Trump will target US employers in next phase of immigration crackdown, Homan says
The Trump administration is planning to ramp up civil and criminal prosecutions of companies that employ workers without legal status, White House border czar Tom Homan said in an interview Wednesday.
'Worksite enforcement operations are going to massively expand,' Homan said.
The White House has faced criticism from Democrats and even its own anti-immigration allies for exaggerating an immigrant crime wave while holding harmless the employers whose decisions shape huge sectors of the American economy.
President Donald Trump 'won't prosecute companies for bribery and won't prosecute companies for hiring illegal immigrants,' Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., said on X Tuesday. 'This administration just takes care of its donors.'
But behind the scenes, American companies are 'freaking out' about the possibility of civil and criminal sanctions, or about the operational impact of losing a huge labor force, said Chris Thomas, a partner at Holland & Hart, who represents employers in immigration cases.
He said clients have been 'calling in a panic — asking if they should be looking for ways to cut out potentially undocumented workers.' (He added that his clients do not know themselves to be employing any.)
Employers are 'very scared — folks in LA, particularly,' said Bruce Buchanan, a leading immigration lawyer based in Nashville.
Trump appeared to respond to those worries on Thursday morning: 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' he posted on Truth Social, promising that 'changes are coming.'
For now, however, Homan confirmed that employers' fears are justified.
Though the Trump administration prefers to focus on 'sanctuary' city policies that prevent police from turning over migrants who have committed crimes, this week's turmoil in Los Angeles began when federal agents raided four workplaces in the city's garment district as part of criminal investigations. Homan said the government will seek sanctions against employers.
And major public companies have begun to warn investors that their models depend on migrant labor: 'Increased enforcement efforts with respect to existing immigration laws by governmental authorities may disrupt a portion of our workforce or our operations,' Smithfield, a major meatpacker, wrote in late March, the first time such language had appeared in its securities filings.
DoorDash said in a recent filing that a crackdown 'may result in a decrease in the pool of Dashers.'
'They're coming here for a better life and a job, and I get that,' Homan said. 'The more you remove those magnets, the less people are going to come. If they can't get a job most of them aren't going to come.'
Federal authorities have generally avoided targeting companies for a range of reasons, including the high burden of proof under laws that require showing that employers affirmatively knew the workers they hired lacked legal status.
Unlike most developed economies, the US has no standardized national requirement that employers use its system for checking workers' papers, known as eVerify — and many workers evade that system by using a different legal worker's identity.
Trump's first term saw some stepped-up Immigration and Customs Enforcement action against employers, with a two-step nationwide audit in 2018 and a record-setting $80 million civil settlement against the giant Asplundh Tree Experts over an investigation that began in the Obama years.
Allies had expected the enforcement, which typically comes as much as a year after worksite raids, to ramp up before the coronavirus pandemic derailed immigration enforcement.
Employer enforcement 'makes sense, but it has political impact on both sides,' Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told Semafor. 'Many entrepreneurs who are Republican by inclination would protest mightily. They can't have it both ways.'
Such a move 'would reverberate through Congress,' he said.
A concerted focus on employer enforcement would also shake huge segments of the US economy. Almost a quarter of construction workers lack legal status, a 2021 survey found, and as many as half of meatpacking workers.
A focus on those industries could also undercut two of Trump's campaign promises: to make housing more affordable and bring down food prices. 'I won on the border, and I won on groceries,' he told NBC's Kristen Welker in December.
President Trump suggested in April that he would propose a guest worker program for some of those businesses: 'We have to take care of our farmers, the hotels and, you know, the various places where they tend to need people.'
But ICE raided a Nebraska meatpacking plant this week. 'Congress has a job to do,' Homan said. 'We're going to do worksite enforcement operations until there's a deal made.'
When I first asked Homan about employers' role, he turned to talking points about sanctuary cities and the importance of sending agents in to arrest 'bad guys' who municipal authorities wouldn't turn over. Are employers, I asked, 'bad guys' in his view?
'Depends,' he replied. 'I know some employers don't know a fraudulent document from a legal document. But I truly believe that nobody hires an illegal alien from the goodness of their heart. They hire them because they can work them harder, pay them less, and undercut their competition — that hires US citizen employees, and drive wages down.'
And yet, if and when the Trump administration moves past the popular, theatrical pursuit of alleged gang members and criminals, the White House and Congress will need to make hard decisions about how America sees its vast migrant workforce.
Even the most dedicated restrictionists, like Homan, acknowledge that criminals are a tiny minority.
'Most illegal aliens are regular working stiffs,' said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. 'If you're not going after those people, you're not going to change the fundamental calculus.'
(Krikorian is a longtime leader of the US anti-immigration movement — a figure who was so marginal in the Republican Party 20 years ago that when I, as a young reporter for the conservative New York Sun, tried to quote him, my editor told me he was beyond the pale. Now he's the intellectual architect of White House policy.)
Gallego's comment suggests that Democrats, flailing for an affirmative policy on the border and immigration, may also see employers, rather than workers, at the center of the debate. The 'magnet' of migration is a decades-long, tacit agreement that meatpackers, construction companies, and farmers can employ migrants without any real penalties, and without the kind of tax and regulatory enforcement that's common across other developed countries.
The US has struggled for decades to reach an agreement to regularize that system. Restrictionists have long dreamed of trading the legalization of immigrants who arrived illegally as children, known as Dreamers, for broad use of employment authorization.
But many in Trump's movement simply want fewer immigrants, pitting them against big American business and Democrats alike, and while the outlines of a deal have been clear since the early 2000s, the prospect of a bipartisan agreement seems as remote as ever.
The mixed signals toward employers have fed cynicism among those who like Trump's economic nationalism.
