Indian Council of World Affairs

Abstract: The return of President Donald Trump to the White House in January 2025 has ushered in one of the most significant overhauls of US immigration policy in recent history. The administration’s objective has been to ‘restore order’ to the American immigration system and prioritise citizens over foreign workers. As one of the largest sources of high-skilled migrants to the United States and one of the fastest-growing student populations in American universities, Indian nationals find themselves at the centre of these transformations.  

Introduction: Recent Immigration Policy Changes in the United States 

Since its inauguration, the Trump administration, through a series of executive orders and proclamations, has introduced changes to the US immigration policies. 

On 20 January 2025, Proclamation 10888 declared an “ongoing influx” at the US southern border, invoking the President’s authority to ‘guarantee the States protection against invasion’.^[i] This proclamation established a legal foundation for suspending the physical entry of certain groups of non-citizens based on a presidential determination that a ‘mass influx’ or ‘invasion’ was occurring. It also paved the way for subsequent administrative actions, such as limiting asylum intake and tightening restrictions at land border crossings.

Issued on the same day, Proclamation 10886 escalated the federal response by declaring a national emergency at the southern border.^[ii] It directed the Department of Defence (DoD) to provide logistical and operational support to the Department of Homeland Security (DoHS) and related agencies to achieve “operational control” of the border, – thereby paving the way for deeper interagency cooperation on enforcement. Along with the two proclamations, President Trump also issued five executive orders on immigration-related issues.

Executive Order 14165 outlined an operational roadmap. It tasked multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Departments of State, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Defence, with tightening immigration admissions and parole policies, enhancing removals, and coordinating enforcement efforts.^[iii] Among other mandates, the order called for ending certain parole programmes, expanding enforcement personnel, and funding new checkpoints at ports of entry. 

With Executive Order 14159, the administration sharpened its legal and enforcement framework against unauthorised migration.^[iv] The order expanded the use of expedited removal, introduced a mandatory alien registration policy (with noncompliance treated as a top enforcement priority), and directed increased hiring for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). It also curtailed formal pathways to stay in the US - reducing timeframes for discretionary relief and tightening eligibility for parole – while accelerating removal processes. 

Executive Order 14163 suspended new refugee admissions starting January 27, 2025.^[v] It launched a 90-day review aimed at ‘realigning’ the refugee programme with updated security and vetting priorities, allowing only narrow exceptions after interagency review. The order had swift consequences: resettlement flights were cancelled, pre-approved refugees were left in limbo, and organisations like the UNHCR and refugee-serving NGOs raised alarms about stranded applicants across multiple countries. 

Targeting broader security concerns, Executive Order 14161 introduced a heightened vetting framework.^[vi] It ordered new screening procedures, expanded data-sharing across federal agencies, and allowed entry restrictions for individuals flagged under ‘national security or public safety’ concerns. In practice, this has meant longer background checks, new social media screening protocols, and expanded documentation requirements – especially for applicants from certain regions. 

Perhaps the most constitutionally charged action came with Executive Order 14160, which sought to restrict birthright citizenship. It directed federal agencies to implement policies denying automatic US citizenship at birth in cases where the mother is “unlawfully present” or holds temporary status and the other parent is neither a US citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.^[vii] The order immediately sparked major legal challenges. Federal courts and appellate courts have deliberated on its constitutionality. The matter stands before the Supreme Court. 

In addition to the above executive actions, the US Congress also passed The Laken Riley Act, which was signed into law on 29 January 2025.^[viii] The Act amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to expand mandatory detention categories for non-citizens arrested or charged with certain offences while curbing judicial discretion to grant release. It also imposes harsher penalties for cross-border property crimes. In effect, the law has widened the net of custodial detention--sometimes including low-level offences and accelerated removals from detention--and sparked legal battles over detention conditions. Immigrant rights advocates and public defenders have raised concerns about over-detention and the risk of wrongful deportation. 

