs, and worked for student debt relief.

Donald Trump’s immigration policies have created significant backlash, as protesters focus on ICE enforcement tactics. Trump’s stricter border enforcement has by all measures been successful in reducing the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States. Biden tried to bring about progressive immigration reform but was blocked by the Republican controlled legislature.

There are so many issues where Trump and Biden were opposites on policy and on governance strategies. Biden emphasized unity, bipartisan cooperation, progressive social reform, multilateral foreign diplomacy, and post COVID economic recovery. Trump has focused on removing government from regulatory practices, tax cuts, and America First. Biden’s approach to economic recovery was just beginning as he ended his presidency. The data supports the contention that the nation was doing better in job creation and GDP under Biden than under Trump. Trump has done better in promoting wage growth, but the public has shown a lack of confidence in his ability to bring down the cost of living.

The claims that President Biden used his office to enrich his family started prior to 2019. Investigations into these claims have been ongoing. The House Oversight Committee has been investigating foreign business activities of Hunter Biden, James Biden and the involvement of Twitter in the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy theory. In August 2024, the House Committees released a report alleging impeachable conduct.

The story presented is that James and Hunter Biden owned Paradigm a major hedge fund. Hunter accepted a consulting job with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company. Joe Biden was Vice President at this time. At the same time, Hunter also co-founded BHR Partner, based in China. When Biden became the presidential candidate in 2019 the Trump re-election committee, lead by Rudy Giulini, alleged financial impropriety and influence peddling. A subsequent investigation by Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, could not substantiate Giulini’s claims.

Then in late 2020, the New York Post reported that a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden had emails that referred to President Joe Biden. There was much speculation and conspiracy mongering following the Post report. To date, nothing was found that would implicate President Biden in Hunter’s business affairs. To complicate matters, it was alleged by Alex Vindman that President Trump had tried to pressure Ukrainian President Zelenski into announcing that the Ukrainian government was investigating Hunter Biden. The Post story was investigated. Former Twitter employees testified contradicting the claim.

In June 2023, James Comer, head of the House Investigation Committee, released the committee findings on the Biden investigations. The report did NOT find any evidence of wrongdoing or money directed from Hunter Biden to Joe Biden. Furthermore, Comer said he could not name any specific official policy decision by Biden that may have been directly influenced by foreign payments. However, during this same period, the Justice Department accepted a plea deal where Hunter Biden pled guilty to federal tax offenses. Many Republicans viewed the reduced plea as a “sweetheart” deal, claiming presidential interference with the Garland Department of Justice. The final report of the committee found that the Justice Department had followed procedure.

Critics later focused on Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s partner and fellow Burisma board member, to show that Joe Biden was involved with Hunter’s Burisma business interests. During testimony, Archer acknowledged that Hunter had talked with his father over the phone a dozen times while in meetings with business associates. However, Archer said that Joe Biden “never once spoke about any business dealings.” He characterized the calls as casual niceties.

With all of the allegations, but no proof, the committee nevertheless held an impeachment hearing in September 2023. The committee claimed to have ‘uncovered a mountain of evidence,” but could not present any as the inquiry continued. In November, Speaker Mike Johnson indicated that there was insufficient evidence to initiate formal impeachment proceedings. Despite Johnson’s comments, in December, House Republicans unanimously approved a resolution to initiate formal impeachment proceedings. All Democrats voted against the resolution. On December 12, the key witness, Alexander Smirnov, admitted that he had fabricated the Burisma story about Joe and Hunter Biden (New York Times, Associated Press, CBS News).

Claims of financial gain by the President regarding Hunter Biden’s Chinese business contacts have also been investigated and found unsubstantiated. There appears to be no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden. Whether investigations into President Trump’s alleged illegal activities surrounding the January 6 riots or his retaining top secret documents would have resulted in convictions is unknown. As recently as this week Judge Alien Cannon (a Trump appointee, whose decisions have been overturned by the Florida federal appeals court) has sealed the Jack Smith top secret documents investigation records.

Trump’s Promises Continued:

Social Services

Ban urban camping and arrest violators

President Trump did not need to do much on this promise since the U.S. Supreme Court’sCity of Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling of June 2024 allowed localities to ban outdoor camping even if there is no homeless shelter space available. Roughly 150 cities in 32 states have passed or strengthened such ordinances. Another 40 local bans on outdoor camping are pending, according to data by the National Homelessness Law Center. The measures vary in detail, but they typically include prohibitions on camping, sleeping, or storing property on public land. Many also include buffer zones near schools, parks or businesses.

Bans often allow for steep fines and jail time. In Indio, California, for example, people caught camping illegally could face a penalty of up to $1,000 and up to six months in jail. The ordinance in Fresno, California, bans sitting, lying, sleeping, or camping on public property anytime, anywhere, with a penalty of up to a year in jail. Elmira, New York, includes sleeping in vehicles in its camping ban.

Create “tent cities” where the homeless can be moved

President Trump campaigned on a promise to create large, federally supported “tent cities” for people experiencing homelessness on inexpensive land, staffed with doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, and drug rehabilitation experts. Instead, Trump has made significant shifts in federal homelessness policy, but his administration has so far not moved on a “tent city” program with accompanying services. The administration’s most consequential actions on homelessness to date involve proposed changes to homelessness funding, an executive order emphasizing enforcement, and efforts to restructure or eliminate federal homelessness coordination agencies.

End veteran homelessness

A Veterans Affairs Department census in January 2023 found more than 35,000 veterans experiencing homelessness, up 7.4% compared to 2022, but down by more than half since 2010. “The American veteran is one of our greats,” Trump declared. “These are great, great people. We have to take care of them.”

