From Blueprint to Reality: Reshaping U.S. Immigration Law and Policy Through Project 2025 Initiatives
- UNT Dallas College of Law
- 1 day ago
- 13 min read
Updated: 37 minutes ago
Carrie Nguyen*
Founder/Managing Attorney, Law Office of Carrie Nguyen, PLLC
ISSUE 18 | FALL 2025 | IMMIGRATION |
Introduction
When the Trump Administration returned to office on January 20, 2025, it moved quickly to implement the policy blueprints outlined in Project 2025, also known as the “2025 Presidential Transition Project.”¹ This project was a political initiative led by the Heritage Foundation and drafted by conservative think tanks and organizations.² The document foreshadowed aggressive second-term immigration proposals: restricting birthright citizenship, implementing a mass deportation plan, expanding detention, and reasserting executive control over the immigration courts.³
Within months of operation, the Administration took large-scale actions to advance a mass deportation agenda, converting Project 2025 proposals into a harsh reality for immigration practitioners and immigrants alike.⁴ Project 2025 highlights the fragility of due process protections in immigration law and illustrates the sweeping power of the Executive to reshape the system without legislative reform.
Who are the Detainees?
Before getting into the specific policies and laws, it is important to examine how many people have been impacted by these initiatives so far. In an April 2025 press release, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) announced that during the first 100 days of Trump’s second term, the Administration had removed more than 65,000 individuals and “deported over 135,000.”⁵
· As of September 21, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement held 59,762 people in ICE detention.⁸
As of September 21, 2025, 42,755 people (or 71.5% of those held in ICE detention) have no criminal convictions. Many of those convicted committed only minor offenses, including traffic violations.⁹
ICE relied on detention facilities in Texas to house the most people out of any state, a total of 13,415 detainees during FY 2025, according to data current as of September 15, 2025.¹⁰
I. Some Major Changes So Far
Three specific policy landscapes stand out for how swiftly and dramatically this Administration is reshaping the practice for immigration lawyers and limiting immigration relief for immigrants:
The overspread application of mandatory detention, culminating in the BIA’s 2025 decision Matter of Jonathan Javier Yajure Hurtado.¹¹
The resurgence of third-country deportation is reviving constitutional and human-rights battles that had been dormant for decades.
The reengineering of the immigration judiciary, through quotas and mass firings of Immigration Judges (IJs) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members.
1. Blanket Application of Mandatory Detention
Immigration detention in the United States has been operating under two primary statutory regimes:
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 235 (8 U.S.C. § 1225) applies to “applicants for admission.”¹² This section mandates detention of arriving aliens and those present without admission or parole until removal proceedings conclude. Importantly, it provides no bond authority for immigration judges.¹³
INA § 236 (8 U.S.C. § 1226) governs admitted noncitizens whom the government charges as deportable. Under § 236(a), Immigration Judges can grant discretionary bond, except when mandatory detention applies under § 236(c) for certain criminal offenses.¹⁴
For years, both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and immigration attorneys have operated under the law that people apprehended in the interior and who had long lived in the United States without lawful status should fall under § 236(a), affording them the possibility of a bond hearing. That framework has now shifted dramatically.
On May 15, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued Matter of Q. Li,¹⁵ holding that arriving applicants for admission placed in § 240 removal proceedings must remain detained under § 235(b) without eligibility for an Immigration Judge bond. In the wake of the decision, DHS attorneys began invoking Matter of Q. Li to argue that Immigration Judges lack jurisdiction to issue bond for detainees who entered without inspection, reasoning that such individuals fall within the mandatory provisions of §235 rather than the discretionary bond framework of §236.
On September 5, 2025, the BIA went further in Matter of Jonathan Javier Yajure Hurtado¹⁶ and held that:
Individuals present in the U.S. who have never been admitted are still “applicants for admission” under § 235(a)(1).
Those individuals must be detained under § 235(b)(2)(A) while their cases are pending.
Immigration Judges lack jurisdiction to grant bond to those detainees, even when the government arrests them in the interior after years of residence.
Issuance of a DHS arrest warrant does not shift custody into the § 236(a) framework.