Consequences of Policy Decisions 

Taken together, the presidential proclamations, the executive orders and the Laken Riley Act have produced three immediate consequences: (i) procedural contraction (suspension of refugee admissions, reinstatement of the ‘Remain-in-Mexico’^[ix] policy for asylum seekers, and withdrawal of certain discretionary pathways); (ii) expanded enforcement capacity (recruitment and redeployment of ICE/CBP, DoD support under the emergency proclamation, and mandatory detention expansion under the Laken Riley Act); and (iii) enhanced vetting procedures (social-media checks and agency directives to treat certain failings as enforcement priorities).^[x] Agencies used the Executive Orders as statutory and regulatory predicates to issue new guidance, modify consular practices, and prioritise removal operations. The humanitarian result was immediate: refugee flights were cancelled, asylum flows were interrupted, and detained populations increased in several US jurisdictions.^[xi]   

This round of immigration policy changes distinguishes itself from the previous Trump administration in 2017 - 2021 by its scale, speed, and legal endorsement of the actions. Unlike previous measures, these new policies are not merely temporary responses or emergency interventions, rather they constitute a broader structural redefinition of US immigration, framing it as a national security issue rather than only one based on humanitarian or economic considerations. These policy changes have prompted diverse responses, both domestically and internationally. On the domestic front, civil-liberties groups, public defenders and immigrant rights organisations have questioned the action of the administration as violations of due process. Several federal judges have also issued preliminary injunctions against Executive Order 14160, and appeals work has made that order a focal point of litigation through mid-2025.^[xii] Judicial contentions regarding executive’s interpretation of ‘national security’ have to be weighed against abuse of migration and mobility regulations and frameworks in practice. 

Universities and research institutions suggested that stopping refugees and making student-visa rules stricter (along with more thorough checks) would lead to fewer international students and less research collaboration. They support the planned regulatory changes but caution that the broad restrictions from current higher-education associations may harm the system in the long run. The tightening of F-1 and J-1 visa scrutiny represents not only a bureaucratic challenge but also a reputational one: the United States risks undermining its long-standing image as a magnet for global talent. 

The changes in policy have also affected industry and business groups, especially in technology and agriculture. Technology firms and trade associations argued that expanded vetting, higher compliance costs and increased detention and deportation activity would act as a deterrent for prospective migrants; agriculture and food-supply stakeholders pointed to the economic costs arising from raids and enforcement mechanism on migrant workers which have reduced seasonal worker.^[xiii]

Internationally, multilateral and humanitarian actors have expressed concern. The UNHCR and refugee organisations warned that suspending the Refugee Admission Program^[xiv] and reinstating Migration Protection Protocols^[xv] undermines the integrity of global refugee protection frameworks, leaving vulnerable people stranded in border zones or third countries. NGOs highlight increased humanitarian needs in Mexico and in countries hosting asylum seekers.^[xvi] The domino effect of US restrictionism can already be observed in the tightening of asylum policies in Western Europe and in certain areas of Latin America and the overall impact of President Trump’s policies on global migration and mobility remains to be seen. 

Concerns over the nature of these policies were also raised from governments across the world. Countries that constitute significant migrant flows to the US engaged diplomatically on deportation practices and humane treatment; several governments sought assurances on consular access, restraint use, and religious/cultural sensitivities during repatriation. Canada and European partners flagged reciprocal policy spillovers as students and workers diverted to alternate destinations^{[xvii][xviii]}. It is clear that the evolving US immigration policy is acquiring a distinctly global geopolitical dimension--one that reshapes migration corridors and one that forces a rethink on the very fundamentals of migration and mobility.

Finally, state and local governments in the US remained divisive: sanctuary cities and some state legislatures denounced the withholding of federal funds and expanded enforcement as punitive federal overreach, while others supported the administration’s law-and-order framing. The Supreme Court’s rulings limiting some nationwide injunctions but enabling focused enforcement further fuelled debate and litigation.^[xix] This fragmentation within the US reveals that immigration has evolved from a policy debate into a moral and identity one, testing the hypothesis of US as the ‘ultimate land of opportunity’ and ‘country of immigrants’. 

The cumulative effect of these developments is clear: the United States has entered an era of “selective openness,” wherein the gates remain ajar for strategically valuable entrants--investors, defence partners, and STEM experts--but largely closed for humanitarian and low-wage categories. This dual-track system risks institutionalising inequality, redefining not just who gets in, but whose presence is deemed useful to the American agenda. 

