Fear, Resistance, and the Rule of Law: An Analysis of Trump Administration Immigration Tactics and Counter-Strategies (2017-Present)

by Gemini Advanced, Deep Research with 2.5 Pro. Warning, LLMs may hallucinate!

Introduction

Purpose: This report provides an expert legal analysis of the Trump administration's immigration policies and rhetoric characterized as fear-mongering, covering the period from the first administration (2017-2021) through the interim years and into the current administration (beginning January 2025). It examines the specific tactics employed, instances of resistance leading to policy changes or reversals, the administration's vulnerabilities, and offers a strategic framework for resistance, including practical guidance on asserting constitutional rights during encounters with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Scope: The analysis focuses on the period from 2017 to the present (April 2025), drawing exclusively from the provided materials detailing publicly available information, commentary, and legal developments from that era and subsequent analyses. It covers key policies such as family separation, travel bans, DACA termination attempts, expanded expedited removal, enforcement tactics, and new measures introduced since January 2025.

Thesis: The Trump administration, across both terms, has systematically employed fear-based rhetoric and policies aimed at deterring immigration and appealing to a specific political base. These tactics, while evolving, consistently encounter significant legal, public, and political resistance, exposing vulnerabilities rooted in constitutional limits, procedural requirements, and public opinion, thereby offering pathways for effective counter-strategies.

Roadmap: The report will first dissect the administration's fear-based tactics across both periods, then analyze case studies of resistance and concession, identify the administration's weaknesses, propose a strategic framework for ongoing resistance, and conclude with practical advice for individuals facing immigration enforcement in the current climate.

Section 1: Anatomy of Fear: Policies and Rhetoric (2017-Present)

Overview: This section details the specific policies, executive actions, and rhetorical strategies used by the Trump administration, both during its first term (2017-2021) and since resuming office in January 2025, that have been widely perceived or explicitly described as employing fear, intimidation, and cruelty, particularly targeting immigrant communities. The administration's approach appears as a coordinated strategy integrating harsh language, restrictive policies, and aggressive enforcement designed to create a pervasive climate of fear.¹⁵ This climate aims both to deter potential migrants and to intimidate immigrant populations already residing within the United States.¹⁵ The tactics seen since January 2025 often represent an intensification or resurrection of first-term policies, alongside new, more extreme measures.¹

Rhetorical Strategies (Consistent Across Terms):

• Crisis Narrative & Fearmongering: A central element involves framing immigration as an existential crisis requiring drastic measures.¹⁷ President Trump frequently employed rhetoric depicting the southern border situation as a "national emergency" and an "invasion" during his first term ¹ and immediately redeployed this language upon taking office in 2025.¹ This framing justifies extraordinary actions, including military involvement.¹ Research identified Trump's rhetoric as heavily reliant on vitriol, exclusion, and fearmongering about immigrants and crime.¹⁷ He explicitly acknowledged the political utility of fear, stating in a 2016 interview, "Real power is — I don't even want to use the word — fear".¹⁷ This strategy involves linking immigrants, often without credible evidence, to criminality and terrorism.¹⁷ Examples include describing deported individuals with the caption "Dirtbags like this will continue to be removed from our streets" ³and asserting that immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country".¹⁷Administration officials also frequently contended that asylum claims were often fraudulent, justifying harsher deterrent measures.⁹ This rhetoric has continued and arguably intensified.¹⁷

• Dehumanization: The administration's rhetoric often employed dehumanizing language when referring to immigrants.¹⁷ Describing certain immigrants as "animals" ¹⁷ or using broad generalizations aimed to strip individuals of their humanity and portray them solely as threats.¹ This tactic was identified by scholars as serving political objectives, including the erosion of democratic norms.¹⁷ The use of such language makes it easier to implement policies that inflict suffering.¹⁷

• Binary Framing & Polarization: Complex issues were often reduced to simplistic, binary terms.¹⁷ This fostered a polarized worldview where political opponents, critics, and immigrants were cast as existential dangers.¹⁷ Critics, including the media, were frequently labeled "enemies of the people," further deepening societal divisions.¹⁷

Key Policies and Actions Characterized as Fear-Based (2017-Present):

The administration's rhetoric has been matched by a suite of policies inflicting hardship and instilling fear. While initial justifications often focused on individuals with criminal records ³, implementation frequently impacted those with no criminal history, including asylum seekers, long-term residents, and U.S. citizens in mixed-status families.³ Policies from the first term often laid the groundwork for more expansive actions in the second.

