Over the past year, the Trump administration significantly altered the landscape of U.S. immigration policy through a multi-pronged approach targeting both legal and unauthorized migration. Here is what changed, and why we kept coming back to it.
The push for enforcement and judicial overhaul
Central to this year's strategy was a substantial expansion of federal funding and physical infrastructure dedicated to immigration enforcement agencies. Data from early 2026 indicates that the number of individuals held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers rose to approximately 68,000 — a marked increase from the previous year.
To expedite the removal process, the administration implemented an unprecedented restructuring of the immigration judiciary, replacing nearly 100 immigration judges. This court overhaul aims to accelerate deportation hearings, though it has sparked significant debate regarding due process and administrative capacity.
Tightening legal visas and student regulations
Beyond border enforcement, the administration introduced sweeping changes to high-skilled labor and educational visa programs. A major presidential proclamation established a $100,000 fee per petition for H-1B specialty occupation workers, targeting what officials described as the displacement of domestic labor.
In July 2026, the Department of Homeland Security finalized a highly anticipated rule capping foreign student and exchange visitor visas at a strict four-year limit. This regulation replaces the long-standing "duration of status" policy, which previously allowed international students to remain for the entirety of their degree programs.
Humanitarian avenues were heavily restricted as well, with the suspension of several humanitarian parole programs and the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals from countries like Haiti and Syria. An updated travel ban, implemented in early 2026, also expanded entry restrictions and partial bans across a modified list of foreign countries.
Legal challenges and constitutional friction
The rapid pace of these executive actions prompted an array of legal battles across federal district courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. Challenges frequently centered on the limits of executive power and the statutory interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Federal judges issued mixed rulings — occasionally blocking specific strategies, such as enforcement actions within local courthouses, while upholding others. A pivotal moment came when the Supreme Court addressed the constitutional status of birthright citizenship, pushing back against an executive order designed to alter the practice. Concurrently, the administration leveraged the statutory authority of Section 212(f) to restrict border entries and asylum claims — a policy that continues to face intense judicial scrutiny.
Economic vibrations and local enforcement
The economic ramifications of these policy shifts are becoming visible across multiple domestic industries. Sectors that rely heavily on foreign labor — particularly hospitality and tourism — reported notable labor contractions and revenue declines over the past twelve months.
At the local level, federal initiatives pressured municipal jurisdictions by threatening to withhold federal funding from "sanctuary" cities that refuse to assist federal agents. The expansion of 287(g) agreements formally authorized various state and local law enforcement agencies to participate directly in immigration enforcement.
As these comprehensive reforms continue to unfold, they face a complex web of legal resistance, economic adjustments, and shifting local cooperation.
From the table to El Paso.
A year of reading these headlines is what sent us looking for the people behind them. This summer, the two of us are traveling to El Paso to volunteer with Doctors of the World — and the monthly issues start in September.
Follow the monthly issues
Starting in September, one email a month — the four weeks, recapped.
Subscribe to The Monthly →