The Yajure Hurtado decision extended Q. Li’s logic beyond border cases, eliminating the Immigration Judge’s authority to issue a bond for most Entries Without Inspection (“EWI”). In practice, thousands of long-term noncitizens, including many with no criminal history, now face detention without the possibility of a bond hearing.
These Board of Immigration Appeals decisions reflect a broader shift rooted in Trump-era enforcement priorities and align with the Project 2025 blueprint for mass deportation.¹⁷ Project 2025 envisioned large-scale interior enforcement sweeps.¹⁸ By categorically applying § 235(b), DHS ensures that those arrested cannot seek Immigration Judge bonds. The ruling strips independent judges of their board authority. In practice, immigration attorneys are now filing habeas corpus petitions¹⁹ in federal court to challenge the legality of unlawful detentions.
In the meantime, the Administration has invested in expanding detention capacity, making widespread § 235(b) detention administratively feasible²⁰; however, these facilities have become severely overcrowded, producing conditions that many observers describe as inhumane and unsustainable.²¹ According to the report, as of the August 20, 2025, at least 13 people have died in immigration detention during this Administration.
2. Deportation to Third Countries
The Trump Administration has also revived one of the most controversial aspects of his first term—the practice of deporting noncitizens to third countries. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, INA § 241(b) provides that the government must first attempt removal to the noncitizen’s country of nationality.²² If that country refuses to accept the individual, however, the statute authorizes DHS to carry out removal to “any country willing to accept the alien”²³—even if the person has no prior residence, family, or cultural ties to that country. Historically, this provision was invoked sparingly and never as a central enforcement mechanism.²⁴
On February 18, 2025, ICE issued a directive encouraging increased use of third-country removals, even for individuals with Withholding of Removal or CAT (Convention Against Torture) protection, on the rationale that those protections are “country-specific” and do not block removal to a third country.²⁵ As a result, the directive instructs officers that when individuals granted Withholding of Removal or CAT protection and they report for a check-in on a non-detained docket, officers should consider “the viability of removal to a third country” and whether the noncitizen should be re-detained.²⁶ Given the increased pressure that ICE has been under to meet quotas for arrests, detentions, and deportations, it is not surprising that the agency is focused on those who already have removal orders as being easy targets for removal.²⁷
This policy has particularly destabilized the status of individuals with final removal orders who are living in the United States under an Order of Supervision (OSUP). Traditionally, OSUP has been used for people with final removal orders who cannot be deported because their country of origin refuses repatriation, or their governments refuse to issue travel documents, or removal is not reasonably foreseeable.²⁸ In these cases, prior administrations permitted these individuals to live in the U.S. under regular ICE check-ins and to obtain work authorization to support themselves and their families.²⁹ Many of these individuals were refugees or asylum seekers who had once been lawful permanent residents and had built established lives in the United States.³⁰
Under Project 2025’s mass deportation blueprint, ICE has been directed to re-examine OSUP cases nationwide and has turned OSUP into a priority enforcement category. Now, the Administration has and continues to aggressively seek agreements with third countries (including El Salvador, Rwanda, and Kosovo) to accept these deportees who cannot be repatriated to their home countries. As a result, ICE is detaining individuals at check-ins and pursuing deportation to third countries.³¹
The consequences raise profound due process and human rights concerns. Individuals who have complied with ICE supervision for years now face the constant risk that a routine check-in will end in indefinite detention or deportation to a country where they have no support system.³² Civil rights groups have responded with federal litigation, arguing that these removals violate the INA, international refugee law, and the principle of non-refoulement³³ by placing vulnerable migrants at grave risk of persecution, exploitation, or torture.³⁴
3. Reshaping the Immigration Judiciary
Another major tactic employed by the Administration has been the erosion of judicial independence within the immigration court system. Started in 2018, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) adopted performance metrics requiring judges to complete 700 cases per year to receive a satisfactory rating.³⁵ These quotas pressured Immigration Judges to prioritize speed over careful record-building, particularly in complex asylum cases.³⁶ In November 2020, the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), effectively silencing their collective voice.³⁷
During Trump’s second term, these pressures have escalated. Reports indicate that since late 2024, more than 100 Immigration Judges and BIA members have been fired or laid off.³⁸ There have been allegations suggesting that judges with higher asylum grant rates have been disproportionately removed, especially in jurisdictions like San Francisco.³⁹ The Board of Immigration Appeals has been reduced from 28 to 15 members, consolidating control and eliminating many Biden-era appointees.⁴⁰
The immigration judge corps has grown steadily for several years with 253 judges on board in 2015, rising to a high of 735 in FY 2024. But this period of uninterrupted growth ended in 2025.
