Did Barack Obama deport more people than Donald Trump?
The Trump administration's expansion of federal power prompted nationwide protests, which organizers said could have been bolstered by the federal crackdown on the Los Angeles protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids.
Trump has long promised the greatest deportation program in history. How does he compare?
Are people protesting more than usual? 'Jaw-dropping' number planned on Trump's birthday
Did Obama deport more people than Trump?
By annual comparisons, yes.
Obama had earned the critical reputation as "deporter in chief," and Trump's first term lagged behind Obama in numbers.
Throughout eight years in office, the Obama administration logged more than 3.1 million ICE deportations, according to Syracuse's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. The peak was fiscal year 2012, when more than 407,000 people were removed.
By comparison, the first Trump administration maxed out at deporting 269,000 people in 2019, according to the same TRAC data set. Across four years, the Trump administration recorded fewer than 932,000 deportations.
How many people has Trump deported in this term?
The Trump administration had deported about 200,000 people over four months, border czar Tom Homan said in late May.
That is still less than the number of deportations in a similar period under President Joe Biden, which the White House credits to fewer people coming to the border.
Trump called on ICE officers in a June 15 Truth Social post to "do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History."
Contributing: Lauren Villagran, Bart Jansen, Aysha Bagchi, Joey Garrison, Zac Anderson, USA TODAY
Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@gannett.com. Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @kinseycrowley.bsky.social.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Albanese faces backlash for 'tone-deaf' action upon Canberra return
Anthony Albanese has sparked mixed reactions online after returning to Australia without securing a face-to-face meeting with Donald Trump - only to post a photo of his dog lounging in Parliament as global tensions escalate. The Prime Minister used his return to Canberra to post an image of his cavoodle Toto sitting on an orange lounge suite in his Parliament House office. This lighthearted post came as the U.S. was focused on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran , and while Australia faced pressing issues like trade tariffs and AUKUS discussions. 'Today is International Take Your Dog to Work Day,' he said on Instagram with an image of his cute companion. The Instagram post had supporters with one woman saying: 'I love it. Please don't join the war.' But one man slammed Albanese for being focused on trivial issues, during a time of economic and geopolitical upheaval. 'Nobody cares. Do your job,' he said. Another said the post was 'tone-deaf'. The post was made on Instagram after Albanese had returned from the G7 leaders' summit in Canada without securing a sidelines meeting in person with Trump, who cancelled so he could return to the United States early and focus on the Israel-Iran conflict. A meeting had been promised so Australia could lobby Trump to reconsider 50 per cent tariffs on Australian steel and aluminium, after import taxes on the metals were doubled on June 4, along with 10 per cent tariffs on most other Australian exports to the US. The Trump Administration is also reviewing its commitment to the AUKUS submarine deal, which is set to conservatively cost Australia $368billion so it has underwater defence against a more assertive China. Despite the need for leader-to-leader dialogue, Albanese had to settle for meeting with top economic officials in Calgary, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Trump had left the G7 summit early due to the Israel-Iran conflict, cancelling planned meetings with several world leaders including Albanese, who has only ever spoken to the US President on the phone. Trump was also unable to meet Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi but they held a 35-minute phone call at Trump's request, in place of their planned in-person meeting on the summit sidelines. Albanese, however, was the only leader to miss out, with South Korea's new President Lee Jae Myung also failing to have a promised in-person meeting with Trump at the G7. Albanese last month declined to meet US Vice President JD Vance during his visit to Rome for the Pope's inauguration. When asked at the time if he had spoken or reached out to him for a meeting, Albanese replied simply, 'No'. 'He arrived quite late in terms of just prior to the mass taking place, as you will have seen,' he said later. The White House has confirmed that Trump will attend the NATO Summit in the Netherlands next week, though his presence may now be in doubt because of the rapidly changing situation in the Middle East.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Trump's indecision on Iran due to primal fear about 'another Libya'
