Trump 2.0: Four Key Shifts Expected in U.S. Asylum and Regional Migration Policy

Felipe Navarro, December 3, 2024

Felipe Navarro is Policy & Advocacy Manager at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS) and Fletcher School, MALD '15.

Donald Trump’s re-election as President of the United States signals a sharp escalation in restrictive asylum and migration policies. While much attention has been given to his administration’s stated intent to carry out mass deportations, this is just one part of a broader and deeply concerning immigration agenda. Drawing from the precedent set during his first term, promises made on the campaign, and appointments announced to date, his administration is expected to pursue measures that further marginalize the most vulnerable immigrant communities in the country and close the door to those arriving at the U.S. border seeking refuge.

This article highlights four key areas where the Trump administration is expected to take significant action: narrowing asylum eligibility, reducing access to asylum while expanding border externalization, eliminating existing humanitarian programs, and shifting regional cooperation toward increased enforcement. These areas are particularly notable for their immediate and far-reaching implications, not only for individuals seeking protection but also for the broader framework of regional migration governance.

However, the scope of these measures will extend well beyond the issues covered here. Trump’s anticipated immigration agenda includes promises of militarized “mass deportations,” potential new travel bans targeting specific countries or populations, and changes to programs like DACA or refugee resettlement. While these topics fall outside the scope of this article, they represent critical areas of concern and deserve continued scrutiny as the incoming administration’s policies unfold.

1.     Restrictions on Asylum Eligibility 

During Trump’s first term, the Attorneys General used their authority to certify immigration cases for review and issue binding legal interpretations that significantly narrowed asylum eligibility. This power, which allows the Attorney General to set precedent in immigration law, was applied to restrict protection for individuals fleeing domestic and gender-based violence, as well as those escaping threats from gangs and organized crime. 

The Biden administration later reversed these decisions, reinstating prior standards that provide broader, though still challenging to receive, protection for asylum seekers.

Although this issue was not explicitly emphasized in Trump’s campaign promises or the Republican Party platform, his administration is likely to revisit these restrictions. These measures were a defining feature of his first term’s asylum policy, and the Project 2025 transition plan specifically recommends working with Congress to eliminate asylum eligibility based on the “particular social group” ground—or, at a minimum, to narrow its application by excluding cases involving domestic or gang violence. Given that this ground has historically been the basis for these types of claims, such changes would once again significantly limit access to protection for individuals fleeing gangs or domestic violence. 

2.     Reduced Access to Asylum and Increased Border Externalization 

A defining feature of Trump’s first term was a wave of border policies that systematically dismantled access to asylum at the U.S. border. These punitive, unlawful measures set the stage for Biden’s own border policies—such as “Circumvention of Legal Pathways” and “Securing the Border”—and foreshadow what is to come. Trump’s promises to “seal the border” and revive his prior policies indicate there will be sweeping efforts early in the new administration to reinstate and potentially expand these measures.

Among the programs likely to make a comeback are “Remain in Mexico,” which forced asylum seekers to wait in precarious conditions in Mexico while their cases were pending in the United States, and the Asylum Cooperative Agreements, which allowed the transfer of asylum seekers to third countries to request protection there. Both would require agreements or arrangements with foreign governments to be reinstated. Additionally, Trump’s administration will likely expand restrictions that penalize asylum seekers who transit through third countries without first seeking protection or who enter the U.S. outside official ports of entry. The Republican Party platform explicitly calls for reinstating Title 42, signaling an intention to reintroduce immediate expulsions at the border.

These policies have left asylum seekers in perilous, often inhumane conditions, exacerbating vulnerabilities and perpetuating a humanitarian crisis at the border. Programs like “Remain in Mexico” stranded thousands in border cities, where they faced kidnapping, assault, and extortion. Title 42 expulsions denied due process, sending many back to dangerous conditions without refuge. Such measures eroded fundamental protections, compounding the suffering of vulnerable populations with limited access to safety, basic necessities, or legal counsel.

3.     Attacks on Humanitarian Programs 

Throughout his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump pledged to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS), focusing particularly on the Haitian community. However, according to advisors, his administration’s plans extend beyond Haiti to include a broad effort to eliminate TPS protections for multiple nationalities. This would mirror his first term, during which the administration attempted—though ultimately failed—to end TPS for citizens of El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan.

TPS is a critical program that offers temporary legal status and work authorization to individuals already in the United States who are from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions that prevent safe return. Eliminating TPS designations could leave hundreds of thousands of people vulnerable to deportation, destabilizing families and communities across the United States.

Additionally, Trump explicitly vowed to end the humanitarian parole programs established or reinstated under the Biden administration, such as CHNV (for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela) and Uniting for Ukraine. Terminating these programs would eliminate one of the few remaining avenues for legal entry available to individuals fleeing dire circumstances in their home countries.

4.     Expansion of Enforcement-Centered Regional Cooperation 

During his presidency, Joe Biden increased regional collaboration on migration and border enforcement—such as in the unprecedented agreement to fund deportations from Panama—while initiating limited efforts to expand access to legal migration pathways. Notably, the Safe Mobility Offices, established through intergovernmental cooperation, aim to provide safe and orderly alternatives to irregular migration.

Under a second Trump administration, however, regional cooperation is expected to shift dramatically toward enforcement and border externalization. As seen during Trump’s first term, these efforts will likely focus on preventing refugees and migrants from reaching the U.S. border or seeking protection within the United States. 

Trump’s approach is also expected to undermine initiatives like the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection, which the Biden administration championed as a regional framework for addressing migration collaboratively. Efforts under this framework, such as the expansion of humanitarian programs and commitments to regular migration pathways, will likely be deprioritized—or abandoned altogether—under the Trump administration.

The shift toward enforcement-focused regional cooperation risks exacerbating vulnerabilities for migrants in transit and placing undue pressure on countries in the region. Many transit countries lack the capacity to provide adequate protection or meaningful humanitarian alternatives, leaving migrants stranded in unsafe conditions with limited support. These policies are likely to force more individuals into more dangerous migration routes, further compounding the challenges faced by both refugees and the systems designed to assist them.

Conclusion 

Many of the policies outlined in this article were first attempted during Trump’s initial term, and while some were implemented, others faced extensive legal challenges that delayed or blocked their enforcement. These battles are likely to resurface, with courts once again becoming a key arena for contesting restrictive measures. Advocacy groups and legal experts are already preparing to meet this moment, ensuring that these policies do not go unchallenged.

Despite the legal obstacles and uncertainties ahead, the anticipated trajectory of Trump’s second term underscores the urgent need for vigilance and proactive action from civil society, policymakers, and international actors. Regional cooperation, particularly among civil society organizations across the Americas, will be crucial in addressing the shared challenges posed by restrictive U.S. policies. By strengthening cross-border solidarity and advocacy, and centering the voices of directly impacted individuals, there remains an opportunity to uphold the fundamental principles of human rights and protection for refugees, even in the face of significant challenges.