• "Zero Tolerance" Policy & Family Separation (2017-2018, with lasting impact and potential revival): Officially implemented in May 2018, this policy mandated criminal prosecution of adults crossing the border illegally, including asylum seekers, resulting in the forcible separation of thousands of children.⁹ Separations occurred even before the official policy.¹³ Over 5,500 children were separated in total.¹³ The policy lacked adequate reunification measures, amplifying cruelty.⁹While formally ended by executive order and court injunction in June 2018 ⁹, separations continued afterward ¹³, and reunification remains incomplete for potentially thousands of children.¹³ The Biden administration created a task force for reunification, which the Trump administration revoked upon returning to office in 2025.¹³ Plans for a second term reportedly include potentially separating families again.⁸

• Travel Bans (Multiple Iterations, 2017-Present): Beginning in 2017, executive orders restricted entry for nationals of several predominantly Muslim countries, later expanding.⁵ After legal challenges forced revisions ⁸, the Supreme Court upheld the third version (Travel Ban 3.0) in 2018.⁸ Upon taking office in 2025, the administration immediately initiated reviews to identify countries for new partial or full travel bans.¹ A new, broader ban ("Travel Ban 2.0") targeting over a dozen nations across multiple continents, categorized into Red, Orange, and Yellow lists based on restriction levels, was anticipated shortly after the second term began.²²

• Attempted Termination of DACA (2017-Present): The first administration announced DACA's termination in 2017.²³ Legal challenges blocked the termination, culminating in a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that the rescission was procedurally unlawful under the APA.⁸ However, separate lawsuits continued, with lower courts subsequently ruling the original DACA program itself unlawful, though generally allowing renewals to continue pending appeals.²³ The Fifth Circuit most recently upheld the finding of illegality in January 2025 but maintained the stay on renewals.²³ The Trump administration remains intent on eliminating DACA.²⁶

• Expansion of Expedited Removal (First term attempts, implemented nationwide Jan 2025): The first administration sought to expand expedited removal (fast-track deportation without judicial review) nationwide.¹ This was formally implemented via a DHS notice on January 21, 2025, applying the process nationwide to noncitizens unable to prove continuous presence for two years.¹This dramatically increases deportation risk for potentially millions, bypassing due process.¹⁶

• Increased Interior Enforcement & Raids (2017-Present): ICE significantly escalated worksite raids during the first term in states like Mississippi, Texas, Tennessee, and Ohio, using militaristic tactics and spreading fear.²⁸ Reports also emerged of ICE officers in plain clothes conducting arrests.¹¹ The second term began with promises of vastly expanded deportation operations ("shock and awe," "Operation Aurora") targeting millions annually ⁴, potentially using military resources and massive detention camps.⁸ Expansion of 287(g) agreements deputizing local police for immigration enforcement also continued.¹ Recent raids in early 2025, like those in NYC, were highly publicized, seemingly to instill fear.³

• Asylum Restrictions (Intensified 2025): First-term policies curtailed asylum access via "Remain in Mexico" (MPP) ¹, metering, and attempts to bar entry between ports.⁸ The second term saw immediate, drastic actions: indefinite suspension of entry at the southern border for anyone deemed part of the "invasion" ¹, shutdown of the CBP One app (primary asylum appointment tool) ¹, planned reimplementation of Remain in Mexico ¹, and suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.¹ Third-country agreements forcing asylum seekers elsewhere were also pursued.⁶ These actions mimic or intensify prior policies like Title 42 expulsions.⁶