India-specific Impacts and Reactions

India has been directly affected by these changes on multiple fronts – deportations, student mobility, skilled worker routes, remittances, and consular workload. The Ministry of External Affairs reported that between 20 January and 22 July 2025, a total of 1,703 Indian nationals were deported from the United States (1,562 men and 141 women) via a mix of US military flights, ICE charter flights and commercial removals. New Delhi formally registered concerns about the treatment of deportees, particularly reports of restrictions during transit, and sought clarifications and assurances on humane procedures.^[xx]

The national security and vetting procedures under Executive Orders (14161 and 14165) and the practical effects of expedited removals and enhanced background checks have made the H-1B and other employer-sponsored pathways more uncertain. Even if the orders don't directly alter the H-1B law, the government's focus on prioritising high wages and raising fees leads to higher costs for employers and a smaller pool of options for professionals, which mainly impacts Indian IT professionals and workers. Since India supplies a large share of H-1B beneficiaries, the macroeconomic risk to Indian firms and bilateral worker mobility is significant.^[xxi]

Enhanced vetting, combined with narrower consular processing rules and suspension of certain discretionary pathways under Executive Orders 14159 and 14163, has lengthened student-visa process, pulled down interview waiver availability, and intensified documentary and social-media screening. As a result, many universities and prospective students are now considering Canada, the UK, and Australia as alternative options. Government-to-government engagement has stressed the importance of protecting worker and students’ legal pathways while not encouraging irregular migration.

Legislative measures and fiscal proposals enacted alongside the Executive Orders have also raised the cost of sending money home and increased administrative frictions for migrant families, which acts as a further dampener for migration prospects for those Indians for whom economic consideration related to left-behind families are key.

New Delhi’s posture has been cautious and practical. It has engaged Washington to secure humane treatment, consular access and expedited verification in repatriation cases while simultaneously scaling domestic reintegration schemes (skills registers and returnee support platforms). Given that the US-India migration corridor has hitherto been very heavy, India will have to devise suitable policies in response to the evolving US approach on migration and mobility.

Conclusion: – Implications for India and a Concise Set of Priorities

The recent US policy changes have fundamentally reconfigured the immigration governance, shifting away from a framework driven by humanitarian accommodation and economic pragmatism to one centred on enforcement and deterrence. This transformation marks a critical turning point in global mobility politics, where migration is no longer viewed primarily as a developmental issue but increasingly as a matter of national security. It is important to see President Trump’s measures in this regard not as one-off steps but rather as an approach with long-term implications.

Globally, reactions to the Trump administration’s measures have been sharply divided. Traditional US allies in Europe and North America have voiced alarm over the erosion of refugee protections, the undermining of international humanitarian norms, and the broader precedent it sets for global migration governance. Multilateral institutions, such as the UNHCR and IOM have urged Washington to recommit to the 1951 Refugee Convention and maintain minimum humanitarian corridors. In contrast, several right-leaning governments in Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia have endorsed the US approach as a model of ‘sovereign migration management’, signalling an emerging bloc of states that view deterrence-based migration control as legitimate policy orthodoxy. The cumulative outcome is a deepening of the global divide between states that view migration as developmentally good and those privileging sovereignty and demographic control.

For India, the immediate consequences are evident – increased deportations, visa delays, and growing uncertainty for students, professionals, and families navigating US entry channels. But the strategic implications run deeper. A sustained tightening of US immigration could diminish India’s soft power, shrink its diaspora-driven investment flows, and undermine one of the key dimensions of its bilateral relationship with the US: the mobility of human capital. India’s diplomatic engagement with Washington has thus become more delicate – balancing the US administration’s legitimate concerns about illegal migration and safeguarding its own economic and developmental interests with an emphasis on the positive, long-term contributions of Indian talent to the US economy, innovation ecosystem, and social fabric.

