Which immigration and border policies were enacted in Trump’s first year of the 2025–2026 term?
Executive summary
The first year of President Trump’s 2025–2026 term delivered a sweeping suite of immigration and border actions centered on tighter border controls, expanded travel restrictions, stepped-up interior enforcement, and broad statutory changes enacted through the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA); these moves combined executive proclamations and agency rulemaking with new congressional law to restrict legal immigration pathways, increase enforcement capacity, and limit humanitarian relief [1] [2] [3]. Advocates, legal observers, and some courts pushed back—blocking or narrowing parts of the agenda—and the policy package reshaped visa access, asylum procedures, benefit eligibility, and the institutional footprint of immigration enforcement [4] [5] [6].
1. Travel bans and entry restrictions reintroduced and expanded
The administration reinstated and expanded travel‑restriction authorities from its prior term, citing national‑security vetting concerns in an early executive order (Executive Order 14161) and a mid‑year proclamation (Proclamation 10949) that limited or suspended entry from multiple countries; the White House framed these actions as restoring proven screening measures [1] [7]. By December the administration used Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to enact a broad travel ban affecting nationals of roughly 19–20 countries plus the Palestinian Authority, a move the American Immigration Council said placed hundreds of thousands of otherwise‑eligible visa applicants into legal limbo [2].
2. Congress passed a major package—“One Big Beautiful Bill Act”—altering benefits, fees, and enforcement
On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law the OBBBA (H.R. 1), which advocacy groups and government agencies say reshaped immigration law by tightening access to public benefits, expanding enforcement authorities, and creating new fee structures; USCIS began implementing OBBBA‑driven fee changes in July and reported collecting significant revenues tied to the package [3] [8]. Civil‑rights and immigrant‑rights groups characterized OBBBA as stripping health and nutrition supports from many lawfully present immigrants and dramatically enlarging detention and enforcement tools [3].
3. Interior enforcement intensified and enforcement authority broadened
The administration pursued aggressive removal and enforcement strategies, pressuring states and localities to cooperate with ICE and expanding the array of federal actors drawn into immigration operations—ranging from ATF and FBI personnel to IRS agents—according to policy analysts tracking the first year [4] [5]. Reports and think‑tank summaries documented campaigns such as Operation Metro Surge and other large enforcement initiatives, while media and migration observers flagged proposed or implemented programs to hire private immigrant‑tracking contractors and to expand mandatory detention—moves that ran into judicial resistance in many instances [5] [6].
4. Changes at USCIS and new domestic investigative practices
USCIS announced a suite of internal changes tied to the administration’s “rigorous immigration crackdown,” including new fees, the hiring of special agents and “Homeland Defenders,” and the start of neighborhood investigations to vet naturalization applicants, all presented as measures to protect national security and immigration integrity [8] [9]. The agency’s public materials emphasize coordination with DHS enforcement partners and expanded screening, while immigrant‑service groups warn these practices chill access to naturalization and raise due‑process concerns [8] [9].
5. Asylum, parole, refugee resettlement, and procedural restrictions
Multiple sources documented policy moves limiting humanitarian pathways: the administration suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program early in the year and implemented new fees and restrictions affecting asylum and parole processes; courts weighed in, for example allowing the government to end certain parole statuses under CHNV processes as of May 30, 2025, while litigation over other restrictions remained active [10]. Practitioners reported new barriers—fees, narrower eligibility, and expedited removals—that collectively reduced access to asylum and refugee channels [10] [4].
6. Political friction, legal challenges, and broader consequences
Legal and civic groups including the New York City Bar, ACLU, and immigration advocates catalogued steady litigation and administrative pushback: committees tracking the administration’s moves warned that many executive and regulatory steps test the limits of executive power, while civil‑liberties groups framed certain orders as attacks on constitutional protections and community rights [4] [11]. Analysts also flagged economic and labor impacts from curtailed legal migration, and reporters noted that elements of the administration’s Project 2025 blueprint were being implemented across departments—a contested political backdrop to the policy changes [12] [13].