President Trump gave Iran a two-week grace period to negotiate a nuclear pact over fears of repeating the chaos that took place in Libya and the devastating aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump is confident he can still secure a diplomatic outcome amid the escalating war between Israel and Iran, despite threats this week that he would drag the US into the another crisis in the Middle East. 'He'd rather have a deal,' an insider told The New York Post about Trump's thinking. Trump fears causing 'another Libya,' referring to the North African nation's descent into anarchy and chaos after longtime dictator Gaddafi was toppled in 2011 during the Obama administration. At the time, the West hoped Gaddafi's death would pave the way for democracy, but instead the region was overrun with warlords and religious extremists. The deaths of a US Ambassador and several Americans at the embassy in Benghazi plagued former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for years. 'There are two reasons Trump talks about Libya: the first is the chaos after what we did to Gaddafi,' a source told the Post. 'The second is the Libya intervention made it more difficult to negotiate deals with countries like North Korea and Iran.' Experts warned that any effort to overthrow the Iranian regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would further destabilize the region and risks fueling radicalization. Trump has also been an outspoken critic of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, calling it 'the single worst decision ever made.' 'Here we are, like the dummies of the world, because we had bad politicians running our country for a long time,' Trump said in 2018, comparing it to 'throwing a big fat brick into a hornet's nest.' The Iraq war was launched under President George W Bush under the pretext that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction. It resulted in years of sectarian bloodbath and the deaths of 4,500 US service members. Trump insiders also said that the protracted US occupation of Afghanistan also weighed heavily on his mind. The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was intended to destroy the Taliban and Al-Qaeda but morphed into a nation building exercise that amounted to one of America's longest and most expensive wars. Trump's decision to show restraint for at least two weeks come despite Iran ramping up strikes and boasting that its nuclear material survived Israel's repeated bombing. The Iranian regime on Thursday was accused of launching at least one cluster bomb at civilian targets, which would be an extraordinary departure from global ethical expectations during war. More than 100 nations signed an agreement in 2008 against the use of cluster munitions, which burst and scatter numerous smaller bombs and are near impossible to accurately detonate. Now, Trump has repeated Israel's allegations that Iran is also close to developing nuclear weapons, despite assurances from his own national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard just three months ago that that was not the case. 'I don't care what she said,' Trump hit back. 'I think they were very close to having one.' His full-throated criticism of Iran this week has sparked a MAGA civil war as close and loyal soldiers of the MAGA movement, including Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor-Greene, express dissatisfaction at his apparent shift away from his 'America First' mindset. Israel has been launching missiles at Iran in an attempt to cripple its nuclear capabilities since last Friday, and Trump has publicly expressed that he is willing to wade into the war to offer US military strength. But he stepped back from the brink last night as Britain prepared to take part in peace talks with Iran when he vowed to give Tehran two weeks to strike a deal with the West. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, quoting the president. In the previous 48 hours, the US President had demanded Iran's 'unconditional surrender' and threatened air strikes 'in days.' Negotiations will start today with Britain, France and Germany due to sit down with Iran's foreign minister in Geneva. And Iran-backed militias throughout the Middle East have vowed to attack US military bases in the region should the US launch a strike on Iran. 'We reaffirm, with even greater clarity, that should the United States enter into this war, the deranged (US President Donald) Trump shall forfeit all the trillions he dreams of seizing from this region,' Iraqi militia Kataib Hezbollah said. 'Undoubtedly, American bases throughout the region will become akin to duck-hunting grounds,' the statement added. Meanwhile, the leader of Hezbollah, a pro-Iran Lebanese militant group, said it would 'act as we see fit' in response to the ongoing war between its main backer Iran and Israel. Simultaneously, Iran boasted that all its nuclear material had been moved to 'a safe place' before Israeli missiles struck its nuclear sites. ' Israel hit Natanz, Isfahan, Khandab, and Arak, but they were already evacuated,' Iranian commander Mohsen Rezaei said on Thursday. 