On January 20 2025, President Donald Trump reiterated a familiar theme that America was again under attack. On his first day in office, he declared an “invasion” of migrants, drug cartels, and smugglers, reviving the crisis rhetoric that defined his earlier presidency. But this time, immigration wasn’t just a domestic narrative. It became a tool of foreign policy.
By casting migration as a national security threat, the administration justified sweeping restrictions and used them to pressure Central American governments. Aid was dangled, cooperation demanded, and borders became bargaining chips. The result was a strategy that blurred the line between diplomacy and deterrence, with real consequences for vulnerable communities and regional stability.
Historical Context
For more than four decades, the United States has contended with recurring waves of migration from Central America driven by drug-related violence, political instability, and environmental disasters.
Countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have been at the heart of this exodus, as droughts, hurricanes, and other extreme weather conditions continue to devastate agriculture and displace rural communities.
As the number of families and unaccompanied minors arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border shot up over the years, administrations from both political parties responded with a mix of strategies: tackling root causes through aid and development, ramping up border enforcement, and offering limited legal pathways for vulnerable migrants.
In fiscal year 2024, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recorded 433,000 encounters with nationals from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua; a steep drop from the historic peak of 705,500 in FY 2022. Recent months have seen a constant decline in arrivals, even as many seek to join the more than 4.3 million Central American immigrants already living in the United States as of 2023.
U.S. immigration policies have shifted between enforcement and aid, moving from deterrence to diplomacy. The Obama administration emphasised regional development and humanitarian programs, but also expanded enforcement in its early years, drawing criticism for detention centres and family separation practices that later continued under subsequent administrations. Under Obama, immigration violations were generally treated as civil offences by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
In contrast, Trump’s first term prioritised border walls and strict enforcement. His executive order required federal prosecutors to treat unauthorised border crossings as criminal offences. This led to parents being placed in criminal detention facilities, where children could not be held alongside them. Trump’s immigration policies went further than those of his predecessors, undermining the Fifth Amendment’s protection of family integrity, a right that extends to all people, not only U.S. citizens. His administration repeatedly enforced family separation at the border, drawing widespread condemnation as parents and children were torn apart.
But even before 2025, migration was more than a domestic issue. The U.S. routinely tied foreign aid to cooperation on border security, pressuring governments in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to stem the flow north. Agreements like the “safe third country” deals and the Remain in Mexico policy blurred the lines between immigration control and international negotiation.
During his initial term, Trump demanded that Mexico fund the construction of a border wall. Now, the U.S. president aims to implement alternative measures. Donald Trump has, until now, labelled drug cartels as terrorist organisations and even offered to send U.S. troops into Mexican territory to combat them. He has also deployed American forces to the southern border, reinforcing his administration’s emphasis on militarised enforcement.
What changed in 2025 wasn’t the strategy; it was the scale and the rhetoric. Trump’s casting of migrants as criminals dates back to his 2015 campaign, when he declared, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” That language didn’t just resurface; it became policy.
Regional Fallout
Trump’s 2025 immigration crackdown had far-reaching repercussions that extended well beyond U.S. borders. In Central America, governments found themselves caught between domestic pressures and U.S. demands. Leaders in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador faced mounting disapproval for cooperating with Washington, even as they struggled to manage the influx of deportees and the loss of U.S. aid tied to migration enforcement.
Alex Nowrasteh, Vice-President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, argues that the current immigration restrictions and mass deportations in the U.S. constitute an abuse of power, likening the nation to a tyranny due to the enforcement of such laws.
In El Salvador, the sudden arrival of deported migrants, some sent to prison camps under the Alien Enemies Act, strained already fragile institutions. Human rights groups reported overcrowded facilities, a lack of legal recourse, and rising tensions in communities forced to absorb returnees with little support.
Meanwhile, Mexico faced its dilemma. The offer to deploy U.S. troops to combat drug cartels sparked fierce debate, with critics warning of sovereignty violations and militarisation of domestic policy. Border towns became flashpoints, as increased enforcement pushed migrants into more dangerous routes, fueling the smuggling economy and empowering criminal networks.
Economically, the impact was substantial. Remittances, essential lifelines for millions of families, declined as migrants were detained or deported. Labour shortages emerged in sectors reliant on migrant workers, while regional development programs stalled under the weight of political turmoil.
For many Central Americans, the message was clear: migration was no longer just a personal decision; it was a geopolitical gamble.
Conclusion
Migration is more than a policy – it`s a human story. In 2025, the United States took a controversial step, transforming its immigration system into a tool of international strategy. Borders became bargaining chips. Visas became leverage.
And migrants, those moving in search of opportunity or a better life, found themselves caught in the crossfire of global politics, while refugees fleeing persecution or conflict faced additional layers of vulnerability.
The shift wasn’t sudden. It reflects across continents, straining diplomatic ties and harshing how nations interact. But beyond the headlines and summits, the real impact was felt in quieter places: refugee camps, border towns, family kitchens. Places where decisions made in distant offices became matters of survival.
While immigrants do not automatically enjoy the full set of rights accorded to citizens, U.S. constitutional law extends key protections, such as due process and equal protection, to all persons within its jurisdiction. Supreme Court rulings, including Plyler v. Doe and Zadvydas v. Davis, affirm that immigrants cannot be denied fundamental safeguards. The Immigration and Nationality Act further embeds principles of family reunification, humanitarian protection, and economic contribution. Opposition to immigration has deep historical roots, but evidence shows that immigration strengthens America’s economy and democracy. To persuade sceptics, it is crucial to demonstrate how immigrant rights are legally grounded and how their protection reinforces the rights of citizens as well.
For everyday readers, this isn’t just a story about governments, it’s a story about values. About how we define compassion, fairness, and responsibility in an interconnected world. It challenges us to ask: What kind of society do we want to be? One that sees migrants as threats or tools, or one that sees them as people?
In the end, when immigration becomes a weapon, the casualties aren’t just diplomatic, they’re deeply personal.
This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the magazine as a whole. SpeakFreely is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. Support freedom and independent journalism by donating today.