• Attacks on Birthright Citizenship (Renewed 2025): President Trump repeatedly threatened birthright citizenship during his first term.⁸ Upon returning to office, an executive order was issued aiming to strip birthright citizenship from children born in the U.S. unless a parent is a citizen or LPR, based on a discredited legal theory, and instructing agencies not to issue proof of citizenship like passports to affected children.¹

• Use of Obscure/Extreme Measures (Expanded 2025): The first administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.¹¹ The second administration used it immediately to justify deporting Venezuelan nationals without due process, claiming an "invasion" by a criminal gang.¹¹ Officials also reportedly considered extreme border measures like heat rays or shoot-to-kill orders in the first term ⁸, and similar rhetoric persists.⁸ Sending migrants to Guantánamo Bay was pursued for its fear-inducing symbolism.³ A seldom-enforced provision requiring noncitizen registration was invoked in 2025, threatening fines or jail time and creating significant fear.¹ Threats to cut public benefits for mixed-status families also resurfaced.¹

• Targeting Temporary Protections (2017-Present): The first administration sought to strip protections under Temporary Protected Status (TPS).⁸ The second term began with explicit intentions to revoke TPS, particularly for Haitians and Venezuelans, and potentially allowing other designations to lapse.¹ Categorical parole programs like CHNV were also immediately suspended.¹

These policies and rhetorical tactics collectively demonstrate a systematic and escalating effort to utilize fear as a primary tool of immigration control under the Trump administration from 2017 to the present.

Section 2: The Dynamics of Resistance and Concession

Overview: The Trump administration's aggressive immigration agenda, both in its first term and continuing into the second, has consistently faced significant challenges. Various forms of resistance—including legal action by civil liberties groups, states, and affected individuals; widespread public outcry; political pressure; and community mobilization—have confronted these policies. This resistance has led to outcomes ranging from temporary injunctions and policy modifications to outright reversals and protracted legal battles that effectively stalled or reshaped implementation.⁸ This section examines prominent examples of this dynamic across the entire period.

Case Study 1: Family Separation ("Zero Tolerance") Policy (2017-2018 & Aftermath)

• Policy & Implementation: As detailed previously, the "zero tolerance" policy (officially April-June 2018, but separations occurred before and after) mandated criminal prosecution for adult border crossers, resulting in the systematic separation of over 5,500 children.⁹

• Resistance: The policy ignited immediate, intense public outrage fueled by harrowing images/audio.¹⁸ Condemnation came from diverse quarters: lawmakers (including Republicans like Ted Cruz ¹⁸), medical/child welfare groups, religious leaders, human rights organizations, and international bodies.¹⁸ The ACLU filed lawsuits challenging the policy.¹³

• Administration Response & Outcome: Facing overwhelming pressure, Trump abruptly reversed course on June 20, 2018, signing an executive order to halt separations, citing not liking the "sight" or "feeling".¹³ The order maintained "zero tolerance" prosecution and sought indefinite family detention, conflicting with the Flores Settlement.¹³ On June 26, 2018, Judge Dana Sabraw issued a nationwide injunction ordering cessation of most separations and reunification.¹³ This effectively ended blanket "zero tolerance" prosecution.¹³ However, reunification proved difficult due to poor tracking ⁹, with hundreds still separated years later.¹³The Biden administration created a reunification task force in 2021, but the Trump administration revoked its founding executive order upon returning to office in January 2025.¹³ This case demonstrated the power of combined public outrage and legal action against morally reprehensible policies.