President Trump sketched out a highly ambitious agenda to end veteran homelessness in America. His plan solidified in May 2025 via an executive order in which Trump pledged to swiftly build a sprawling housing and social serves complex at the West Los Angles VA complex, a 388-acre campus originally deeded to house veterans that has since been scarred by systematic neglect, slow redevelopment, and a long trail of broken promises.

Trump’s bold rhetoric does not match his policy actions and legislative reversals. These include cuts by the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that caused many veterans to lose their jobs, and the One Big Beautiful Act’s work requirements for people (including veterans) participating in programs such as Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which can complicate their efforts to stay housed.

A clear example of the administration’s policy reversal involves the fittingly titled End Veteran Homelessness Act, which was first introduced in June 2024, during the Biden presidency. The legislation proposed to dispense with eligibility hurdles in the HUD-VASH program, an interagency rental assistance initiative that would provide housing vouchers to homeless veterans.

Various housing-related VA contracts have been axed as part of Elon Musk’s so-called DOGE initiatives. Among other things, VA cancelled a contract used to ensure housing for formerly homeless veterans meet all relevant safety standards, including lead-based paint.

Conclusions

President Trump made some great promises to improve the situation of the homeless, in particular homeless veterans. The ban on urban camping was already being considered when he took office. The plan to create “tent cities” was replaced with a better plan. However, the new plan requires changes to HUD programs. These changes seem to conflict with his veteran housing initiatives. The HUD-VASH program was cut during the DOGE phase in controlling government spending.

How has the Trump Trust and Family Benefited from the Presidency?

There have been multiple investigations and reports that estimate the Trump family earned billions of dollars during Trump’s first presidency and during the first year of his second presidency. That is far beyond what previous presidents or their families have ever accrued while in office. The New Yorker analysis reported that the family made approximately $3.4 billion across Trump’s tenure. This includes billions of dollars from cryptocurrency ventures, $339.6 million from financial ventures, $270.8 million from hospitality, $116 million from media, and $277.7 million from other sources such as private jet rentals, legal fees, and merchandise. These figures reflect a dramatic expansion of the Trump brand’s monetization during his time in office.

Reports from the Associated Press describe Trump’s second term as marked by unprecedented use of presidential power to generate profits for family enterprises. For example, cryptocurrency ventures tied to Trump or his family pulled in hundreds of millions. Foreign governments, billionaires, and crypto tycoons with interests being considered by the U.S. government, funneled money into Trump‑linked businesses. Trump’s children pursued global development deals, including projects in the Middle East and Albania. And Melania Trump secured a $40 million documentary deal with Amazon. Experts quoted in the reporting describe this as a level of self‑enrichment “totally not normal” for a U.S. president.

A detailed breakdown from The Hill shows how Trump’s children (even grandchildren) capitalized on the presidency. Kia Trump (Don Jr’s daughter) launched a high‑priced fashion line using the Trump brand. Barron Trump earned $150 million through the family’s crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, and is positioned for future corporate influence (e.g., a potential TikTok board seat). Eric Trump became a major crypto figure, co‑founding World Liberty Financial and helping generate over $1 billion in crypto‑related revenue for the family. Forbes estimated Trump’s personal net worth of over $7.1 billion, grew from $2.3 billion (2024). This reflects a presidency intertwined with private business in ways not seen in modern U.S. history.

Although Trump placed his assets into a trust during his first term, the trust was revocable (meaning Trump could withdraw funds at any time). The trust is managed by his sons, who were simultaneously expanding Trump organization ventures. The trust is nota blind trust, whichallows Trump to remain aware of and benefit from business activities. The trust structure did not prevent Trump or his family from profiting from presidential influence.

The scale and openness of the Trump family’s financial gains during the presidency represent an historic departure from traditional presidential ethics norms. The practice blurs the lines between public office and private enrichment. The practices establish a model of governance where policy, branding, and business interests are deeply intertwined. Whether one views this as savvy entrepreneurship or a profound conflict of interest depends on political perspective, but the financial outcomes are well‑documented.

The most dramatic shift in Trump‑family enrichment came from the crypto system, which expanded rapidly during Trump’s second term. Trump publicly championed crypto, earning the nickname “Crypto President.” Trump urged Congress to pass the GENIUS Act, which eases U.S. restrictions on stablecoin (crypto) operations. After advocating for the bill, the Trump family’s crypto company began issuing its own stablecoin, becoming one of the largest issuers globally. This created a direct conflict: presidential advocacy, then regulatory change, followed by private profit.

Stablecoins are extremely profitable because issuers invest in customer deposits and keep the yield. This meant the Trump family captured the interest generated on billions in deposits. Trump’s second term saw the resumption of foreign licensing deals, including in geopolitically sensitive regions such as Qatar and Vietnam. These deals involved sovereign wealth funds and state-linked developers, raising renewed emoluments concerns.

Trump properties — hotels, golf clubs, resorts — became centers of political activity, generating revenue from political committees, lobbyists, foreign delegations, administration officials, and Republican donors. The presidency turned Trump hotels into pay-to-be-seen venues, where spending money at a Trump property became a way to signal loyalty or seek influence. This was a continuation of first-term patterns but on a larger scale.

The Trump brand became a commercial engine, with revenue from merchandise, media ventures, paid appearances, licensing deals, private jet rentals, and digital products (NFTs, tokens, etc.). The presidency amplified the Trump brand’s reach, enabling the family to monetize political identity at unprecedented scale. Various media sources including the New Yorker, CNN, and Public Citizen have described this as the “merchandise machine” in varying printed words.