'The contradiction at the heart of the administration's approach reveals a fundamental tension between populist rhetoric and pro-business reality. While cameras roll for dramatic deportation footage, the industries dependent on illegal migration are maintaining business as usual. This disconnect could ultimately undermine the economic nationalism that propelled the Trump campaign to victory,' Lee Fang wrote on Substack.
Trump's focus on immigrants with criminal records in US cities has produced an expanding national conflict, per The New York Times.
the apprehension among employers, who are bracing for a wave of audits.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees. ___
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Democrats want new leaders, focus on pocketbook issues, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
By James Oliphant and Jason Lange WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Democrats want new leaders for their party, which many feel isn't focusing enough on economic issues and is over-emphasizing issues like transgender rights and electric vehicles, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found. The poll identified a deep disconnect between what Democrats say their priorities are and the issues they believe party leaders care about most ahead of next year's midterm elections, when they hope to crack Republican control of Congress. They see their elected officials as not focused on helping families make ends meet and reducing corporate influence. Democrat Kamala Harris' November loss to Republican Donald Trump has left the party rudderless and sparked a round of soul-searching about the path forward. The poll shows that party leaders have work to do in recruiting candidates for Congress in 2026 -- and for the White House in 2028. Some 62% of self-identified Democrats in the poll agreed with a statement that "the leadership of the Democratic Party should be replaced with new people." Only 24% disagreed and the rest said they weren't sure or didn't answer. Just 30% of Republicans polled said they thought their party leadership should be replaced. Democrats' dissatisfaction is also playing out in leadership changes, including this week's resignation of Randi Weingarten, the influential president of the American Federation of Teachers, from the Democratic National Committee -- which followed the ouster of progressive activist David Hogg. The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,258 people nationwide and online June 11 through 16, including 1,293 Democrats. It had a margin of error of about 3 percentage points for Democrats. It found that Democrats want the party to focus on their day-to-day needs and want wealthier Americans to pay more in taxes. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is viewed as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, agrees. "People don't trust us, they don't think we have their backs on issues that are core to them, which are these kitchen table issues," Newsom said on his podcast in April. DEMOCRATS 'IMPATIENT' Democratic strategists who reviewed the poll's findings said they send a clear message. "Voters are very impatient right now," said Mark Riddle, who heads Future Majority, a Democratic research firm. "They want elected officials at all levels to address the cost of living, kitchen-table issues and affordability." The poll found a gap between what voters say they care about and what they think the party's leaders prioritize. It was particularly wide on the issue of reducing corporate spending in political campaigns, where 73% of Democrats said they viewed putting limits on contributions to political groups like Super PACs a priority, but only 58% believed party leaders prioritize that. That issue matters to Sam Boland, 29, a Democrat in Minneapolis, who views Super PAC money as a way to 'legally bribe' candidates. 'Politicians want to keep their jobs and are afraid of the impact that publicly funded elections might have,' Boland said. Along that line, 86% of Democrats said changing the federal tax code so wealthy Americans and large corporations pay more in taxes should be a priority, more than the 72% of those surveyed think party leaders make it a top concern. The Republican-controlled Congress is currently pushing forward with Trump's sweeping tax-cut bill that would provide greater benefits to the wealthy than working-class Americans. Anthony Rentsch, 29, of Baltimore, said he believes Democratic leaders are afraid to embrace more progressive policies such as higher taxes on the wealthy. 'A lot of Trump's success has been with populist messages, and I think there's similar populist message Democrats can have,' Rentsch said. Democrats' own priorities appeared more in line with party leaders on abortion rights - which 77% cited as a priority. NEW BLOOD Dissatisfaction over the party's priorities on several economic policies was stronger among younger Democrats like Boland and Rentsch. For example, only 55% of Democrats aged 18-39 thought the party prioritized paid family leave that would allow workers to care for sick family members and bond with a new baby, but 73% said it was a priority for them. Among older Democrats, the same share - 68% - that said the issue was a priority for them said it was a priority for party leaders. Rentsch said that criticizing Trump over his conduct won't be enough to win over skeptical voters. 'That can't be it,' Rentsch said. 'It has to be owning those issues that have an impact on their economic well-being and their physical and mental well-being.' Democratic respondents said the party should be doing more to promote affordable childcare, reduce the price of prescription drugs, make health insurance more readily available and support mass transit. They view party leaders as less passionate about those issues than they are, the poll found. Even so, some Democrats argue the party also needs to stand toe-to-toe with Trump. 'They gotta get mean,' said Dave Silvester, 37, of Phoenix. Other Democrats said the party sometimes over-emphasizes issues that they view as less critical such as transgender rights. Just 17% of Democrats said allowing transgender people to compete in women and girls' sports should be a priority, but 28% of Democrats think party leaders see it as such. Benjamin Villagomez, 33, of Austin, Texas said that while trans rights are important, the issue too easily lends itself to Republican attacks. 'There are more important things to be moving the needle on,' said Villagomez, who is trans. 'There are more pressing issues, things that actually matter to people's livelihoods.' Democratic strategists say that if Trump's trade and tax policies lead to higher prices and an increased budget deficit, the party needs to be ready to take full advantage in next year's elections, which will decide control of Congress. 'This recent polling data indicates Democrats have room for improvement on criticizing Trump on the economy and making it clear to voters that Democrats are the ones standing up for working people,' said Ben Tulchin, who served as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders' pollster for his two presidential campaigns. The party needs to get beyond portraying itself 'as the lesser of two evils," Boland, the Minneapolis Democrat, said. 'It needs to transform itself into a party that everyday people can get excited about,' he said. 'That requires a changing of the guard.'
29 minutes ago
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