Case Study 2: DACA Termination Attempt (2017-Present)

• Policy & Implementation: The administration announced DACA's rescission in September 2017.²³

• Resistance: Immediate legal challenges were filed by DACA recipients, universities, states, and civil rights groups, arguing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).²³ Significant advocacy and public mobilization occurred.²⁴

• Administration Response & Outcome: Multiple federal courts issued nationwide injunctions blocking the termination and requiring continued processing of renewals.²³ In June 2020, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 (DHS v. Regents) that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, faulting failure to consider reliance interests.⁸ This vacated the rescission memo, keeping renewals alive.²⁴However, the ruling didn't affirm DACA's legality.²⁴ Subsequent lawsuits led by Texas resulted in lower courts (Judge Hanen) declaring the original DACA program unlawful on procedural grounds.²³ These rulings were largely upheld by the Fifth Circuit (most recently in Jan 2025), but a stay allows current recipients to continue renewing pending further appeals.²³ The Fifth Circuit also suggested DACA's forbearance component might be severable from work authorization.²⁵DACA remains in legal jeopardy, with the current administration intending to end it.²⁶ This case highlights the crucial role of administrative law in constraining executive action.

Case Study 3: Travel Bans (2017-Present)

• Policy & Implementation: Three main versions were issued (EO-1, EO-2, Proclamation 9645/Travel Ban 3.0) restricting entry from specific, mostly Muslim-majority countries.⁵

• Resistance: EO-1 sparked mass protests and lawsuits alleging INA and constitutional violations (Establishment Clause, Equal Protection).²¹

• Administration Response & Outcome: Courts blocked EO-1 and EO-2.⁸ The administration revised the policy, issuing Travel Ban 3.0 with tailored restrictions and non-Muslim majority countries added.⁸ Lower courts still found issues (INA violation - 9th Cir.; Establishment Clause violation - 4th Cir.).²¹ However, the Supreme Court upheld Travel Ban 3.0 in Trump v. Hawaii (June 2018), deferring to presidential authority on immigration/national security.⁸ Resistance shifted to challenging the waiver process.²¹ The Biden administration rescinded the bans, but the Trump administration initiated steps for a new, broader ban ("Travel Ban 2.0") upon returning in 2025, likely benefiting from the previous Supreme Court precedent.¹ Legal challenges are anticipated.²²

Other Instances of Resistance and Concession (Across Both Terms):

• Sanctuary Cities: First-term efforts to withhold federal funds faced numerous successful legal challenges.¹ Frustration led Trump to float releasing detainees into these areas.¹⁰ The second term began with renewed instructions to punish sanctuary jurisdictions.¹

• Border Wall Funding: First-term attempts to redirect military funds faced lawsuits.⁵ While specific challenges were dismissed by SCOTUS without a merits ruling ⁹, the effort faced practical hurdles.⁹ The second term includes promises to resume/expand wall construction.⁴

• Alien Enemies Act Use (2025): The second administration's use of the 1798 Act to deport Venezuelans was immediately challenged by the ACLU, resulting in a TRO blocking some removals.¹¹ Litigation is ongoing.¹²

• Expedited Removal Expansion (2025): The nationwide expansion implemented in January 2025 is expected to face, or is already facing, legal challenges.⁴

• Asylum Policies (2025): The suspension of entry, shutdown of CBP One, return of Remain in Mexico, and suspension of refugee resettlement are all facing planned or active legal challenges.¹

The varying outcomes reveal important dynamics. Legal challenges targeting procedural flaws (APA in DACA) or clear constitutional red lines (Due Process in family separation) proved relatively effective, at least initially. Public outrage was potent against visibly cruel policies. Policies framed under national security powers proved more resilient in court.²¹ The administration shows willingness to adapt or resurrect policies facing setbacks ¹, underscoring the need for sustained, multifaceted resistance.⁸

Table 2.1: Key Trump Admin Immigration Policies, Resistance, and Outcomes (2017-Present)

Section 3: Exploiting Vulnerabilities: How Resistance Succeeded (and Continues)

Overview: The ability of resistance efforts to impact the Trump administration's immigration agenda, both historically and currently, stems from inherent vulnerabilities and the resilience of legal and political checks. This section analyzes the key weaknesses—constitutional principles, statutory/procedural requirements, resource limitations, and public opinion—that provide avenues for resistance.

