Group Suggests Ways Trump Can Increase Deportations
A coalition of immigration-focused groups aligned with Donald J. Trump is pressing the administration to significantly ramp up deportation efforts, arguing that current enforcement levels fall short of the president’s stated goals and the expectations of voters who backed a tougher border agenda.
The group, known as the Mass Deportation Coalition, released a sweeping 104-page policy framework calling for expanded enforcement tools — including targeting employers who hire illegal immigrants and leveraging tax data to identify individuals working under fraudulent Social Security numbers.
According to the coalition, the administration’s initial emphasis on removing criminal offenders has not produced the scale of deportations necessary to meet its targets. Current figures, estimated at roughly 1,250 removals per day, would fall well short of reaching 1 million deportations within a year, as reported by the Washington Times.
“Worksite enforcement is the most critical missing enforcement policy for the Trump administration to get on track and meet his agenda,” the coalition said in a statement.
The proposal outlines a more aggressive strategy centered on workplace raids, financial penalties for noncompliant businesses, and restrictions on illegal immigrants’ access to banking systems. It also suggests asset seizures — including vehicles and work equipment — as a deterrent, arguing that the threat of financial loss “would encourage voluntary departure.”
Polling cited in the report indicates strong public backing for stricter enforcement measures, particularly those aimed at employers and financial fraud tied to the use of stolen or falsified Social Security numbers.
The policy push comes during a period of transition within the administration. Following a controversial enforcement operation in Minnesota, Kristi Noem was removed from her post. The incident, which sparked protests and resulted in the deaths of two U.S. citizens — Alex Pretti and Renee Good — prompted a shift in strategy.
Her successor, Markwayne Mullin, has signaled a more measured, lower-profile enforcement approach as the administration reassesses its broader immigration framework.
At the same time, legal battles over immigration policy continue to unfold. The U.S. Department of Justice has asked the Supreme Court of the United States to allow the administration to proceed with ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 350,000 Haitian nationals — a move that would make them eligible for removal.
The request follows earlier decisions in which the Court allowed the rollback of similar protections for Venezuelan migrants, while a separate case involving Syrian nationals remains pending.
Haiti was originally granted TPS after the catastrophic 2010 earthquake that killed more than 300,000 people and devastated the country’s infrastructure. During his first term, President Trump sought to end the designation, but the effort was delayed by litigation. After returning to office, Noem announced renewed steps to terminate Haiti’s TPS status, with the policy scheduled to take effect earlier this year.
In defending the decision, Noem said ending the designation reflected “a necessary and strategic vote of confidence in the new chapter Haiti is turning” and aligned with a broader push for a “secure, sovereign, and self-reliant Haiti.”
However, the move has faced legal resistance. In December, a group of Haitian nationals filed suit to block the termination, and a federal judge ruled in their favor last month. Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, concluded that the decision was likely influenced by racial animus — a claim that has drawn sharp criticism from conservatives.
“Kristi Noem has a First Amendment right to call immigrants killers, leeches, entitlement junkies, and any other inapt name she wants,” Reyes wrote.
“Secretary Noem, however, is constrained by both our Constitution and the [Administrative Procedure Act] to apply faithfully the facts to the law in implementing the TPS program. The record to-date shows she has yet to do that,” she added.
As the administration weighs its next steps, the debate underscores a broader divide: whether enforcement should remain narrowly focused or expand into a full-scale effort targeting the economic incentives that drive illegal immigration. For supporters of stricter policies, the answer is clear — and the pressure on the Trump administration is only growing.