The most striking theme is the collapse of boundaries between public offices and private business. The presidency itself became a marketing tool with executive actions, public statements, legislative advocacy, and regulatory positions. All serve to increase the value of Trump-owned assets, especially in crypto and media. This is described as the “conspicuous integration of federal power, personal branding, and private profit.”

Across all sources, the pattern is consistent. Presidential power amplified the Trump brand, and the Trump brand generated unprecedented private profit. The mechanisms were not subtle: they were structural, intentional, and integrated into governance itself. In summary, the Trump presidency has gone far beyond institution norms and ethical guardrails.

Trump’s Promises Continued:

Foreign Policy and the Military

Another area where President Trump promised big changes was in foreign policy and our military. His goal was to make the world safe from foreign powers who are seeking to exploit our nation. He has said, “We need to protect our national interests around the globe.”

End the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours

Trump has been less supportive than the Biden-Harris administration in backing Ukraine against Russia (which launched an invasion in 2022). Trump did not detail his plan, but even Russian officials expressed skepticism that this could be achieved. As of this writing, a year has passed and the war continues. There have been moments where the Trump administration has suggested that a peace agreement or temporary truce was in the offing. So far, neither has occurred. The latest initiative has come from the Russians, proposing that Zelinski travel to Moscow for peace talks. Trilateral peace talks continue as this article is posted. Meanwhile, drone attacks continue and on the ground fighting in the east has not lessened.

Target Chinese ownership of U.S. vital infrastructures

As reported by AP in December 2025, the Trump administration may have softened its language on China in order to maintain a fragile truce in their trade war. However, Congress has moved ahead with more restrictions in a defense authorization bill that would deny Beijing investments in highly sensitive sectors and reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese biotechnology companies. The December 2025 bill, as amended by the Senate, also prohibited government money from being used for equipment and services from blacklisted Chinese biotechnology companies. The compromise bill authorizing $900 billion for military programs was released two days after the White House unveiled its national security strategy.

The Trump administration dropped Biden-era language that cast China as a strategic threat. An administration spokesperson said the U.S. “will rebalance America’s economic relationship with China.” This is an indication that President Trump is more interested in a mutually advantageous economic relationship with Beijing than in long-term competition. For example, Trump has allowed Nvidia (a computer chip manufacturer) to sell an advanced type of computer chip to China Those more hawkish Congressman are concerned that this will help Beijing boost the country’s artificial intelligence. “Whatever the White House says about limiting Chinese investments in our infrastructure, Capitol Hill is locking in a hard-edged, long-term competition with Beijing,” said Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based think tank.

Hold China financially responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic

While there was a great deal of talk about holding China responsible for the COVID pandemic, there has been little action on this 2025 promise. Repeated investigations have failed to show any Chinese culpability.

Partner with businesses and universities to help them protect against Chinese surveillance and cyber-attacks

Instead, President Trump has done the opposite of partnering with universities. He has attacked many Ivy League and top universities for DEI initiatives, threatening to withhold federal dollars or even legal actions. His work with businesses is presented in the earlier discussion on China ownership.

Construct an Iron Dome-like missile defense system for the U.S.

The U.S. has been a leader in creating anti-missile technology. The 2011 Iron Dome has protected Israel from airborne attacks on numerous occasions. But experts say the threats to Israel are different than those facing the United States, making the Iron Dome a less obvious solution for the U.S. The president vowed to build a Golden Dome missile defense shield for the country in three years. It’s nowhere close to being done. One year and billions of appropriated dollars later, his “Golden Dome” dream is no closer to reality. The Pentagon hasn’t started rolling out the vast network of sensors and interceptors due to the project’s complexity. According to two industry insiders and two former defense officials, the White House has yet to release the billions Congress appropriated to build the architecture. And that means the defense industry hasn’t been able to start working in earnest.

Provide record-breaking military funding

Although Trump has touted that he did not launch a war during his first term, this promise expresses support for generous military funding. President Trump declared that he would ask Congress for a $1.5 trillion defense budget in 2027, a massive $500 billion increase from this year’s Pentagon budget.

The huge boost reflects how expensive some of Trump’s military ambitions are, from the Golden Dome air defense effort to his call for a new battleship design. Neither of those programs could be fully funded under current spending levels. While finding a half trillion dollars in new spending would prove difficult, Trump and some congressional Republicans appeared confident they could do so. The budget reached $1 trillion this year, thanks to $150 billion in new money Congress voted to pour into Pentagon coffers, via a reconciliation bill.

Withdraw from the World Health Organization

Trump criticized the WHO for its perceived closeness to China, which he said compromised its advice on the coronavirus and its investigations of the pandemic. In January 2026, the United States completed the legal withdrawal process, thus ending its membership, governance participation, and funding contributions. Experts are raising concerns about the short- and long-term implications for public health in the U.S. and abroad. “The WHO continues to serve as a very critical traffic control and public health response organization for the world,” says Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “We in the U.S. don’t experience many of the infectious diseases we see around the world, in large part because they are stopped in these countries, oftentimes through the support and coordination of the WHO. Funding the WHO is about investing in our own health here in this country.” (Time)

Summary/Conclusion

President Trump did increase military spending in his One Big Beautiful Bill and has asked for double that budgeted amount for 2027. His support for renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War has many Americans concerned. His “arrest” of President Maduro of Venezuela has increased tensions in the Caribbean. Cuba and Columbia are in his sights. He has made remarks about sending troops into Mexico and making Canada the 51^st state. His rhetoric regarding acquiring Greenland has fractured our relationship with Denmark and other NATO nations.

