Immigration numbers during Donald Trump's first tem
Executive summary
During Donald Trump’s first term (2017–2020) the administration sharply curtailed legal immigration—reducing green cards and non‑immigrant visas—and pursued aggressive enforcement policies that raised arrests but did not produce a sustained increase in removals compared with prior administrations; overall estimates show the undocumented population remained roughly stable across the term [1] [2] [3]. Analysts and reporters disagree about causes and measurement—COVID travel restrictions, changed adjudication procedures and local non‑cooperation all influenced the observed numbers—so any single headline about “mass deportations” oversimplifies a complex and data‑contested picture [1] [4] [3].
1. Legal admissions fell markedly — visas and green cards down
Legal immigration to the United States declined during Trump’s first term: one analysis finds at least a 418,453 reduction in green cards issued to people abroad and an 11,178,668 drop in non‑immigrant visas through November 2020 compared with prior trends, with the mid‑2020 COVID restrictions producing a near halt to overseas green‑card issuance from April 2020 onward [1]. Migration Policy Institute and other researchers likewise document administrative changes—additional vetting, longer adjudication times and executive actions—that depressed admissions and slowed processing for naturalizations and work permits [3] [5].
2. Border encounters and “gotaways”: headline volatility and short‑term drops
Border apprehension figures showed sharp short‑term swings after Trump took office, with some noticeable declines in encounters at the southern border early in his term; however, fact‑checkers caution against attributing short drops solely to administration policy because weather, seasonal patterns, push factors in origin countries and other policy shifts also affect flows, and comparing mismatched time frames can mislead [6]. Media and government portrayals at times compounded confusion by highlighting brief troughs or daily snapshots that do not necessarily reflect full fiscal‑year trends [6].
3. Interior enforcement: more arrests, but removals did not surge
Trump expanded the universe of enforcement priorities and directed ICE to broaden interior arrests, producing a substantial rise in administrative arrests in early years (a circa 30% rise in FY2017) and continued elevated activity in fiscal 2018, but deportations overall remained below some prior administrations’ totals and fell in later years of the term [2] [7]. Brookings and other analysts emphasize that many people arrested had no criminal convictions, which made successful removals harder and contributed to backlogs and eventual limits on deportation numbers [4] [8].
4. The undocumented population and net migration: stability amid policy churn
Despite high‑profile enforcement rhetoric, several studies found the undocumented population stayed roughly similar during Trump’s first term: enforcement increased in some dimensions but removals did not keep pace, and demographic data show net migration fell but not to zero, with shifts in origins and a longer secular decline in permanent admissions that predates Trump [1] [3] [9]. BBC and Census analysts documented falling net migration and changing country patterns—Mexico‑born residents falling while other Latin American flows rose—underscoring that structural migration trends were not solely a product of four years of policy [9] [3].
5. Why the numbers remain disputed: data gaps and political framing
The record on “how many” is muddied by data lags, changes in statistical reporting, administrative pauses (notably during COVID‑19), and partisan spin: think tanks, government statements and press offices sometimes present partial metrics (visas issued, daily encounters, removals) that tell different stories, and watchdogs warn that headline claims of mass removals or total success often misstate or cherry‑pick numbers [1] [6] [10]. Migration Policy Institute collections and fact‑checks underscore that the policy record is clear—many restrictive measures were enacted—but the quantitative achievements claimed in public rhetoric do not align neatly with available enforcement and demographic data [5] [10].