By Amanda Alatorre with Contributions from Anonymous

Since returning to office this past January, President Trump has mobilized the most powerful tools at the hands of the U.S. government to pursue a fierce fight against immigration. In an Executive Order titled “Protecting the American People from Invasion,” the Trump Administration asserted a vast amount of authority to carry out this mission, including the right to supersede local authorities if their actions don’t align with the rules of the Trump Administration. Trump’s use of the word “invasion” to describe undocumented border crossings marks a bold shift from the term’s conventional meaning, which historically refers to an organized military coming across the border. Stanford Law professor Lucas Guttentag views this change in meaning as a way of creating “a fiction in order to increase the power of the president in ways that are completely inapplicable to this situation.” In other words, Trump manufactures the threat of a migrant invasion to increase the coercive powers of the state. As a result, executive actions such as military deployment to cities, the erosion of legal protections, and increased surveillance technologies become legitimized, contributing to democratic backsliding and the abandonment of liberal values core to our nation.

Experts McKenzie Carrier and Thomas Carothers contend that Trump’s actions reflect the broader pattern of executive aggrandizement, a form of democratic backsliding characterized by the steady centralization of power within the executive branch and the weakening of institutional checks and balances. Through his aggressive immigration policies, Trump has sought to assert dominance over the states and the judiciary, an approach that aligns with the tactic of making the executive branch increasingly more powerful.

A key example of this trend is the administration’s recent deployment of the National Guard to major U.S. cities without the consent of state governors. In June, Trump sent 4,000 troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles to suppress protests sparked by large-scale ICE raids in the city. This marked the beginning of an alarming trend of excessive military force against civilians. Since then, Trump has deployed troops to Portland and Chicago, while also threatening to send them to more cities. In response to threats against San Francisco, California Attorney General Bonta argued that there was “no basis to send National Guard troops […]. No emergency. No rebellion. No invasion. Not even unrest.” Although no threat existed, Trump sought to invent one to justify expanding his coercive authority at the expense of states’ autonomy. In doing so, he bestows the presidency with more power while taking away the powers of state authorities, normally those he has deemed political opponents. During his recent trip to Asia, Trump reasserted his authority to use military force, stating he could send the “Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, […] anybody [he] wanted” into U.S. cities “if [he] thought it was necessary.” In a country with a federalist system that divides power between the federal and state governments, Trump’s willingness to use military force in states against the wishes of their governors is a troubling step away from democratic norms. 

The Trump Administration has also weakened safeguards against unjust uses of coercive power by weaponizing U.S. courts. Since May, ICE has targeted courthouses, producing scenes of “chaos, tears, and heartbreak.” Individuals attending mandatory hearings now risk facing “life-threatening imprisonment, swift removal, and the prospect of indefinite family separation.” Simultaneously, the Trump Administration has pressured immigration judges to deny immigration hearings altogether. Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, argues that “weaponizing immigration courts by threatening people who follow the law and appear for their hearings as directed by the court [will] chill participation in the legal process and violate the fundamental due process and fairness that underpin our legal system.” These developments set a harmful precedent, as courts, historically protectors of civil rights, become sites of rights infringements. The Trump Administration has weakened the integrity of judicial institutions, transforming them into yet “another tool for mass deportation.” By attacking and constraining the judiciary, Trump undermines a crucial check on executive authority, a pattern associated with executive aggrandizement.

Beyond military and legal measures, increased use of AI surveillance technology has strengthened the Trump Administration’s capacity to enforce immigration policy, bringing immigration enforcement activities to the homes and workplaces of Americans. ICE’s recent partnership with Palantir Technologies brings a highly capable AI-powered data processing machine to the forefront of immigration enforcement. Palantir systems like FALCON pull together vast amounts of data and detect patterns to “identify, track, and deport suspected noncitizens.” This has made possible some of ICE’s most aggressive tactics, such as workplace raids, large-scale enforcement operations, and investigations involving asylum seekers. A particularly concerning aspect of this partnership is the type of data used, constituting a severe invasion of privacy not just for migrants but all Americans. Data is drawn from various sources, including social media posts, location history, tax information, and other government databases, such as Medicare and Social Security. The extraordinary capacity of such a system to conduct mass surveillance has raised the concerns of some Palantir engineers who fear that “building systems, especially without sufficient oversight, that are capable of mass surveillance crosses a dangerous line—from protecting the civil liberties that underpin democracy to blatantly undermining them.” This shows that Trump’s actions extend beyond physical force and even involve covert, intelligence-based operations to make such an exercise of power possible. As legal protections erode, these invasions of privacy expose Americans to the threat of forceful repercussions enacted by the state.

Although U.S. democratic institutions have historically demonstrated resilience, scholars warn that “U.S. democracy is being put to the test as never before in the country’s modern history.” As the powers of the state continue to increase under Trump’s migration regime, the American public should be increasingly wary about what this pattern has in store for the future of democracy.