He has successfully withdrawn America from WHO, but at what cost to world health? His ability to deliver on his other promises is questionable. The Golden Dome project is not on schedule. He has not been able to hold China accountable for the COVID pandemic. He could not end the Ukraine Russian war in 24 hours. His policy toward Chinese investments in America is “rebalancing.” He has failed to fulfill 5 out of 7 promises. Not only has he failed to deliver on 5 of his promises, he has not protected our global interests. Instead, America has fewer friends!

Save America

One person’s opinion

Updated from an earlier post

There are many Americans across the political spectrum who believe that America has reached a crossroad. The recent events in Minneapolis have resulted in two deaths. The Trump administration is blaming Democrats. The mass of protesting people blame the harsh tactics of the Trump administration in enforcing immigration laws. Liberals and conservatives cannot agree on policy direction. Should we focus on humanitarian issues such as right to free speech, freedom of assembly, and other Constitutional rights, or should we focus on making America great by removing immigrants who, some believe, threaten the American way of life. Should we work on building our economic strength and hope for the trickle-down effect that Reaganomics promised? Unfortunately, too many Americans fall into this dichotomy, failing to recognize all the options that exists between these two extremes. The most unfortunate result of the focus on this dichotomy is that the real issues that Americans face are not debated.

In 2025, with the success of the MAGA movement in gaining political control, the promises of greater opportunity, prosperity, and a return to “true” American values appeared to be on the horizon for those who believed in the MAGA movement. Yet, after only one year in office for President Trump, the prospect of a better America that he promised seems elusive. Many middle- and lower-class Americans have experienced the cost of food and everyday living soaring. The Trump administration appears to be at odds with itself. The Secretary of Homeland Security and Steven Miller are at odds over the Minneapolis shootings. Top Pentagon officials have resigned over the way that the Secretary of Defense has handled a variety of issues, including the “arrest” in Venezuela. The courts are being attacked for their stand on issues that many Americans see as Constitutional guarantees. The Senate, which was established to represent the states, seems to turn a blind eye to the increasing interference of the federal government with states’ rights. Minnesota is currently in the firing line. California and Illinois also had to deal with the attack on states’ rights. It also appears that the federal government is attempting to impose the administration’s values on all Americans. Attacks on private schools, using monetary blackmail, is not in America’s interest. Cutting federal services with a “chainsaw” has not brought about savings. Rather, various agencies seem to be falling into an ineffective quagmire due to lack of staff. Even the polls have turned against President Trump’s handling of almost all issues except for border control. Today’s polling shows a 56% disapproval rating for the President.

If it were up to me, how would I go about fixing our now very dysfunctional government? I would advocate for Impeachment of President Trump. While not likely to happen given the lack of courage by Republicans in our House of Representatives, I believe an organization’s success or failure starts with the person at the top of the chain of command. In the case of President Trump, I believe he has failed to show good leadership. His picks for cabinet members showed little thought for professional competence, instead focusing on personal loyalty. His attack on the economy has been a disaster. His establishment of DOGE was a total waste of effort, which has caused serious damage to a functional government (which arguably does need serious reform).

But since Impeachment is unlikely, and other Constitutional remedies are also out of the picture, I would suggest that the Senate start to focus on doing its job. It was created as the voice of the states, just as the House was created to be the voice of the American people. The Senate has, in my opinion, lost sight of this responsibility! Too often state governors are left with the responsibility of maintaining the states’ rights. Perhaps it is time to undo the 1913 legislation (17^th Amendment) that moved the selection of state senators from the hands of the state legislature to a popular vote, in essence creating another tier of legislators who are now concerned about popular votes rather than the welfare of the states they represent. In the original design, state legislatures picked their senators.

The people’s chamber is also failing. Members of the House seem to be more focused on their parties rather than on the concerns of their voters. There was a time when representatives were picked by their neighbors and served the community. Many gave up lucrative jobs to serve. Today many representatives view the position as a job, not a service to their voters. As such, they are often focused on getting reelected to a position that guarantees a good pension after five years. Campaigning has become a full-time business. I would suggest that representatives serve at least three years. Salaries should be commensurate with other local business leaders. (The Current salary is $147,000.) The guarantees of a retirement salary after five years of service should be stripped away. Perhaps then representatives would serve their constituents, not monied interests and their political party.

While I have criticized our President and Congress, perhaps the greatest failure has been the apathy of most Americans. Until the ICE occupations, most Americans have not participated in governing the country that was created as a nation of “We the People.” When only 2/3 of eligible voters bother to vote in presidential elections, there is a problem. Worse yet, only 20 – 30% of eligible voters turn out for state and local elections. To aggravate this problem, most Americans are not casting an “informed” ballot. Of those that vote, many cast party ballots without careful consideration of the candidates. It takes effort to know what the issues are and where candidates stand. Complicating the issue is the problem of knowing which information is accurate! I believe American education needs to instill a sense of government responsibility in our youth. In addition, we all need to learn how to recognize “fake news” in contrast to what is factual. We need to understand what is opinion and what is news.

While it would take years before the effects are realized, we might save this democracy if enough Americans hurt by the policies of the current administration get involved. Americans need to take the time to learn about current government policies, the Constitution, and our history. This great nation deserves more effort than most have given it. All Americans need to get involved by calling, emailing or writing their senators and representatives. The power of the vote might get some Republicans to reconsider their support of President Trump. Americans need to recover the government of “We the People!”

