The Trump administration's border security push has produced historic results, with apprehensions at the Southwest border falling to levels not seen in over three decades. The Department of Homeland Security touts the border as more secure than ever. But on the interior enforcement front, the picture is more complicated: aggressive tactics have sparked public backlash and a flood of lawsuits. Yet officials can achieve the same enforcement outcomes with far less friction by making a few smart adjustments.
Rethink the Legal Playbook
The administration's first move should be to sharpen its litigation strategy. The ACLU filed 434 lawsuits against Trump in his first term and another 230 in just the first year of his second. To blunt that campaign, the administration needs to understand the ACLU's playbook. A January report from the group, titled “Defeat, Delay, Dilute: ACLU Versus President Trump,” lays out its approach. Studying that document—and the ACLU's successful cases—can help the administration design enforcement initiatives that are less vulnerable to predictable legal attacks.
Mask Accountability, Not Anonymity
Border czar Tom Homan argues that ICE officers need face masks to protect against doxxing—the malicious release of their personal information. That concern is legitimate, but masks raise accountability questions. A practical fix: give each officer a unique identification number, displayed on a badge, and require that badge during field operations. The numbers could be linked to officer identities only for internal oversight—available to ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility, the Homeland Security inspector general, and congressional committees as needed. That would deter doxxing while preserving a clear line of accountability.
Train Judges Before They Rule
The Executive Office for Immigration Review is currently deploying military lawyers as temporary immigration judges without requiring prior immigration experience. That's a recipe for reversible errors and due-process challenges. A better approach is to assign these newcomers to master calendar hearings—routine procedural sessions—until they gain expertise. As the office itself notes, these hearings cover pleadings, scheduling, and similar matters. Once they're trained, they can handle straightforward in-absentia cases for aliens who skip hearings after proper notice, freeing experienced judges for complex cases.
Detain Smarter, Not More
ICE should also recalibrate its detention priorities. As of July 11, the agency held 65,765 immigrants, but many may not need to be locked up. Priority should go to those subject to mandatory detention—including aliens in the 90-day removal period after a final order. For discretionary cases, ICE should generally release detainees unless an individual assessment shows a public safety or flight risk. The Alternatives to Detention program can monitor questionable cases to prevent absconding.
Restore Oversight
In May, DHS shut down the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman because Congress didn't fund it. That office provided independent oversight of detention facilities and handled complaints about conditions. The administration should ask Congress to restore its funding. Independent oversight can catch problems before they become scandals or lawsuits—saving money and reputation.
Rebuild Public Trust
Public confidence in ICE is alarmingly low. A recent Economist-YouGov poll found 48% of Americans support abolishing the agency, while 40% oppose that. Only 22% have a great deal of confidence in ICE, and 58% think it uses too much force. ICE's Office of Public Affairs has a key role to play in turning those numbers around. It should redouble efforts to explain enforcement operations and build public trust—because a well-informed public is less likely to be swayed by hostile narratives.
These changes won't weaken enforcement. They'll make it more defensible—legally and politically. The administration can keep its tough posture while reducing the hostility and litigation that have dogged its efforts. That's a win for the White House, for the courts, and for the credibility of American immigration policy.
