Trump Crackdown EXPANDS!

Jack Posobiec’s “self-deportation” push is reigniting a hard question for Americans: how far should enforcement go when the border crisis is real, but constitutional guardrails still matter?

Story Snapshot

Jack Posobiec promoted an aggressive “self-deportation” strategy that includes the idea of “debanking” illegal immigrants to pressure voluntary departures.
The Trump administration’s second-term immigration crackdown expanded detention capacity and operations in major U.S. cities, backed by major new congressional funding.
Independent and government-linked tracking shows large-scale removals and self-deportations, but counting methods differ and targets remain contested.
Data cited in current reporting indicates most people in ICE detention have no criminal convictions, fueling debates about priorities and fairness.
Lawsuits and legal questions around tactics and deployments are becoming a key pressure point as enforcement accelerates.

Posobiec’s “Debanking” Proposal Puts Economic Pressure at the Center

Jack Posobiec, a prominent conservative commentator, has urged supporters to “stay the course” on deportations while outlining a “self-deportation” approach that goes beyond traditional arrests and removals. Reporting on his remarks highlights a specific concept: cutting illegal immigrants off from parts of the financial system to encourage voluntary departure. The research available does not detail how such a policy would be implemented, what legal authority would be used, or what due-process protections would apply.

That gap matters because “debanking” is not a routine immigration tool like detention, hearings, or physical removal. Any policy that pressures people through financial access raises practical questions that conservative voters tend to care about: which agencies would do it, whether private banks would be compelled, how errors would be corrected, and how lawful residents and U.S. citizens would be protected from mistaken targeting. The available sources describe the idea as advocacy, not as an adopted federal program.

What the Trump Administration Actually Expanded After January 20, 2025

President Trump returned to office on January 20, 2025, with mass deportation as a signature promise, and the federal machinery has been scaled up quickly. The research cited here points to $170 billion in congressional funding tied to immigration enforcement, including $45 billion for detention and nearly $30 billion for ICE operations. Federal agents have been deployed in multiple major cities, and ICE detention reportedly reached about 70,000 people by December 2025.

Tracking numbers show both enforcement intensity and the ongoing dispute over definitions. One independent project cited in the research estimates roughly 350,000 deportations since the start of Trump’s second term through January 2026, while DHS has separately claimed about 1.9 million “self-deportations” during the same period. Other research cited in the source set reports different totals for parts of 2025, underscoring that “deportation” counts can change depending on what agencies and actions are included.

Detention Data Highlights a “Worst of the Worst” Tension

The administration has repeatedly emphasized prioritizing dangerous offenders, but the data cited in the research adds nuance that voters should understand. One major figure referenced is that about 74% of people in ICE detention have no criminal convictions. That does not settle the policy debate by itself, but it does clarify what the current pipeline looks like. If most detainees are not convicted criminals, then the enforcement focus is broader than many “worst of the worst” soundbites suggest.

This is where conservative concerns can split into two legitimate lanes. One lane stresses sovereignty: a nation that cannot enforce immigration law cannot sustain rule of law, wages, or civic cohesion. The other lane stresses constitutional consistency: aggressive enforcement still requires clear standards, accountability, and due process, especially when family units, workplaces, and local communities are affected. The available research also references lawsuits tied to tactics and National Guard deployment legality, signaling continued court scrutiny.

Economic Reality Is Forcing a Parallel Debate Inside the Coalition

Enforcement also collides with labor markets, and the research includes reporting that President Trump acknowledged crackdowns were “taking very good, long-time workers” from key industries. Coverage focusing on Northwest Arkansas construction describes how employers view immigrant labor as central to operations, which increases pressure on policymakers to reconcile enforcement goals with economic disruption. That tension is not theoretical; it shows up when local industries warn of shortages while voters demand border control.

Politically, the research also points to mixed Republican positioning at the state level. One example cited is New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli signaling distance from Trump on immigration, even as the national party remains shaped by enforcement-first priorities. That split suggests a familiar pattern: Washington drives the national posture, while some candidates in competitive states try to soften edges—without offering a clear alternative that satisfies voters angry about years of lax enforcement.

Where the Fight Goes Next: Enforcement Tools vs. Constitutional Guardrails

The immediate question raised by Posobiec’s “debanking” rhetoric is whether the enforcement conversation shifts from physical removal to financial leverage. The current research does not provide specifics on feasibility or legality, so the strongest grounded takeaway is this: talk of new economic pressure tools is increasing alongside deportation operations. If policymakers adopt any financial-access strategy, the constitutional and administrative safeguards will matter, because broad tools can produce wrongful impacts and invite prolonged litigation.

For conservatives who watched years of lax border policy, sanctuary politics, and ideological distractions under the prior administration, the appetite for decisive enforcement is real. At the same time, sustainable reform requires methods that can survive court review, avoid punishing lawful Americans by mistake, and keep the federal government inside its lane. With detention numbers, deportation counts, and self-deportation claims all in play, the public deserves transparent definitions and measurable results—not just slogans from either side.