US deportations by country during Trump's 1st term
Executive summary
Across President Trump’s first term (FY2017–FY2020) U.S. authorities carried out roughly 1.5 million removals and returns, with the largest single-year totals occurring before the COVID-19 pandemic and a sharp drop in 2020; the removals were concentrated in nearby countries (especially Mexico and Northern Central America), while deportations to more distant nations were far smaller and logistically harder to execute [1] [2] [3]. Federal datasets that break removals down by country exist (DHS Yearbook tables and ICE statistics) but the reporting here is constrained by the excerpts provided, so exact country-by-country counts for every fiscal year cannot be reproduced verbatim from the sources at hand [3] [4].
1. Totals and the broad shape of enforcement
Official and analytical sources place total removals during the four Trump years at roughly 1.5 million, a level that migration analysts compare to the early Biden years’ pace; ICE and DHS produce the raw counts while outside analysts synthesize multi‑year totals for comparative context [1] [4]. Year-to-year variation was important: removals peaked in FY2019 and then declined markedly in FY2020 as the pandemic and public‑health expulsions reshaped enforcement and travel logistics [2] [4].
2. Which countries received the most deportees
Government yearbook tables provide country-of‑nationality breakdowns for returns and removals (for example Table 40 in DHS’s Yearbook covers FY2017–2019), and those datasets show the bulk of removals going to Mexico and the countries of Northern Central America — Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador — because distance, migration flows, and readmission agreements make such removals far more numerous and administratively feasible [3] [1]. The sources supplied do not include a full printed list of every country’s totals in the excerpts, so precise per‑country numbers for each fiscal year cannot be reproduced here without consulting the full DHS tables or ICE exports [3].
3. Yearly inflection points: 2019 peak and 2020 drop
Public summaries and secondary compilations identify FY2019 as a high point (about 267,258 deportations in one dataset) followed by a marked decline in FY2020 to roughly 185,884, reflecting pandemic-related travel limits and Title 42 expulsions that altered how and where removals occurred [2] [4]. Analysts also note that operational priorities — such as focusing on single adults at the border versus interior arrests — and cross‑agency practices influenced the annual totals as much as raw political direction did [1] [5].
4. Interior removals vs border returns: different country mixes
Removals conducted from the U.S. interior by ICE have trended downward over the past decade; Migration Policy Institute reports that interior deportations averaged about 81,000 in FY2017–2020 and fell further under the next administration, meaning a growing share of total returns came from border processing and Title 42 expulsions — channels that disproportionately send people to neighboring countries of transit or origin [5] [4]. That distinction matters because country distributions look different depending on whether one counts interior ICE removals or rapid border expulsions processed by CBP and public‑health authorities [5] [4].
5. Data sources, transparency and limits
The clearest country-level counts are in DHS’s Yearbook of Immigration Statistics and ICE’s removal tables; advocacy and academic projects (Deportation Data Project, Mapping Deportations) have also republished and reanalyzed those records for historical comparison [3] [6] [7]. The material provided here cites those sources but does not include the full tabulations, so readers seeking an exact ranked list and precise numbers by country for FY2017–FY2020 should consult DHS Yearbook Table 40 and ICE’s public statistics pages for the authoritative country-by-country tallies [3] [4].
6. Political framing, agendas and what the numbers mean
Political actors on all sides use deportation counts to bolster competing narratives — advocates decry human costs while proponents highlight removals of noncitizens with criminal records — and scholars warn that rhetoric can overstate operational capacity or simplify where removals actually go [8] [9]. Analysts note that logistical realities (distance, diplomatic readmission agreements) constrain country‑level outcomes, producing a deportation geography dominated by nearby nations even when political messaging implies broader global reach [1] [3].