How Well Are ICE Officers Screened and Trained?

Training

ICE officers receive training that prepares them for various roles within the agency. There are differences in training length and focus depending on specific duties. Customs Border Patrol (CBP) officers receive more training than the Enforcement Removal Operations officers (ERO). Both receive less than Homeland Security Investigators (HIS). Officers receive a mix of classroom instruction, practical skills training, and ongoing field education, with training durations varying significantly between different roles within the agency.

Prior to January 2025, most ICE recruits attended training at a Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The enforcement and Removal operations officers (ERO) had a training program just short of 8 weeks, which focused on operational tasks and safety in high-contact situations. Most of the training focused on locating, arresting, and removing illegal immigrants who have violated the law. Customs Border Patrol (CBP) candidates had a 90-day (12 week) academy experience. Specifically, these officers received training in firearms, driving skills, defensive tactics, and use of force. The training also included de-escalation techniques. There was heavy emphasis on immigration law, the Constitution, and criminal investigations. Officers were required to take a basic Spanish course or test out of the offering.

Unfortunately, the training for the new recruits has been substantially reduced to 47 hours due to the hiring surge needed to carry out Trump’s immigration enforcement policies. This reduction of hours for ERO officers from 320 to 47 creates an important question regarding officer readiness and public safety, especially in high stakes situations. The Spanish course was dropped from the curriculum.

Screening

Prior to 2025, background checks and psychological screening were consistent with hiring practices in most municipal departments. The process generally included a combination of clinical interviews and standardized psychological tests.

Of concern is the impact of the hiring surge on the level of background and psychological screening. Top of Form

According to multiple sources, ICErecruits are showing up for training with disqualifying criminal backgrounds. New hires are reportedly failing background checks, drug tests, and open-book tests (Alex Woodward, New York Times). Often times, new recruits are reportedly failing physical fitness requirements. Some new recruits are entering training programs before the agency performs background checks or finishes a screening process. ICE officials have discovered that some recruits failed drug testing or had disqualifying criminal backgrounds while they were already enrolled in training. At least one recruit at the agency’s training academy in Brunswick, Georgia, had been previously charged with strong-arm robbery and battery stemming from a domestic violence incident, according to a Homeland Security official. Some recruits had not submitted fingerprints or gone through any background checks at all before entering the six-week training course (NBC News).

“The loosening of hiring standards and training requirements is unacceptable and will likely result in increased officer misconduct — similar to or worse than what occurred during a small surge in hiring U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in the early 2000s,” Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He continued, “Exacerbating our concerns, DHS has gutted offices responsible for overseeing ICE officers and ensuring accountability for use-of-force incidents. Given these developments, greater congressional oversight of ICE’s hiring is essential.”

To boost recruitment, Homeland Security offers a “maximum $50,000 signing bonus” and student loan forgiveness. DHS also dropped age limit requirements, allowing people as young as 18 years old to apply and opening ICE to recruits older than 40 years old (The Atlantic). Homeland Security deputy secretary Tricia McLaughlin has said that many new recruits are former law enforcement officers who go through a different hiring process. McLaughlin said the figures in above cited NBC’s report “reflect a subset of candidates in initial basic academy classes.”

How does the training of ICE officers compare to that provided by most police departments in America?

For all municipal police departments, the average duration of training for municipal officers ranges from 4 to 5 months, with an average of 672 hours. State Police Officer Standards and Training Boards (POST) require anywhere from 12 to 24 weeks. After graduation from the POST academy, most officer complete months of supervised training by a field training officer.

Most POST academies include the following in their core curriculum:

Constitutional & criminal law
Arrest/search/seizure procedures
Firearms training
Defensive tactics
Emergency vehicle operations
Report writing & courtroom testimony
Community policing principles
Use of technology (body cameras, digital evidence, databases)

The curriculum is updated regularly to include new laws, changes in technology, and changing police strategies. The academies also stress training in the use of force, and de-escalation techniques.

ICE Training Compared to Municipal Departments

Prior to January 2025, the training received by ICE ERO officers was closer to that received by municipal police recruits. However, 320 hours of training, which included instruction on Spanish, was still far below the municipal average of 672 hours. CBP training was 480 hours at the low end of the municipal training spectrum. Given the new 47-hour standard for ERO officers, is it any wonder that ICE officers are not performing well?

How the U.S. Compares Internationally

While the training of ICE ERO officers is far below the US municipal average, consider the fact that American police receive far less training than many countries where police training lasts 2–3 years (e.g., Finland, Norway, Germany). In 1994, an effort by the federal government attempted to increase the training to 2 years by incorporating traditional academy experiences with more classroom study. However, due to concerns over federal involvement in local police training, the program ended in 2009. The shorter training period for American police is often cited in debates about police professionalism, use‑of‑force outcomes, and public trust.

Conclusions

ICE ERO officers and CBP officers are NOT trained to deal with police situations or the public when they receive only 47 hours of training. Even the pre 2025 curriculum for CBP officers (480 hours) does not begin to properly prepare these officers for the job. The training of the ERO officers is not much more than a citizen in Illinois who gets a firearms permit. In Illinois, individuals must complete a 16-hour course from an Illinois State Police approved instructor. The course covers firearm safety, marksmanship, and Illinois firearms laws.

The ERO officers are not qualified to enforce customs laws and certainly not prepared to handle police situations. The training needs to be improved. Hiring practices need to be restored to pre-2025 levels. The current threat to defund ICE operations should be taken as a wakeup call. The entire organization needs to be reformed. Officers need more training than they currently receive.