'All the materials have been moved to a safe place,' he added. The dramatic developments came on another day of horror as an Iranian ballistic missile struck Soroka Hospital, in Beersheba, which suffered extensive damage. The attack, a direct hit, left 71 injured and saw Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowing revenge. 'Iran's terrorist tyrants launched missiles at Soroka Hospital and at a civilian population in the center of the country,' he said. 'We will exact the full price from the tyrants in Tehran.' Israel's defense minister, Israel Katz, said that Iran's Supreme Leader 'can no longer be allowed to exist', branding him 'the modern Hitler.' Netanyahu also refused to rule out an assassination attempt. The US has previously vetoed two attempts on Khamenei's life. Israel also intensified its aerial attacks on Iran, blowing a large hole in a heavy water nuclear facility in Arak, having warned locals to evacuate the area in advance. Earlier in the week an Israeli strike hit the building housing Iran's state broadcaster in Tehran. Mr Trump's surprise retreat appeared a victory for the UK-led diplomatic push as Sir Keir Starmer appealed for 'cool heads.' The Prime Minister said: 'The principle is we need to de-escalate this. There is a real risk of escalation here that will impact the region, akin to Gaza, and will impact the economy. 'Yes, the nuclear issue needs to be dealt with but it is better dealt with by way of negotiations rather than conflict. 'I have been absolutely clear, we need to de-escalate this.' President Trump's peace envoy Steve Witkoff is also understood to be separately speaking to the Iranian foreign minister, who has repeatedly insisted Iran is acting in self-defence. Britain and Europe were also said to have warned Trump that bombing Iran would put Westerners at risk, fearing that it would trigger a wave of revenge attacks. The two-week time limit is a tactic the President has used before, notably with Vladimir Putin over the future of Ukraine. But, given that deadline has now twice passed without any concessions from the Russian president, questions were last night being asked of how serious all of Trump's tough talk is. Calls for a pause in hostilities came hours after US sources confirmed that the President had signed off detailed plans for US operations against Iranian nuclear facilities, believing they needed to be wiped out to stop Tehran forging an atomic bomb. Israel has attacked what it can but only 30,000lb US 'bunker buster' bombs have the capability to destroy plants such as at Fordow, deep in a mountain. Sources told CBS News that Trump was open to letting Iran shut down Fordow but had made up his mind that it could not continue to operate. 'He believes there's not much choice,' one source said. 'Finishing the job means destroying Fordow.' The Israelis have also said that Operation Rising Lion, as the now seven-day bombing campaign has been called, would be a failure if Fordow remained. Leavitt said that regime change was not Trump's priority and called for people to 'trust President Trump'. She stressed that there was no change in the US's position that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Has Ursula von der Leyen seen the light on China?
Coming from an American politician, the accusations would have been unsurprising. Beijing is unwilling to 'live within the constraints of the rules-based international system' and its trade policy is one of 'distortion with intent'. It splashes subsidies with abandon, undercuts intellectual property protections, and as for China's membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), that was probably a mistake too. It is bold of von der Leyen to raise the WTO, and it will be intriguing to see how she is greeted at the EU-China leaders' summit Yet this tirade came not from an acolyte of Donald Trump, but from Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission during this week's summit of G7 countries in Kananaskis, Alberta. 'Donald is right,' she said during a roundtable. Could there have been something in that Rocky Mountain water? Or was this all a devilish ploy to curry favour with Trump and thereby secure a favourable trade deal with the US? After all, it will not have gone unnoticed in Brussels that the US-UK trade pact contained security and other provisions clearly aimed at excluding China from sensitive supply chains and cutting edge tech. But it wasn't only her words. The EU has also scrapped a key economic meeting with Beijing, which was to have been held ahead of an EU-China leaders' summit in the Chinese capital next month, citing a lack of progress on numerous trade disputes. It recently restricted Chinese medical device manufacturers from access to the EU's vast public procurement market, launched an anti-dumping investigation into Chinese tires and wind turbines and refused Beijing's demands to remove tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. The truth is that Brussels has lost patience with China, and the famous EU fudge is (at least for now) being jettisoned for a far more robust approach to what EU officials see as China's serial rule-breaking. Beijing's recent restrictions on the export of critical minerals, which threatened to bring the