Home » Policy by Issue » Border Security

Border Security

Summary of Impacts

Project 2025 recommends reducing environmental regulations on business which will lead to higher emissions and environmental harm. It suggests withdrawing from international environmental agreements which will lead to the breakdown of global efforts to fight climate change. It aims to cut funding for research into climate change and renewable energy, weakening future technological innovation.

Key Quotes

“Remove the U.S. from any association with U.N. and other efforts to push sustainable-development schemes connected to food production”
(Bakst 325)

“Revisit the designation of PFAS chemicals as ‘hazardous substances'”
(Gunasekara Page 463)

“Make the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads a top priority.”
(McNamee 430)

Impacts on Border Security

These policies aim to drastically change America’s border security and immigration systems. They propose speeding up deportations, using more military at borders, and combining immigration agencies into a single, potentially less accountable group. The focus is on strict measures: eliminating “sensitive zones,” using search warrants for workplace checks, and reducing protections for unaccompanied minors by repealing parts of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act. These actions will lead to more immigrants being marginalized and criminalized, regardless of their documentation status.

They also aim to remove protections for victims of crime and trafficking, making it harder for them to seek help. They also speed up the removal process for immigrants who are seeking asylum, limit guest worker visas, and make it very difficult for people to claim asylum. This creates a hostile environment for immigrants, pushing vulnerable populations underground and making it hard for them to access basic rights and justice.

These policies are moving away from protecting human rights and dignity, instead creating fear and prejudice against immigrants. They make it easier for immigration agencies to abuse their power and hide what they’re doing. By allowing these agencies into places like schools, hospitals, and churches, trust in the community is broken, making it harder for people to get help when they need it.

Beyond the immediate physical and emotional harm to immigrants, these policies endanger broader American values and public safety. The increased militarization of border security and the use of authoritarian tactics to suppress perceived threats erodes civil liberties not just for immigrants, but for all Americans. Tactics such as expedited removal without due process and repealing humanitarian protections for vulnerable individuals, like victims of trafficking, position the state as an unchecked enforcer, sidestepping judicial safeguards and due process. This not only violates international human rights standards but also sets a dangerous precedent that may be expanded to other areas of law enforcement, further eroding democracy and individual freedoms.

Quotes from the Mandate

Page numbers refer to the Mandate for Leadership PDF

“End parole abuse by legislating specific parole standards.” (General Welfare, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 178)

USCIS currently has parole standards as outlined here. Additionally, contained within that link is information about how CBP and ICE work with USCIS in terms of granting parole and each agency’s jurisdiction over parole requests. The policy called for in the Mandate already exists and is superfluous.

“Repeal Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 177)

TPS is a form of humanitarian relief that is granted to eligible nationals of countries undergoing environmental disasters, armed conflicts, or extreme conditions that prevent their safe return. Beneficiaries are protected from deportation and can legally work in the United States. The current TPS designations shift frequently, but currently include countries like El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan. Repealing TPS would profoundly impact hundreds of thousands of lives in immigrant and ethnic minority communities. They would likely face job loss, family separation, and potentially deportation. It would force them into an uncertain status, directly increasing economic instability for them (and their communities). If they were forced to return to their home countries, they would be thrown back into the crisis they were trying to escape from, potentially leading to harm or even death.

“Eliminate T and U visas. Victimization should not be a basis for an immigration benefit.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 173)

T and U Visas protect victims of human trafficking, involuntary servitude, extortion, witness tampering, and other severe crimes. In all cases, victims must cooperate with law enforcement authorities to receive Visa benefits. Eliminating these options would mean that traumatized victims would lose critical protection pathways, likely subjecting them to deportation and retraumatization. It would also hinder law enforcement efforts since victims have no incentive to cooperate.

“Order ICE to stop closing out pending immigration cases and apply the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as written by Congress.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 173)

The policy they’re referring to here is known as administrative closure. Immigration is complex and there are often multiple time-consuming factors at play (adjustment of status, asylum, family-based petition) that may impact a person’s eligibility and court case. Due to the growing backlog of immigration cases (more than 2 million), administrative closure is used to help prioritize the most crucial cases that can be adjudicated quickly. Though administrative closure has been used effectively since 1983, the Trump Administration ended it in 2018. Since then, the efficiency of immigration proceedings has plummeted, increasing the backlog of cases by over 250,000 in just one year. The argument against administrative closure is that it doesn’t follow the Immigration and Nationality Act as written. This is true, however, administrative closure has been one of the only effective ways of making meaningful progress in immigration cases (per the National Association of Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals). Without it, our immigration caseload will continue to grow more unmanageable. Additionally, immigrants who are already struggling with complex legalese and major life upheavals will face delays and barriers accessing services to help them.

“The standard for a credible fear of persecution should be raised and aligned to the standard for asylum.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 180)

When someone feels forced to leave their home country due to dangerous conditions, they can apply for asylum in the U.S. “Credible fear” is an initial assessment by an asylum officer who determines whether an individual has a legitimate fear of persecution or torture. If they do, they can proceed to a full asylum hearing before an immigration judge. To be eligible for asylum, the individual must demonstrate “well-founded fear of persecution,” which is a higher standard than the “significant possibility” standard of the initial screening process. For more information about what the asylum application process looks like for immigrants, see this article. The credible fear screening is a crucial part of the asylum process that aims to balance efficient processing with due process rights. Eliminating this screening will lead to the deportation of genuine asylum seekers, causing them harm and possibly death. For more information about the credible fear assessment and why it’s necessary, see this fact sheet.