A Hard Look at ICE

Over the past year I have written about immigration, ICE, and other politically charged issues. I have attempted to keep my opinions to a minimum by looking for the facts. My life has been shaped by the idea that the truth is only discoverable when you ask questions and look for accurate information. That’s difficult today where there are so many instant sources, many with less than Walter Cronkite honesty!

The shooting of Alex Pretti by ICE agents yesterday clearly points out the hypocrisy of the Trump administration. Watch the videos and look at the stills. The story fabricated by Noem, Bondi, and Bovino can’t begin to defend the actions of these ICE officers. It is clear that Pretti was observing and recording the actions of ICE agents. He had his cell phone in his hand. It is clear that an ICE agent pushed a woman into a snow pile. It is clear that Pretti was attempting to help her up. It is also clear that as he helped this woman, an ICE agent dispensed spray at Pretti, followed by additional officers taking him to the ground. Pretti was doing nothing wrong! He was shot because an overly excited and poorly trained officer likely informed his peers that there was a gun. There was a gun. However, the gun was not visible in his hand as claimed by ICE, but in his holster.

The shooting of Alex Pretti is the fifth deadly shooting by ICE since January. The killing of Renee Nicole Good was not the first time that federal officers have killed civilians. Federal officers have fatally shot at least three other people in the last five months. In September, Silverio Villegas González, a father originally from Mexico who worked as a cook, was killed while reportedly trying to flee from officers in a Chicago suburb (WBEZ). In December, a border patrol agent killed a 31-year-old Mexican citizen while trying to detain him in Rio Grande City, Texas. And on New Year’s Eve, an off-duty ICE agent used his service weapon to shoot a man in Los Angeles, California. Authorities mistakenly said the man had raised a rifle at the officer (CBS News). Agents have also shot other people. The Trace, the nonprofit news organization covering gun violence, has counted more than a dozen such shootings. In some cases, the victims survived, including a woman who suffered multiple bullet wounds in an incident in Chicago in October (Marshall Project).

My examination of media reports points in the direction of an ICE operation that exceeded general mandates. In a prior post, I noted that the training that ICE officers receive does not prepare them for police work. Several mistakes were made by ICE officers during this Minneapolis confrontation. While at least some of the officers involved had received more than the 47 hours of training now mandated, the training was in enforcement of ICE mandates, arrests and warrants– not police tactics. The most significant example of not having proper training is a simple axiom taught in most police academies: TIME + DISTANCE = OPTIONS. Other mistakes, such as the approach of ICE officers, violate another key point in police training. DE-ESCALATE THE TENSION in any given situation. This recent ICE citizen interaction shows ICE escalating the situation, not de-escalating!

To be clear, the entire ICE operation is based on fabricated stories about immigrants. Immigrants are invading America. “There are many rapists, killers, and gang members among our immigrants.” The Trump administration is increasing deportation of these “dangerous” criminals. The reality of this portion of President Trump’s immigration plan is like many of his proposed operations. It is a show that is harming American citizens and illegal immigrants. Being an illegal immigrant is not a felony. It is a misdemeanor punishable with no more than a six-month jail term for the first offense. Citizens who support the immigrant community have the right to free speech and demonstration. They have a right to life!

While being an illegal immigrant is a misdemeanor crime, President Trump has said that ICE would focus on “the worst of the worst,” those with felony convictions. Federal officials and DHS communications assert that a large majority of arrests target people with criminal convictions or pending charges (officially cited by DHS as about 70%), However, independent analyses of ICE and detention data finds that roughly three quarters of people held in ICE detention in late 2025 had no criminal convictions, and that only a small share—about 5%—had violent convictions (CATO Institute).

Indeed, relative to native-born citizens and legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants have the lowest felony arrest rates across all crime types. In fact, the gaps between native-born citizens and undocumented immigrants are substantial. US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes (National Institute of Health study). Trump used a false narrative to instill fear in his MAGA base.

Immigration reform has been a topic of debate for decades. During the end of the Biden administration, a bipartisan immigration reform bill was finally on its way through Congress. The bill, a $118 billion package, was introduced by Senators James Lankford, Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Arizona. It included $20.23 billion to strengthen border security and stop the flow of fentanyl and other narcotics through the border into the United States. The package gave the secretary of Homeland Security the power to close the border if more than 4,000 encounters with migrants occurred during a period of seven consecutive days. The immigration overhaul also included: raising the bar for migrants claiming asylum; clarification of the White House’s use of parole authority to grant temporary protections to migrants; and no longer allowing migrants to live in the U.S. while waiting for their case to be heard by an immigration judge. It didn’t get passed because candidate Trump wanted the immigration issue to remain as a campaign issue (Associated Press, February 2024).

It is also worth noting that under President Obama deportation figures were the highest of any president. During his tenure, 2.7 to 3 million people were deported. The daily average ranged from a high of 1,000 to a low of 800. All of this was accomplished without a surge in ICE arrests. In contrast, to date, Trump’s ICE is averaging 810 arrests per day with pending deportation. Most of these individuals are being held in detention centers on a misdemeanor charge.

Why do we need an ICE force that is now 22,000 strong and growing? This number is double that of the 10,000 officers in the organization under past administrations. Just 10 years ago, the annual budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, was less than $6 billion. But ICE’s budget has skyrocketed during President Trump’s second term, becoming the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency, at $85 billion. And why does the operating budget include bonuses for arrests? Do we really want this type of federal immigration enforcement? Do we support ICE officers who receive only 47 hours of training?

