Trump Goes Harder Than Ever on Immigration

During his first term, Donald Trump built his political brand on tackling illegal migration. His promise to build a grand border wall defined much of his first presidential term. For all the controversy, his focus stayed largely on unlawful crossings and the bureaucratic machinery designed to deter them.

This Thanksgiving, however, Trump announced a suite of immigration policies that go far beyond anything he has proposed before. These ideas are not merely continuations of his earlier agenda, but represent a fundamental shift in ambition, one that seeks to reshape who is allowed to enter, remain in, or become part of the United States. Trump announced these policies with the broader goal of “reverse migration”, also referred to as mass deportations or remigration. They are as follows:

• A permanent pause on migration from all Third World countries.
• The termination of all Biden-era admissions that were, according to Trump, approved improperly.
• The removal of anyone who is not a net asset to the country, based on criteria defined by his administration.
• The denaturalisation of migrants who “undermine domestic tranquillity”.
• The complete end of federal benefits and subsidies for noncitizens.
• The deportation of any foreign national who falls into one of three categories: a public charge, a security risk, or incompatible with Western civilisation.

Many of Trump’s supporters welcomed this shift, with some even suggesting it should have been done sooner. It is far too early, however, to know whether such policies will ever be enacted or whether they will be enacted in full. Trump’s rhetoric has often been more radical than his actual presidential behaviour. The closest he came to the current proposals was the “Muslim travel ban”, which placed a 90-day restriction on travel to the US and affected Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.

That being said, Trump has already signed a proclamation in June banning nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the US. The immigration applications pause applied to both green card and citizenship applications and, as of the 2nd of December, has been extended indefinitely. For the first time it applies to those already in the US when the ban went into effect. This could affect more than 1.4 million people with pending asylum applications whose cases may now be halted or placed under review.

Another significant development in June was the legal battle over birthright citizenship. An executive order seeking to remove birthright citizenship from anybody born in the US to undocumented parents or temporary visitors was initially blocked by several federal judges. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that Trump’s order could go into effect. This set a precedent that lower courts would no longer be able to block such executive orders, granting Trump broader power to enact his agenda.

Taken together, the scale and timing of these moves raise a central question. Why now? It is unusual for a leader to grow more radical this late in a presidency, especially in his 5th year as president. Although immigration issues have worsened, the scale of Trump’s rhetorical escalation is not necessarily proportional to these developments, which suggests a different motivation.

One simple explanation is electoral timing. The announcement arrived just under a year before the November 2026 midterms. It is common for incumbents to intensify their messaging as campaigning approaches. Taking an uncompromising stance on immigration could energise the MAGA base and help mobilise Republican voters.

There is, however, a more compelling reason. Trump recently angered parts of the right by signalling support for admitting 600,000 Chinese students to American universities and by accelerating legal immigration through the H1B visa scheme. These positions were criticised for prioritising foreigners and the interests of the tech sector, some of whom were significant financial backers of Trump’s 2024 campaign. This strengthened the hand of right-wing MAGA critics such as Nick Fuentes, who has long argued that Trump has done too little to put Americans first and too much to serve foreign priorities, especially Israel.

Figures like Fuentes are no longer fringe to the movement. They are gaining influence at a pace that poses a genuine internal threat to the coherence of the MAGA coalition. For Trump, the simplest way to stabilise his base is to make himself unmistakably aligned with its most hardline elements. At least on some issues, his support for Israel has remained a constant.

However, Trump has been enthusiastic about signing a peace deal between Israel and Palestine and may hope that this would divert the attention of domestic critics by reducing the perceived need for financial backing. Israel is also aware of the president’s political constraints and has proposed using some of the financial assistance for joint US-Israeli research and development rather than in direct military aid. Whether this will satisfy those who want that money spent at home remains unclear, but seems unlikely. Even if a peace agreement cannot be reached, Trump may hope that his other actions are enough to win over the majority of his critics on the right, and limit the influence of the remaining small adversarial fringe.

This dynamic also has implications for Trump’s likely chosen successor, JD Vance. Vance has been carefully insulated from decisions that anger the base. When leaks emerged about bombing operations in Yemen, they portrayed him as opposed to the action. The leaks were sent to a journalist directly, apparently by mistake, although the timing and content raised questions about whether they were intended to distance Vance from the decision.

Vance has publicly declared that America is “done with the funding of the Ukraine war business”, even as Trump expresses willingness to continue the conflict further. Yet Vance continues to support sending billions to Israel, a position that undermines his appeal to those who want the US to withdraw from foreign conflicts entirely. Trump is acutely aware that any perceived inconsistency on these issues could harm both Vance and the future of the movement. He appears to be running his administration in a way that allows Vance to be presented as the continuity candidate while still giving him a clean slate.

Trump’s newly radical immigration agenda is therefore not only a matter of policy, but rather a functionary of both defensive manoeuvring and legacy-building. It is designed to reaffirm his authority, silence critics on the right, and position his successor to inherit a base that remains aligned with his vision of America. Trump’s ego is well known, even among his most loyal supporters. Egyptian pharaohs had their pyramids and American presidents have their successors. Trump’s legacy will be Vance, and he has a vested interest in ensuring that Vance inherits a unified and energised movement rather than one fractured by its own right flank.

Viewed from this perspective, the timing makes far more strategic sense. What appears like a sudden ideological knee-jerk is better understood as a calculated political play, one shaped by anxiety, ambition, and the ever-present need for Trump to prove that he remains the sole figure that defines the movement he created. Nevertheless, it could well be the case that these recent developments are a product of Trump’s hands becoming unshackled by recent court rulings combined with the pressures of an approaching election. Whether or not this strategy will pay dividends in the short-term, let alone grant his successor in Vance a base that retains its enthusiasm, remains to be seen.