Consequently, to replace the fired Judges and to carry out its mass deportation agenda, the Administration has proposed bringing in 600 military attorneys with no immigration law experience to serve as temporary immigration judges.⁴¹ The remaining immigration judges face significant pressure of implement this Administration’s immigration policies. Taken together, these actions undermine due process and potentially giving the Administration greater power to shape binding precedent.
II. Immigration Proposals Blocked by the Courts
While the Administration has advanced significant portions of its agenda, not all initiatives have withstood legal challenges. For example, here are a few important proposals that have been blocked:
1. Birthright Citizenship
Restricting birthright citizenship was a controversial initiative in Project 2025. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”⁴² The order seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to some children born in the United States, specifically those whose parents lack citizenship or permanent residence.⁴³ Immediately, the ACLU in NHICS v. Donald J. Trump challenged Executive Order 14160 in federal court, arguing that the order violates the 14th Amendment as interpreted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which has long guaranteed birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children.⁴⁴
In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on remedies, not the merits. In Trump v. CASA, the Court sharply limited lower courts’ use of broad “universal” (nationwide) injunctions against federal policies. However, the Court did not decide whether the Executive Order (“EO”) is constitutional.⁴⁵ As of October 2025, birthright citizenship remains in effect, pending appeals on the preliminary injunctions and class certification.⁴⁶ Meanwhile, USCIS and the State Department prepared contingency plans describing how they would change passport and documentation practices if the EO ever took effect, including new parental-status evidence checks.⁴⁷ Those plans exist on paper; however, they are not operative while injunctions remain in place.
2. Alien Enemies Act Deportations of Venezuelans (Tren de Aragua)
On March 14, 2025, President Trump signed a presidential proclamation (Proclamation 10903) invoking the Alien Enemies Act (“AEA”).⁴⁸ The invocation was aimed at members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a Venezuelan criminal organization which the Administration designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.⁴⁹ Specifically, the proclamation declared:
“All Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of Tren de Aragua, are within the United States, and are not naturalized or lawful permanent residents … [are] liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”
Invoking AEA is part of the broader “mass deportation plan” under Project 2025, designed to dramatically expand removal powers and speed up deportations of alleged gang/criminal actors without going through the traditional immigration court process.⁵⁰
On September 3, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Trump Administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was unlawful with respect to deportations of Venezuelans alleged to be members of TdA. The court found that the Administration failed to meet the legal standard as there was no evidence of an “invasion or predatory incursion.” The government failed to show any armed, organized, or foreign-directed hostile action against the United States, as required under the Alien Enemies Act. Allegations of gang affiliation or criminal activity by non-state actors did not meet the statute’s historically narrow threshold for invoking wartime powers.⁵¹
3. Attempted termination of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans
On February 3, 2025, DHS, under Secretary Kristi Noem, announced its intent to terminate Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) protections for about 350,000 Venezuelans whose TPS was set to expire in April 2025.⁵² A formal Federal Register notice was published on September 8, 2025, terminating the 2021 TPS designation for Venezuela, effective November 7, 2025, at 11:59 p.m. local time.⁵³
On September 17, 2025, the Ninth Circuit in National TPS Alliance v. Noem refused to pause a lower court’s block on terminating TPS for approximately 600,000 Venezuelans, leaving protections in place while litigation proceeds.⁵⁴
III. Conclusion
In less than a year, the Trump Administration has implemented many of the proposals outlined in the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint: expanding the scope of mandatory detention under INA § 235, reviving third-country deportation agreements under INA § 241(b), and restructuring the immigration judiciary systems.
