Trump's Agenda: Deportation

On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly vowed to begin “the largest deportation program in American history.” How exactly he plans to carry that out, and how many he ultimately intends to deport, remains unclear.

In an article this week, Deputy Managing Editor Robert Farley looked at what Trump has promised, the cost of keeping that promise and the potential economic consequences. Rob also looks at what Trump said as a candidate in 2016 and what he did as president.

In 2015, Rob notes, Trump also talked about deporting all of the 10 million-plus immigrants in the country illegally. But the average annual number of deportations — defined as removals plus enforcement returns — went down under Trump compared with the number of deportations under Obama. 

"Immigration enforcement in the U.S. interior during the Trump administration has lagged far behind the president’s 2016 electoral promises as well as the record of his predecessor, Barack Obama," according to a report from the Migration Policy Institute near the end of Trump’s presidency. "In fact, the Trump administration deported only slightly more than one-third as many unauthorized immigrants from the interior during its first four fiscal years than did the Obama administration during the same timeframe.” 

Rob writes that Trump’s announcements that he will appoint Tom Homan as border czar and Stephen Miller as deputy chief of staff — both hardliners on immigration — suggest he intends to follow through with an aggressive approach to deportations. 

However, experts say such a mass deportation program would be expensive, logistically complicated and economically counterproductive.  
“I do not think that it would be possible to carry out deportation at the scale that Trump and his advisers are talking about,” Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an associate policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute’s U.S. Immigration Policy Program, told Rob. 

Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower levels of immigration, told Rob that the number of removals by the Trump administration may rise to less than 400,000 a year (about a third more than the average in his first term), but a strict enforcement climate will encourage more immigrants in the country illegally to leave on their own, and fewer to attempt to come in. The combination of forced and voluntary returns will reduce the immigrant population without permanent legal status in the U.S. by about 1 million per year over the next four years, Camarota projected.

For more, read Rob's story "Trump's Agenda: Deportation."

Reader: Were electoral votes being counted based on population of both legal and illegal immigrants? 

FactCheck.org Director Eugene Kiely:  Yes. The number of electoral votes that each state receives is equal to the state's number of senators and House members in Congress. Each state is represented by two senators, but its number of House members is based on the state's population of all residents, legal and illegal. 

FactCheck.org Deputy Managing Editor Robert Farley explained the process earlier this year. As he wrote, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts a population count every 10 years that is known as the decennial census. “The data collected by the decennial census are used to apportion the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives,” the Census Bureau explains. 

"Reapportionment for the House of Representatives is done every 10 years based on the decennial census," Rob wrote. "So if a state gains or loses a House seat, it also gains or loses an electoral vote.” 

Rob also explained why all residents are included in the population count and why they factor in the appointment of House seats. Rob wrote, “As required by the 14th Amendment, the apportionment of seats in Congress for each state is calculated ‘according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State.’ There is no indication in the Constitution that immigrants without permanent legal status should not be included in reapportionment.”

What impact does the inclusion of immigrants living in the country illegally have on the reapportionment process? Rob looked at studies done by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for low immigration. 

Here’s what Rob wrote about the CIS analysis:

CIS estimated they were responsible for the redistribution of three seats in 2020. Looking at it in partisan terms, two states with a Republican-controlled legislature and a Republican governor (Alabama and Ohio) and one state with a divided legislature and a Democratic governor (Minnesota) each had one fewer House seat in 2020 due to the inclusion of immigrants living in the country illegally in population counts. Gaining one extra seat were two blue states (New York and California) and one red state (Texas). In other words, the estimated net impact was that one Democratic state picked up a seat from a Republican state.

As for the Pew analysis, Rob wrote:

A July 2020 analysis by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, based on government data, similarly found: “If unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. were removed from the 2020 census apportionment count … three states could each lose a seat they otherwise would have had and three others each could gain one.” Its analysis concurred with CIS on five of the six states affected, but instead of New York gaining a seat because of the impact of illegal immigration, Pew found that Florida gained a seat.

In other words, in 2020, if immigrants lacking permanent legal status hadn’t been included in population counts, two red states and one blue state would have gained a seat, and two red states and one blue state would have lost a seat. A wash, politically speaking, when it comes to balance in the House or electoral votes.

Wrapping Up

Here's what else we've got for you this week:

• "Trump’s Agenda: Tariffs": While campaigning for a second term in office, President-elect Donald Trump declared “tariff” to be his “favorite word” and “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” We’ll explain how tariffs work, what Trump has proposed and what experts say about it, and what happened during Trump’s first term.
• "Can Trump Serve a Third Term?": President-elect Donald Trump, who will return to office for a second term on Jan. 20, 2025, recently reignited a constitutional debate about whether a twice-elected president can serve a third term.
• "No Evidence Harris Campaign Paid for Celebrity Endorsements": Vice President Kamala Harris received many celebrity endorsements leading up to the election, including from Beyoncé, Oprah Winfrey, Eminem, Megan Thee Stallion and Lizzo. Social media posts have made the unfounded claim that these celebrities were collectively paid $20 million for their endorsements. We’ve found no evidence to support the claim.
• "Musk’s Starlink Was Not Connected to Vote Tabulation, Contrary to Online Claims": Elon Musk’s Starlink system helped provide internet access to communities affected by the recent hurricanes. But online posts spread baseless claims that Starlink “uploaded votes in swing states” and helped Donald Trump win the election. Experts said voting machines are not connected to the internet during tabulation; one state election official called the claims “utter garbage.” 
• "Posts Falsely Question Barron Trump’s Citizenship Status": President-elect Donald Trump has called for an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally. That has prompted some on social media to wrongly speculate that under such a policy, Trump’s son Barron might not be a U.S. citizen because his mother wasn’t a citizen when he was born in New York.

• "Caso de Trump en Nueva York: ¿Qué pasa ahora?": P: ¿Qué pasará con el caso penal de Donald Trump en el estado de Nueva York ahora que es presidente electo? R: Trump está citado para ser sentenciado el 26 de noviembre, pero el juez podría decidir que la sentencia ya no es apropiada. Si Trump recibe una sentencia, podría ser apelada, o el juicio podría posponerse hasta 2029, cuando Trump estaría fuera del cargo.
• "Trump adopta las opiniones de RFK Jr. sobre las vacunas y el flúor": En los últimos días de su campaña, el expresidente Donald Trump continuó adoptando algunas de las opiniones incorrectas o controvertidas de Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sobre la salud, incluyendo las vacunas y el flúor. 
• "Ambos lados distorsionaron conteos de votos incompletos para sugerir falsamente fraude electoral": Los votos aún se estaban contando en los días posteriores a las elecciones de 2024, pero ha circulado en las redes sociales una afirmación de que había una brecha sospechosa de entre 15 y 20 millones de votos en comparación con las elecciones de 2020. No existe tal brecha —los estados aún estaban contando sus votos— y aunque haya menos votos para el candidato demócrata que hace cuatro años, eso no prueba fraude. 
• "Publicaciones afirman falsamente que CBS News reportó ‘trampa’ en las elecciones": Algunas publicaciones en redes sociales afirmaron falsamente que CBS News informó que hubo “trampa” en las elecciones presidenciales de 2024 que benefició al presidente electo Donald Trump. No encontramos evidencia de tal informe, y un portavoz de CBS News dijo que el medio “no informó ni dijo que hubo trampa en las elecciones”.