Which demographic groups and countries were most affected by removals under each administration?
Executive summary
The dominant groups affected by U.S. removals have shifted across administrations: under Obama removals peaked in volume and disproportionately affected long-term migrants including Mexicans and Central Americans, under Trump (2017–2020) enforcement focused on both border and interior removals with high-profile emphasis on criminality and deterrence, under Biden removals and returns continued at near-Trump levels but tilted heavily toward voluntary returns at the border and a broader set of nationalities, and the Trump 2.0 period accelerated mass removals and self-deportations with an expanded country reach and interior arrests increasing [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Obama-era peak removals and who they hit most
During the Obama administration annual deportations reached their recent peak—about 400,000 in the early years—and policy emphasis and programs such as Secure Communities produced large interior removals that hit sizeable numbers of people from Mexico and the Central American corridor as well as immigrants with criminal convictions, while later policy changes (e.g., prosecutorial discretion and DACA) shifted some focus away from noncriminal long-term residents [1] [2] [7]. Historical recounting shows that a large share of early-2010s removals were interior cases turned over by local law enforcement, producing substantial impacts on communities where migrants had long social and economic ties [8] [2]. Exact demographic breakdowns by age, gender, and length of U.S. residence for every fiscal year are available in DHS yearbook tables but vary by how “removals” versus “returns” are classified [9] [10].
2. Trump (2017–2020): deterrence, criminality claims, and shifts in nationality composition
The Trump administration framed enforcement around deterrence and public-safety priorities, increasing removals of noncitizens with criminal convictions and promoting policies that reduced arrivals, which also changed who was removed; analysts note interior removals and prosecutions such as Operation Streamline in the earlier era informed later approaches, and enforcement rhetoric correlated with deterrence among would-be migrants [2] [1]. Empirical work shows removals in this period included many people encountered at the border as well as interior arrests, with Mexico and Central American countries prominent among the top citizenships removed, though comprehensive month-by-month public data are limited in comparability to other administrations [9] [10] [1]. Critics argue political messaging and expanded cooperation with state and local authorities increased removals of long-standing residents and produced chilling effects in immigrant communities [8] [2].
3. Biden: more returns at the border, wider country dispersion, and changing demographics
The Biden administration carried out removals and returns at a scale comparable to Trump overall, but vastly more of those departures were voluntary returns at the border rather than interior removals of long-term residents; DHS and Migration Policy analyses note that Biden-era actions have repatriated people to more than 170 countries and reflected a dramatic demographic shift toward more families and nontraditional origin countries [3] [10]. Analysts emphasize that counting returns versus removals matters because returns (often immediate border turnbacks or voluntary departures) do not carry the same legal penalties or interior enforcement consequences as formal removals, and that Biden removed fewer people from the U.S. interior compared with earlier administrations [3] [1] [9]. Advocates highlight the humanitarian differences between border expulsions and interior deportations, while enforcement officials point to broad country coverage as evidence of operational reach [3] [11].
4. Trump 2.0 : scale-up, expanded destinations, and interior enforcement resurgence
Under the second Trump administration through FY2025, DHS reported dramatic counts—more than half a million formal deportations and over 1.6 million voluntary departures in short order—with the department claiming over 2 million people left the U.S. including many self-deportations and wide use of expedited tools, and Migration Policy and other analysts documented a return to more interior arrests and rising detention populations [4] [5] [6]. Reporting indicates the demographic picture shifted back toward larger numbers of interior removals and a re-concentration of enforcement on migrants across a broad range of nationalities including Mexico, Central America, and increasing numbers from outside the hemisphere as DHS operations reached “more than 170 countries” in prior years and expanded even further in 2025 [3] [4] [6]. Independent analysts warn that press releases and administration tallies conflate voluntary departures, expulsions under public-health rules, and formal removals, complicating direct comparisons of who was most affected [12] [9].
5. Data caveats, what remains unclear, and how to read the patterns
Published DHS and ICE datasets distinguish removals (formal orders) from returns and expulsions, and methodological changes across years—plus policy shifts that alter who is arrested at the border versus the interior—mean cross-administration comparisons require caution; the official OHSS tables and ICE statistics are the primary sources for citizenship and criminality breakdowns but do not uniformly report age, length of residence, or family status across all years [9] [10] [11]. Where sources conflict—administration press releases touting “millions left” [4] [5] versus independent analysts emphasizing interior versus border distinctions [3] [1]—the clearest, consistent findings are: Obama-era removals were historically large and interior-focused; Trump emphasized deterrence and criminality with mixed border/interior impacts; Biden shifted much of the departure flow to border returns and widened nationality diversity; and Trump 2.0 reexpanded interior enforcement and large-scale departures across many countries, though precise demographic slices by age, gender, residence history, and legal status require direct table queries from DHS/ICE to confirm [1] [2] [3] [4] [9].