Constitutional Limits:

The Constitution remains a crucial backstop.

• Due Process (Fifth Amendment): Policies circumventing fair procedures, like family separation without reunification plans ⁹, expanded expedited removal limiting judicial review ⁴, or using the Alien Enemies Act to bypass hearings ¹¹, are vulnerable to due process challenges. Successful injunctions often rely on these grounds.¹² The sheer scale of planned mass deportations also raises due process concerns regarding individualized hearings.⁸

• Equal Protection & Non-Discrimination (Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments, Establishment Clause): While the Supreme Court upheld Travel Ban 3.0 ⁸, the legal battles demonstrated the power of discrimination arguments, forcing revisions.⁸ Renewed travel bans ²² or policies targeting specific nationalities could face similar challenges. Attacks on birthright citizenship face formidable Fourteenth Amendment hurdles.¹ Racial profiling claims against enforcement tactics are also relevant.⁸

• Separation of Powers: Attempts to act unilaterally, bypass Congress on funding ⁵, or unduly expand executive power remain vulnerable. The judiciary continues to act as a check, scrutinizing executive actions for compliance with law and the Constitution.⁸

Statutory and Procedural Constraints:

Specific laws and procedures create significant hurdles.

• Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Requires reasoned decision-making and, often, public input. The DACA rescission was blocked for failing APA requirements.²³ Rushed implementation of new policies in the second term without adequate justification or process could be similarly vulnerable.²³

• Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): Contains provisions used to challenge policies (e.g., non-discrimination in visa issuance ²⁰, asylum protections ⁶). Existing frameworks like the Flores Settlement constrained family detention plans.¹⁰ The legality of programs like DACA under the INA remains contested.²³

• Resource Limitations: The ambition of deporting millions annually ⁴ clashes with the practical capacity of the immigration system (courts, detention, personnel).⁸Implementing policies like nationwide expedited removal or mass registration strains resources.¹ Diverting military resources faces potential legal challenges regarding appropriations.¹

Public Opinion and Political Pressure:

Public opinion remains a constraint, especially against visibly cruel actions.

• Moral Outrage and Public Backlash: The family separation outcry forced a rapid reversal.¹⁸ While the administration may seem less responsive now, extreme actions could still trigger significant backlash.⁸ Polling suggests public support for humane solutions over purely enforcement-based approaches.⁸

• Media Scrutiny: Consistent media coverage exposing policy consequences remains vital.³ Storytelling initiatives by groups like the ACLU aim to counter dehumanizing narratives and mobilize support.¹⁵

• Role of Allies/Internal Pressure: First-term reports suggested internal dissent sometimes acted as a brake.⁸ The extent of this in the second term is unclear, but potential resistance from career officials or even political appointees remains a factor.

Effective Resistance Strategies (Ongoing):

Exploiting these vulnerabilities requires sustained, strategic action.

• Strategic Litigation: Focusing on procedural flaws (APA), constitutional violations (Due Process, Equal Protection), and statutory conflicts remains key.⁸ Seeking immediate injunctive relief is critical.¹²

• Coalition Building: Broad coalitions amplify resources and influence.⁸

• Rapid Response Networks: Provide immediate support, documentation, and legal connection during enforcement actions.⁷

• State and Local Government Resistance: Acting as firewalls through protective policies, limiting cooperation with ICE, funding legal defense, and filing lawsuits remains crucial.⁸

• Documentation and Narrative Work: Countering fear-based narratives with facts and human stories is essential.¹⁵

The administration's reliance on fear, unilateral action, and potentially legally dubious interpretations continues to create openings for resistance through strategic litigation, advocacy, and community organizing, even as challenges persist, particularly regarding policies justified by national security claims.

Section 4: A Legal and Strategic Framework for Resistance

Continue reading here (due to article length restrictions): https://p4sc4l.substack.com/p/this-report-provides-an-expert-legal