Although ongoing litigation has slowed or temporarily blocked some of the most sweeping initiatives, the speed and breadth of these policy shifts reveal how vulnerable due process protections remain within the immigration system. The rapid implementation of Project 2025 initiatives exposes a fundamental flaw in the U.S. immigration system—the over-reliance on executive plenary power. Without meaningful congressional action, these changes threaten to erode due process and weaken the fundamental human rights protections embedded in the U.S. immigration system. To prevent future policy whiplash and protect due process, Congress must codify permanent protections and limit the Executive's ability to reshape the immigration judiciary through unilateral action.
Suggested Citation: Carrie Nguyen, From Blueprint to Reality: Reshaping U.S. Immigration Law and Policy Through Project 2025 Initiatives, ACCESSIBLE LAW, Fall 2025.
Sources:
* Carrie Nguyen is the founder/managing attorney of The Law Office of Carrie Nguyen PLLC in Arlington, Texas. An immigrant herself, she founded her firm a decade ago to advocate for clients in complex immigration cases nationwide. Recognized as a Rising Star in Immigration Law by Super Lawyers, she has presented at events hosted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the State Bar of Texas, and the Dallas Bar Association. Her passion for immigration law and advocacy continues to drive her impactful work in immigration law.
[1] Melissa Quinn, How Trump’s policies and Project 2025 proposals match up after first 100 days, CBS News (Apr. 29, 2025, 10:09 AM), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-project-2025-first-100-days.
[2] Spencer Chretien, Project 2025, The Heritage Found. (Jan. 31, 2023), https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/project-2025.
[3] The Heritage Found., Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Paul Dans & Steven Groves, eds., 2023), https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf.
[4] Project 2025 Tracker, https://www.project2025.observer/en?agencies=Dept.+of+Homeland+Security (last visited Oct. 23, 2025).
[5] 100 days of record-breaking immigration enforcement in the US interior, U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t (Apr. 29, 2025), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/100-days-record-breaking-immigration-enforcement-us-interior.
[6] The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) is a data gathering, data research, and data distribution organization that was founded in 1989 at Syracuse University.
[7] Immigration Detention Quick Facts, TRAC Immigr. (Sep. 21, 2025), https://tracreports.org/immigration/quickfacts/detention.html.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N 216 (BIA 2025).
[12] 8 U.S.C. § 1225.
[13] See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 296–97 (2018) (explaining that detention under § 1225(b) is mandatory and without bond).
[14] 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
[15] Q. Li, 29 I&N 66 (BIA 2025).
[16] Hurtado, 29 I&N 216.
[17] Project 2025 is a Pathway to Mass Deportations and Family Separation, Vera Inst. of Just. (Oct. 15, 2024), https://www.vera.org/news/project-2025-is-a-pathway-to-mass-deportations-and-family-separation.
[18] What Project 2025 Says About Immigration, Am. Immigr. Council (Aug. 23, 2024), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/what-project-2025-says-about-immigration/.
[19] Habeas corpus is governed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and it is a petition filed in U.S. District Court that challenges the legality of immigration detention and whether that detention violates the Constitution, immigration statutes, or due process.
[20] ACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals Information About Plans to Expand ICE Detention Facilities Nationwide, ACLU (Apr. 11, 2025), https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-foia-litigation-reveals-information-about-plans-to-expand-ice-detention-facilities-nationwide.
[21] A Closer Look at Trump’s Shocking Immigration Detention Expansion Plans, Det. Watch Network (Aug. 20, 2025), https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/pressroom/releases/2025/closer-look-trump-s-shocking-immigration-detention-expansion-plans.
[22] 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b).
[23]Id. (although INA § 241(b)(2) authorizes removal to “any country willing to accept” a deportee, this provision was rarely invoked as a central enforcement mechanism).
[24] Id.
[25] Directive to Enforcement and Removal Operations Officers, U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf’t (Feb. 18, 2025), https://immigrationlitigation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/1-4-Att-C-Feb-18-2025-Directive.pdf.
[26] Id.
[27] Kristina Cooke & Ted Hesson, ICE’s tactics draw criticism as it triples daily arrest targets, Reuters (June 10, 2025) https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ices-tactics-draw-criticism-it-triples-daily-arrest-targets-2025-06-10/?.
