Is trump against immigrants?

1. A presidency defined by enforcement: “faithfully execute” and removals

The White House framed immigration in January 2025 as a law‑and‑order priority, instructing agencies to “faithfully execute the immigration laws against all inadmissible and removable aliens,” language that signals prioritizing enforcement and removals over expanded relief or regularization programs ^[1]. The New York City Bar Association’s tracker of administration actions reports an administration focused on “aggressively pursuing removal of noncitizens,” pressing states to cooperate with federal enforcement and closing the southern border through executive directives ^[3].

2. Policy levers: executive orders, DHS memos, and planned regulatory changes

Rather than new congressional laws, the administration is using executive orders, DHS guidance and agency rulemaking to reshape who can enter, stay, or get benefits. DHS and USCIS changes cited by officials claim to tighten vetting, reinstate stricter fraud screening and expand grounds to deny visas or benefits — including draft policies to treat “travel‑ban country” factors as significant negatives in adjudications ^{[6] [2]}. Reporting also documents directives to consider health conditions in visa adjudications and to reduce humanitarian parole programs ^{[7] [6]}.

3. Real‑world reductions: refugee caps, parole rollbacks, and targeted revocations

Multiple sources show concrete cuts: the administration announced plans to slash refugee admissions for 2026 to historically low levels and has moved to halt or end several parole and temporary protections — such as actions affecting CHNV parole and temporary protected statuses — which rescinds pathways that previously allowed groups to work and remain legally ^{[4] [8]}. Local reporting highlights moves to terminate protections for Somali migrants in Minnesota and limits affecting Afghan parolees and refugees ^{[9] [10]}.

4. Messaging vs. data: claims of success and outside scrutiny

The administration and DHS frame these policies as “ending the border crisis” and producing historic enforcement gains and declines in the foreign‑born population ^[6]. Independent outlets caution the White House’s use of short windows of data to claim dramatic drops in illegal border crossings and urge longer‑term context; PBS’s fact check says the administration relied on limited seven‑day snapshots and that broader trends require more careful analysis ^[11].

5. Critics and advocates: “largest deportation program” to economic concerns

Progressive groups and civil‑rights organizations interpret administration plans and Project 2025 blueprints as aiming for mass deportations, reduced legal immigration and erosion of due process — arguing these efforts could “terrorize immigrant communities” and damage the economy ^{[12] [13]}. Conversely, administration spokespeople and DHS officials present the same measures as restoring order, protecting jobs and closing security gaps ^{[6] [1]}. Brookings polling shows public opinion shifting: a plurality of Americans in mid‑2025 called Trump’s approach “too harsh,” underscoring political risk even as enforcement remains popular with some constituencies ^[5].

6. What “against immigrants” means — policy vs. rhetoric

Whether Trump is “against immigrants” depends on definition. If the question asks whether his administration has acted to restrict immigration flows, reduce humanitarian admissions, expand deportations and tighten legal adjudications, the sources document extensive measures in those directions ^{[3] [4] [2]}. If the question asks whether the administration opposes all immigrants categorically, available sources do not mention an explicit stated aim to ban all immigration outright; rather, policy prioritizes enforcement, vetting and selective restrictions while framing actions as protecting national security and American workers ^{[1] [6]}.

7. Implications and open questions

The administration’s mix of orders, rule changes and proposed regulations creates uncertainty for millions of noncitizens — including those already vetted and living here under humanitarian parole or temporary programs ^{[8] [10]}. Key open questions not fully answered in these sources include long‑term legal outcomes of many policies (ongoing court challenges were reported) and precise counts of people affected by particular rollbacks, beyond selective examples ^{[4] [11]}.

Conclusion

Taken together, the reporting shows a coherent pattern: the second Trump administration has prioritized restrictive immigration measures and enforcement (including reduced refugee admissions, strengthened vetting and moves to narrow legal pathways), while defenders cast these as law‑enforcement successes and critics warn of sweeping harms and rights erosions ^{[1] [6] [12] [2]}.