WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that he supports legal immigration while opposing unlawful border crossings, but critics say the administration’s recent actions tell a different story as executive policies increasingly restrict legal immigration pathways across nearly every category of the system.
Over the past several months, the Trump administration has moved to suspend or sharply limit refugee admissions, asylum processing, family reunification visas, green card applications and high-skilled worker programs, prompting immigration advocates, attorneys and policy analysts to argue the administration’s true objective is reducing immigration overall rather than merely curbing illegal entry.
A recent New York Times report described the administration’s approach as “a new push” targeting legal immigration after public backlash emerged over aggressive raids and enforcement operations focused on undocumented immigrants.
“The Trump administration has pulled back its aggressive operations in cities like Chicago and Minneapolis after bad polling indicated the crackdown on illegal immigration was unpopular,” the Times reported. “In its wake, however, a new approach is emerging on legal immigration, one that makes it harder for those abroad to enter the United States, and for those already here on a temporary basis to stay.”
The article detailed a series of recent policy changes, including new travel restrictions affecting more than 35 countries, a freeze on diversity visa processing, suspensions of long-term immigrant visas from dozens of nations and a new Department of Homeland Security policy requiring many green card applicants to leave the United States while awaiting final approval.
Immigration analysts say the cumulative effect has been dramatic.
During a recent podcast hosted by the Cato Institute, David Bier, the organization’s director of immigration studies, argued that Trump’s executive actions have reduced legal immigration more than illegal immigration in absolute terms.
“So if you look at it on a monthly basis at the end of the Biden administration, on the main programs that we’re talking about, almost 190,000 legal entries per month and now we’re down to fewer than 55,000 per month,” Bier said. “So an enormous cut.”
Bier contrasted that with reductions in unlawful border crossings.
“So more than twice as many legal immigrants, legal travelers, legal workers are being blocked by this administration’s executive action,” he said.
The administration has defended the changes as necessary to combat fraud, protect American workers and tighten border security. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told the Times the president’s immigration policies are intended to help Americans economically while preventing abuse of the system.
“It also includes ensuring Americans have access to good-paying jobs at home, and also stopping aliens from exploiting and abusing our immigration system,” Jackson said.
Trump himself has consistently claimed that his immigration views were supportive of lawful immigration while condemning unauthorized entry. During his 2019 State of the Union address, Trump declared, “Legal immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways.”
“I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever,” Trump said at the time. “But they have to come in legally.”
In 2024, Trump also suggested that international students graduating from U.S. colleges should receive green cards automatically alongside their diplomas.
But critics argue the administration’s actual policies contradict those public statements.
“They do not see their legal immigration agenda as being separate and apart from their illegal immigration agenda,” Bier told the Times. “The legal immigration agenda is an extension of their illegal immigration agenda.”
The Cato podcast focused extensively on the administration’s dismantling of legal asylum pathways. Bier said the administration immediately eliminated the CBP [Customs and Border Protection] One app process that had allowed asylum seekers to apply for entry legally at ports of entry rather than crossing unlawfully between border checkpoints.
“They said, ‘We’re not going to allow any asylum seekers to apply to enter legally,’” Bier said.
Bier emphasized that these asylum applicants had already submitted identifying information and undergone government vetting procedures before appearing at ports of entry.
“They applied on an app known as the CBP1 app,” Bier explained. “They submitted their information, their face and all of that got vetted, went to the port of entry, got interviewed and then were either approved or denied entry.”
According to Bier, legal asylum processing at ports of entry exceeded 40,000 people monthly at the end of the Biden administration before collapsing almost immediately after Trump’s inauguration.
“And this is actually, it should be noted, this is not unique to the Biden administration either,” Bier said, noting similar though more limited processing existed during Trump’s first term.
Critics say the administration has not attempted to reform asylum procedures but instead eliminated legal channels entirely.
“They didn’t improve the process,” Bier said. “They got rid of it.”
The administration has also drastically reduced refugee admissions. Bier said refugee approvals declined roughly 90 percent after Trump suspended the refugee program shortly after returning to office.
“The first action they took immediately on January 20th, they just shut down the refugee program completely for everyone regardless of who they were or how they were coming,” Bier said.
Bier noted the administration has continued allowing a limited number of white South African refugees into the country while blocking most other refugee populations.
“Anyone facing religious persecution around the world is banned regardless of who they are or where they’re coming from or how well vetted they are,” Bier said.
The Times article similarly highlighted growing concern among immigration attorneys over the administration’s increasingly broad restrictions.
The administration has reportedly imposed visa suspensions affecting nationals from more than 90 countries. Bier said the policies have disrupted family reunification for many U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
“Half of all spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens are now banned from reuniting with their spouses and parents here in the United States,” Bier said.
Amanda Baran, a former Biden administration Department of Homeland Security official, sharply criticized the administration’s direction in comments to the Times.
“The focus on ‘illegal’ immigration was a lie meant to distract from their true goal of reducing immigration of all kinds, and we are now watching that vision become reality,” Baran said.
The administration has also targeted employment-based immigration programs, particularly H-1B visas used by technology companies and other industries employing highly skilled foreign workers.
Bier said the administration imposed a $100,000 fee on certain H-1B applications, causing applications to plummet by roughly 87 percent.
“These are highly specialized workers,” Bier said. “And if you look at it, there’s no evidence of displacement at all.”
Bier argued the administration’s economic rationale for restricting H-1B visas ignores evidence showing immigrant workers and American workers often complement rather than replace each other.
“Alongside this huge increase in the H1B population, you’ve had a huge increase in U.S.-born workforce in these fields,” Bier said. “The reason why that makes sense is because they’re complementary.”
The administration’s broader immigration strategy may still prove politically effective. The Times noted polling continues to show widespread public support for legal immigration while also showing concern about border security and unauthorized crossings.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told the Times many Americans support legal immigration generally but also believe the system contains major flaws.
“Polling shows Americans support legal immigration in a general, amorphous kind of way,” Krikorian said. “But the system is so flawed that Americans would not object to efforts to fix loopholes and root out fraud.”
Bier, however, argued the administration’s policies amount to an effort to reduce immigration overall rather than improve existing systems.
“And that’s what we see is just fewer and fewer people being able to come,” Bier said. “There’s never any recourse to, ‘Okay, and we’re going to expand over here.’ It’s always just cut, cut, cut.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