[28] Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (holding that indefinite detention beyond the removal period violates due process and requiring supervised release when removal is not reasonably foreseeable).
[29] INA § 241(a)(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3).
[30] Claire Wang, Ice’s deportations of south-east Asian refugees creating ‘ripple effect’ of trauma, The Guardian (Sep. 29, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/29/ice-deportation-south-east-asians-vietnam-war.
[31] Mass Deportation: Analyzing the Trump Administration’s Attacks on Immigrants, Democracy, and America, Am. Immigr. Council (Jul. 23, 2025), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/report/mass-deportation-trump-democracy/#deporting.
[32] Nina Totenberg, U.S. Supreme Courts allows—for now—third-country deportations, NPR (Jun. 23, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/06/23/g-s1-71529/supreme-court-south-sudan-deportation.
[33] The principle of non-refoulement prohibits the return of a person to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened. See Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees art. 33, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137, as modified by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223; INA § 241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
[34] ICE Directs Review of Non-Detained Docket for Redetention & Removal, Immigr. Pol’y Tracking Project, (Feb. 18, 2025), https://immpolicytracking.org/policies/ice-directs-review-on-non-detained-docket-for-redetention-and-removal/.
[35] Joel Rose, Justice Department Rolls Out Quotas For Immigration Judges, NPR (Apr. 3, 2018), https://www.npr.org/2018/04/03/599158232/justice-department-rolls-out-quotas-for-immigration-judges.
[36] Ximena Bustillo, Trump moves to speed up asylum cases without court hearings, NPR (Apr. 15, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/g-s1-60430/trump-asylum-immigration.
[37] 71 FLRA 1046 (2020).
[38] Ximena Bustillo, Trump administration fires more immigration judges, NPR (Sep. 23, 2025, 10:00 AM), https://www.npr.org/2025/09/23/nx-s1-5550915/trump-immigration-judges.
[39] Christian Leonard, Trump is firing S.F. judges with highest rates of granting asylum, new analysis finds, S.F. Chronicle (Sep. 16, 2025), https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/sf-judges-fired-rates-21020186.php.
[40] 8 C.F.R. § 1003 (2025).
[41] Adriel Orozco, Trump Administration Appoints Hundreds of Unqualified Military Lawyers to Serve as Immigration Judges, Am. Immigr. Council (Sep. 5, 2025), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/trump-appoints-military-lawyers-to-serve-as-immigration-judges/.
[42] Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, The White House (Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/. [hereinafter Protecting the Meaning].
[43] Id.
[44] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
[45] Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 861 (2025).
[46] Cody Wofsy, Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order: What Happens Next, ACLU (Aug. 6, 2025), https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/trumps-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-what-happens-next.
[47] Dep’t of State, Implementation Plan, Executive Order 14160 (2025), https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/passports/forms-fees/Executive%20Order%2014160%20-%20Protecting%20the%20Meaning%20and%20Value%20of%20American%20Citizenship%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf; U.S. Citizenship and Immigr. Servs., Implementation Plan, Executive Order 14160 (2025), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-alerts/IP-2025-0001-USCIS_Implementation_Plan_of_Executive_Order_14160%20%E2%80%93%20Protecting_the_Meaning_and_Value_of_American_Citizenship.pdf.
[48] Proclamation 10903: “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua,” Immigr. Pol’y Tracking Project (2025), https://immpolicytracking.org/policies/proclamation-invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/.
[49] Id.
[50] Immigration in the Age of a Second Trump Term, Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr. (2025), https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/Immigration%20in%20the%20Age%20of%20a%20Second%20Trump%20Term.pdf.
[51] See W.M.M. v. Trump, 154 F.4th 319 (5th Cir. 2025).
[52] Protecting the Meaning, supra note 42.
[53] Temporary Protected Status Designated Country: Venezuela, U.S. Citizenship and Immigr. Servs. (Oct. 23, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status/temporary-protected-status-designated-country-venezuela.
[54] National TPS Alliance v. Noem, No. 25-5724, 2025 WL 2661556, at *1 (9th Cir. Sep. 17, 2025).