Minneapolis and prior ICE operations in Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, and a few other cities are a harbinger of possible things to come. There was no crisis that required the surge in ICE operations! This was perhaps only a political ploy. While most MAGAs likely support this move, the majority of Americans are appalled. A recent FOX News report found that only 35% of those polled support ICE actions in Minneapolis. When thousands of demonstrators take to the streets to protect the immigrants in their communities, that should tell us that there is something wrong with the administration’s policies. Americans must make their voices heard when the protection that the Trump administration says it is providing becomes a greater threat than the fabricated problem!

We deserve to know why so many ICE officers are being hired. We should demand that all federal officers receive at least a minimum of 400 hours of training, the minimum required by our states for police officers, not 47 hours as currently for ICE officers. Also, consider the fact that ICE officers are not subject to the stringent pre-employment screening which most police department applicants face. ICE officers not only lack training in police tactics, such as de-escalation, but some may even have tendencies toward violence. Contact your legislators (specifically Republicans) and tell them not to support the funding of ICE operations until Americans get answers to questions regarding Trump’s false narrative on immigration.

President Donald Trump’s Record of Achievements in 2025

There is a list of more than 100 promises President Trump made for his second term. His MAGA supporters (approximately 36% of those polled) must be happy. Many of his promises have been kept, but at what cost? The following narrative will be broken into ten separate articles. There is too much to say in just one article.

Immigration

Trump’s promise– Carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. He had failed to achieve this goal during his 2016 to 2020 presidency due to established guardrails and costs associated with such a massive undertaking. In January 2025, he said he would begin by deporting criminals and use local law enforcement and the National Guard to help. He indicated that they would build mass deportation camps and did not rule out the use of the military. As of January 2026, he has in fact initiated what will be the largest deportation operation in American history. The guardrails have been diminished by Supreme Court decisions, while Congress appropriated $29.85 billion to hire 10,000 additional ICE officers. This is just a portion of the $170 billion appropriated for enhancing immigration deportation efforts. President Trump is keeping his promise to MAGA.

However, what is the impact of this program on Americans? While the administration focuses on numbers, it is a fact that more illegal immigrants were deported in a single year by President Obama than were deported in 2025. But under President Obama, there were no deportation camps, there was no surge in ICE agents, there was no call-up of the national guard, and citizens were not illegally detained or searched. There were no headlines regarding citizen pushbacks or ICE killings of protesters.

The reality of this portion of President Trump’s immigration plan is like many of his proposed operations It is a show that is harming American citizens and illegal immigrants. Being an illegal immigrant is not a felony. In the United States, illegal immigration is a federal offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. But the maximum punishment, six months’ prison term for the first offense, is a misdemeanor. And United States citizens who support the immigrant community have the right to free speech and demonstration. (But they do not have a right to obstruct an arrest.)

While being an illegal immigrant is a misdemeanor crime, President Trump has said that ICE would focus on “the worst of the worst,” those with felony convictions. Federal officials and DHS communications assert that a large majority of arrests target people with criminal convictions or pending charges (officially cited as about 70%), while independent analyses of ICE and detention data find that roughly three quarters of people held in ICE detention in late 2025 had no criminal convictions and that only a small share—about 5%—had violent convictions (CATO Institute).

Build a border wall

During his first presidency, Trump built approximately 450 miles of border barriers along the southern U.S. border, many of which replaced old, dilapidated barriers. He redoubled his promise to build the wall in 2025. But large portions of the U.S. southern border are on privately owned or federally protected land, where barriers can’t be placed unless the federal government buys the land or seizes it through eminent domain. During this past year, over 80 more miles of border wall (and water barriers) have been completed. And additional wall construction is supported by a Congressional appropriation of $46.5 billion. To date there are now 776 miles of border protection on the 1,954-mile border.

No single dataset proves that the wall alone caused net reductions; the truth rests in a tangle of sector-specific outcomes, enforcement changes, and external factors. The money spent building a border could be used for so many other programs to support American citizens.

End birthright citizenship

During his first presidency, President Trump failed to fulfill his promise to end the people’s right to become U.S citizens if they’re born in the U.S.. This is regardless of their parents’ immigration status. He promised to do this during his second term, issuing executive orders to that effect. However, legal experts note that such a change would require a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether President Trump’s plan to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil is unconstitutional. The justices recently announced that they will take up the issue, with arguments likely in April of 2026, and a decision is expected by the end of June.

Restore and expand the travel ban

During his first presidency, President Trump signed executive orders to ban citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days. He faced numerous legal challenges requiring rewrites of the orders. The travel ban’s third and final version restricted U.S. entry to people from these seven countries, plus Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela. In June 2018, the Supreme Court upheld this travel ban.

During his second term, President Trump issued an executive order ending visa processing for 75 nations. The order took effect on January 21, 2026. There are currently 175 countries in the world. Thus, this order blocks entry to the U.S. for 43% of the world’s countries.

Suspend refugee resettlement

President Trump has suspended refugee resettlement. As defined by U.S. law, refugees, are people outside of the U.S. who fled their home countries because of persecution related to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. They have received refugee protections from the U.S. before they enter the country. Asylum seekers must also meet the refugee definition, but they must be physically in the U.S. to seek protections.

In addition, Trump made a promise to Cap Refugee Admissions. The cap for 2026 is 7,500, the lowest since the implementation of the program in 1980. The groups selected are more prioritized, with a focus on white South Africans.

