Matias Bidegaray is a staff writer and first-year MPP student.

President-elect Donald Trump has long promised mass deportations as a part of his immigration policy. In his 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump promised to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the United States. Now, as president-elect, he has pledged to undertake “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” Fresh off his election win, the incoming administration seems poised to establish the legal frameworks and infrastructure necessary to pursue this proposal.

Immigration was one of the top issues for Americans going into the 2024 election. Trump emphasized mass deportation as a key component of his domestic agenda in response to several tumultuous years that saw a rise in migrant encounters, more logistical challenges for border officials, and increased media scrutiny on conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border. In a campaign season marked by assertive rhetoric around immigration and undocumented people, President-elect Trump zeroed in on his mass deportation plan. Reports indicate that Trump’s administration will bring on “border czar” Tom Homan, a former ICE official who led Trump’s family separation policy and recently promised “a hell of a lot more deportations” to oversee border control. Campaign surrogates have also pledged to start mass deportations on day one of Trump’s presidency. The president-elect hasn’t provided many specifics about his plan, but he claims that large-scale deportations would reduce housing prices by lowering demand, blames rising crime on immigration despite crime rates declining since 2021, and falsely asserts that immigrants are taking jobs from Americans.

The election season has come and gone, with voters granting Trump another four years and vindicating a growing number of Americans receptive to this large-scale proposal. This analysis doesn’t aim to assess the morality of his plan, but rather to examine the potential trade-offs Americans may face if it’s implemented. 

Legal Precedence & Feasibility

The U.S. government has previously carried out large-scale removals. The Alien Enemy Act of 1798 allowed for detentions, expulsions, and restrictions targeting specific nationalities and racial groups, most notably the internment of Japanese Americans. These actions underscore the executive branch’s capacity to enforce mass deportations when invoked. Trump has already signaled his intent to draw on these legal precedents, particularly the Alien Enemy Act, as justification for his plan. However, experts warn that while these powers were used in extreme cases, they would face uphill legal challenges today. Trump’s team is preparing to bypass constraints by citing broad authorities and courts that have upheld executive power on immigration, though the courts might not intervene to limit such actions. 

Beyond questions of legal and historical precedent, deporting over 13 million people raises concerns about feasibility and costs. Estimates indicate that identifying, apprehending, and repatriating each individual could cost upwards of $13,000 per case. Another analysis estimates a total cost just under $1 trillion dollars over a decade, including the compounding costs of running detention centers and identification/apprehension programs. Scaling this operation would require substantial taxpayer funds, with costs likely to balloon if removals are prolonged—a possibility given the logistical and legal challenges involved.

Economic, Labor, & Service Costs

The economic impact of the president-elect’s deportation plan is far-reaching, possibly resulting in one in every 20 people in the U.S. being deported in some states. The mass removal of millions of non-citizens would shrink the labor force by 6.4%, cut approximately $1.6 trillion from the nation’s gross domestic product, and drag down overall employment of American-born workers. Sectors that rely heavily on foreign-born workers would be hit particularly hard. The recent influx of migrants has been a key driver of the economic recovery since the pandemic’s peak in 2020, especially in essential sectors like construction, agriculture, and hospitality. Undocumented workers make up 1 in 8 in agriculture, 1 in 14 in hospitality, and over 30% in trades like plastering, roofing, and painting. Beyond these blue-collar sectors, they fill essential roles in occupations such as cooking and caregiving—jobs that often go unfilled by native-born workers. 

Eliminating such a large portion of the workforce would inevitably lead to shortages across numerous sectors. Removing essential workers from key industries—especially in an economy that is still trying to fill 370,000 jobs—could have serious economic consequences for American workers and businesses. Labor shortages would likely raise costs for businesses and households alike. With fewer workers available, local demand will fall and small businesses and communities will suffer from the loss of millions of customers, leading to further reductions in employment and income in these communities. Native-born employment and wages will likely decline. Furthermore, reducing the availability of caregiving services will limit options for families that rely on nannies or elderly care. And the consequences would not stop there; economists project that the reduction of the domestic workforce will drive up inflation and trigger a recession as supply disruptions reduce productivity and output.  

In theory, Trump’s response to address labor disruptions relies on market realignment over the long run. A reduction in the labor supply could push employers to raise wages to attract native-born workers, with the hope that industries and firms stabilize. Imperiling millions of migrant households may increase the number of housing units available, though experts are skeptical about such effects. 

Effects on Public Services

The economic strain would also ripple through the public sector, putting immense pressure on public services.

The president-elect’s plan could weaken the fiscal health of federal, state, and local governments. Undocumented immigrants and their families contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits. One report found that immigrants pay $1,300 more in federal taxes annually than they receive in services. Over their lifetimes, non-citizens contribute approximately $237,000 more in taxes than they consume, primarily due to their working-age demographics. In 2022, undocumented immigrants contributed approximately $6 billion to Medicare and $23 billion to Social Security, both widely utilized entitlement programs for U.S. residents. 

Governments will face losses in tax revenues at the expense of public services. In 2022, undocumented immigrant and mixed-status households paid $46.8 billion in federal taxes and $29.3 billion in state and local taxes. Local governments use these funds to finance everyday public goods and services. By decreasing the tax base state and local authorities can draw from, the quality and effectiveness of those public goods and services will erode. For example, public school systems, which depend on property taxes, would face budget shortfalls that impact the quality of education and services available to American children, both native and foreign-born. 

Conclusion & Case for Consideration 

For Americans to support a mass deportation plan, they should be informed of its immediate costs and implications. Immigration is an issue Trump has leveraged throughout this election cycle, and he is positioned to make mass deportation a centerpiece of his domestic policy agenda. The president-elect’s plan could reshape labor markets and the economy over time while Americans feel a real and immediate impact. Votes have been cast, and the election is decided; now all that remains to answer is whether the administration can fulfill this proposal and if the promised long-term benefits will outweigh the costs.

Photo courtesy of the New York Public Library on Unsplash.

The views expressed in Policy Perspectives and Brief Policy Perspectives are those of the authors and do not represent the approval or endorsement of the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, the George Washington University, or any employee of either institution.