continent's motor industry to its knees, have been a painful reminder of the EU's dangerous dependencies and Beijing's willingness to weaponise its supply chains. The EU's trade investigations are being carried out under a new Foreign Subsidies Regulation, which unusually for the rather pedestrian EU bureaucracy is fast, focused and – so far – exceedingly effective. If a foreign-owned company bidding for a contract or involved in a takeover is suspected of unfair subsidies, the EU can demand detailed business information. Last year, the Dutch and Polish offices of Nuctech, a Chinese security equipment company, were raided by EU competition regulators, acting under the new powers. A Chinese railway equipment manufacturer pulled out of bidding for a large contract in Bulgaria, preferring not to hand over data that would almost certainly have revealed wads of subsidies. In spite of these growing tensions, Beijing believed it could use Trump's tariff war to prize away Brussels from Washington – a long-standing goal of Chinese policy. To this end, in late April it announced it was lifting sanctions it had imposed on members of the European Parliament in retaliation for EU sanctions on Chinese entities accused of human rights abuses in Xinjiang. President Xi Jinping also launched a charm offensive, calling for unity in the face of coercion and presenting himself as an upholder of free trade. This has backfired, being seen widely in Brussels as laughable hypocrisy. Looming large over EU relations with China is Beijing's support for Vladmir Putin, which is felt much more profoundly in European capitals than in Washington. But Brussels has also been willing to call out China on a range of security issues. These include the blacklisting of Huawei lobbyists earlier this year following allegations of bribery linked to the tech company's activities in Brussels. Germany has accused China of being behind a cyberattack on the federal cartography agency for espionage purposes, and the Belgian intelligence agencies have investigated Alibaba for 'possible spying and/or interference activities' at the cargo airport in Liège. It should not be forgotten that the term 'de-risking' in relation to China was first popularised by von der Leyen. She introduced it in a March 2023 speech to the Berlin-based Mercator Institute for China Studies. She said it meant being clear-eyed about China's growing economic and security ambitions. 'It also means taking a critical look at our own resilience and dependencies,' she said. 'De-risking' was soon adopted in other Western capitals, replacing the more clunky 'decoupling'. De-risking sounded more nuanced – a more orderly form of decoupling. It was vague, slightly murky, and open to interpretation. But therein lay its strength. It could be dialled up or down according to the circumstances, a flexible tool, with which few could disagree. It seemed like plain common-sense, which is probably why it so irked Beijing. 'It is just another word game. It will not change the 'ostrich mentality' of some countries to escape from the real world,' snarled the Global Times, a state-owned tabloid, at the time. When von der Leyen travelled to Beijing with French President Emmanuel Macron a week after her speech, Macron was given the red carpet treatment while the EC president was largely cold-shouldered in what was interpreted as a calculated snub. During this week's G7 meeting, von der Leyen said: 'We strongly feel that the biggest challenges are not the trade between G7 partners. Rather, the sources of the biggest collective problem we have has its origins in the accession of China to the WTO in 2001'. China's membership of the WTO is widely seen as a high point of western delusion about China. Beijing promised to improve the rule of law, to protect intellectual property rights, cut import tariffs, give greater access to its market, liberalise controls on its exchange rate, scrap trade barriers and much more. Few of these ever happened, or where one barrier was removed, another was erected. China has clung to the privileges of a 'developing' country. It has never provided a level playing field for foreign companies but was able to flood the world with its own cheap exports, while western companies flocked to outsource production and supply chains to Chinese factories, hollowing out manufacturing throughout the West. This led inextricably to the dependencies the West is decades later trying to unwind and has fuelled populist anger in developed economies. It is bold of von der Leyen to raise the WTO, and it will be intriguing to see how she is greeted at the EU-China leaders' summit, tentatively set for late next month to mark 50 years of bilateral relations. Few will be in celebratory mood, and Xi will probably concentrate on individual European leaders, believing he has greater influence with them than with the European Commission president. His main miscalculation has been to believe he can leverage the distrust of Trump to China's advantage, because while it is true that Trump is haemorrhaging trust, the grim truth for Xi is that Beijing never enjoyed much trust in the first place.