Terminate the Customs and Border Protection’s “CBP One” app

Even though his administration launched the tool in 2020, Trump ended a mobile phone application that migrants use to access Customs and Border Protection services. His reason was that the Biden administration had expanded its use, allowing immigrants to make appointments at official ports of entry to begin the asylum-seeking process. It is easy to speculate that he ended the program to curb migrant applications for asylum.

Revoke the student visas of radical anti-American and antisemitic foreigners at colleges and universities.

Federal officials were already checking applicants’ backgrounds, including the monitoring of social media. Trump hasn’t said what the additional ideological screening entails, its purpose, or method. Expanded backgrounding has introduced privacy concerns and discouraged visa applications.

Give college graduates, including those from junior colleges, a green card to be able to stay legally in the U.S.

Changes in eligibility for permanent resident status, also known as receiving a green card, requires congressional action. Congress had not passed reforms to the immigration system in decades.

In 2025, Congress passed new stricter green card rules. These stricter rules do not make it easier for college graduates to stay legally in the United States as promised by President Trump. The new rules are as follows:

These changes are designed to strengthen immigration enforcement and ensure that green card holders meet their legal obligations. Trump’s promise to give college graduates (including those from junior colleges) a green card to be able to stay legally in the U.S. has not been fulfilled. In reality, it has become more difficult to obtain a green card!

Terminate work permits for immigrants in the U.S. illegally

During his first term, President Trump tried to end a program that protects certain people (people who crossed the border illegally as children) from deportation and gives them work permits. The Supreme Court ruled against him, but its legality is unsettled; the case is expected to again reach the Supreme Court in 2026.

Make it illegal to distribute welfare benefits to illegal immigrants

Most immigrants living illegally in the country are ineligible for benefits from federal programs. A valid Social Security number is needed to receive most federal benefits and immigrants in the country illegally are not issued Social Security numbers. Trump has separately pledged to make immigrants in the U.S. ineligible for public housing assistance. But noncitizen eligibility for housing has generally be prohibited since 1996 under Title IV, or the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.

It is easy to promise something that has already been established!

Invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport gang members

This 1798 law was created when the U.S. feared an impending war with France. It allows the president to arrest, detain and deport people without due process under certain circumstances. But legal experts said Trump faces legal obstacles in this endeavor.

Designate drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations

As president in 2019, Trump said he would designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. According to the Wilson Center, this legal designation is used to identify foreign groups that “engage in premeditated, politically motivated acts of terrorism against noncombatant targets.” However, Trump said he would temporarily hold off on the designation at the request of Mexico’s president. Now that Trump is again President, he has followed through on his earlier promise. His attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, along with his invasion of Venezuela to arrest President Maduro, have been premised on his definition of narcoterrorism.

International and counterterrorism experts have questioned his actions which have hurt diplomatic relations with Mexico and other Latin American countries.

Create a compensation fund from the seized assets of criminal gangs to support victims of “migrant crime”

Trump announced on Oct. 29, 2024, that he would create a compensation fund from the seized assets of criminal gangs to support victims of “migrant crime” — crime purportedly committed by immigrants who are in the country illegally. “We will be seizing the assets of the criminal gangs and drug cartels, and we will use those assets to create a compensation fund to provide restitution for the victims of migrant crime, and the government will help in the restoration.” It is interesting to note that immigrant crime contributes little to the violent crime statistics.

So far, nothing tangible has been done in this area. Most of the revenue from Venezuelan oil (from an alleged drug cartel kingpin) is currently sitting in banks in Qatar.

Revoke the Temporary Protected Status of Haitians in Springfield, Ohio

Trump and his Vice President, JD Vance, targeted Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, including the accusation that they are eating their neighbors’ pets. Trump revoked their legal status and said, “bring them back to their country [sic].” That involved ending their Temporary Protected Status, which protects them from deportation because they are from a country experiencing war, environmental disasters, or epidemics.

The administration has not only revoked the protected status for Haitians, but also for other foreign nationals, including Cuban and Burmese (Myanmar).

Other Immigration Changes

The H-1B program applies to employers seeking to hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability. A specialty occupation is one that requires the application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. The intent of the H-1B provisions is to help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States. The H-1B visa now has an added $100,000 fee on certain new petitions, making the cost associated with the visa prohibitive for many potential educated and skilled applicants and their perspective employer.

Refugee Admissions Cap

Work Authorization and Employment Extension Document (EAD) Changes

Fees for work authorization and employment extensions are being adjusted upward. Automatic extensions for employee authorization documents are being rescinded for some employment categories. For example, work authorization for asylum applicants and green card applicants has been reduced from five years to eighteen months.

Gold Card Visa

President Trump announced a $1 million “Gold Card” visa for high-net-worth investors. The program allows a pathway to permanent residence for foreign nationals. Buy your way into the USA!

Summary

Immigration policy has seen many changes under President Trump. Most have occurred through executive order or policy changes in Customs Immigration Services policies. There has been no Congressional approval sought. But Congress has not taken any steps to intervene. Applicants, employers, and immigration advocates are required to navigate these changing policies where the benefits seem to change quickly.

The “foreseen” consequences of this paradigm shift in immigration policy are many. There is a reason that the Statue of Liberty has a plaque that says, ““Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” America was built by immigrants. The success of this nation is the result of people who came here with a dream. Some achieved greatness in various endeavors. Most have lived productive and rewarding lives.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated the country’s total population is projected to stop growing in 2056. But according to the report, in 2030, without immigration, the population would begin to shrink as deaths start to exceed births, making immigrants an increasingly important source of population growth. This has important implications for our workforce and economy.