Going forward, three interlocking priorities should guide India’s policy calculus. First, intensify structured diplomatic dialogue focused on humane enforcement, transparent deportation procedures, and sector-specific exemptions for high-demand industries, such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and healthcare, where Indian talent remains indispensable to US competitiveness. Second, institutionalise pre-departure and in-country preparedness frameworks, including legal literacy, documentation assistance, and skills-matching programmes, so that Indian migrants remain resilient in stringent regulatory environments and returnees can be reintegrated without losing human capital. Third, create economic hedges by supporting IT and service firms to diversify their global markets, accelerating domestic upskilling initiatives, and building transnational innovation linkages that reduce dependency on the US corridor alone.

Ultimately, as Washington’s immigration posture further evolves India’s response must shift from reactive diplomacy to strategic foresight, treating mobility not merely as an employment or remittance issue but as an instrument of global engagement. And in all this, India needs to keep migrant well-being at the centre of its approaches while devising strategies for governance, intervention, and management of all stages of the migration cycle from pre-departure to return and reintegration.

*****

*Tripti Neb, Research Intern, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal. 

Endnotes

^[i] Proclamation 10888: Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion, The White House, January 20, 2025, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-10888-guaranteeing-the-states-protection-against-invasion

^[ii] Notice on Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States, Federal Register, August 4, 2025, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/04/2025-14789/notice-on-declaring-a-national-emergency-at-the-southern-border-of-the-united-states

^[iii] Executive Order 14165: Securing Our Borders, January 20, 2025, The American Presidency Project, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14165-securing-our-borders

^[iv] Protecting the American People Against Invasion, 90 Fed. Reg. (Jan. 29, 2025), accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02006/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion

^[v] Executive Order 14163: Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program, January 30, 2025, The American Presidency Project, accessed September 12, 2025, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14163-realigning-the-united-states-refugee-admissions-program

^[vi] Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, 90 Fed. Reg. 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025), accessed September 12, 2025, https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-02009.pdf

^[vii] Executive Order 14160: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, US Department of State, January 20, 2025, accessed September 12, 2025, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/passports/EO14160.html

^[viii] Laken Riley Act, S. 5, 119th Cong. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/5

^[ix] Human Rights Watch, “Remain in Mexico,” accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/tag/remain-in-mexico

^[x] Baker McKenzie, "United States: Enhanced Vetting & Potential Travel Bans – What Employers Should Know," InsightPlus, March 28, 2025, https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/employment-compensation/united-states-enhanced-vetting-potential-travel-bans-what-employers-should-know

^[xi] Priscilla Alvarez, "Trump Administration Cancels Flights for 10,000 Refugees," CNN, January 22, 2025, https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/22/politics/refugee-flights-canceled

^[xii] Nate Raymond, "Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order after Supreme Court ruling," Reuters, July 10, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/judge-weigh-blocking-trump-birthright-citizenship-despite-supreme-court-ruling-2025-07-10/

^[xiii] Reuters, "Trump Administration proposes new H-1B visa process favoring higher-skilled, better-paid workers," Reuters, September 23, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-Administration-proposes-new-h-1b-visa-process-favoring-higher-skilled-2025-09-23/

^[xiv] The United States Refugee Admission Programme is a federal program that partners with non-profit organisations to identify and resettle qualified refugees. To be considered, the refugees must be referred to the programme and then undergo an interview process with the United States Customs and Immigration Services officers to determine eligibility. The programme has experienced recent disruptions, including a temporary suspension of processing and travel in early 2025 and organisations like UNHCR advised applicants not to make major life changes based on anticipated resettlement

^[xv] The Migration Protection Protocol is a U.S. immigration policy that requires migrants seeking asylum in the United States to remain in Mexico until their date of hearing with a U.S. immigration court.

^[xvi] CWS Global, “Daily State of Play: Trump’s Indefinite Refugee Ban and Funding Halt,” blog post, CWS Global, September 24, 2025, https://cwsglobal.org/blog/daily-state-of-play-trumps-indefinite-refugee-ban-and-funding-halt/

^[xvii] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, "QUESTION NO- 2272 DEPORTATION OF INDIAN NATIONALS FROM USA," Lok Sabha Unstarred Question, answered August 1, 2025, https://www.mea.gov.in/lok-sabha.htm?dtl/39928/QUESTION_NO_2272_DEPORTATION_OF_INDIAN_NATIONALS_FROM_USA=.

^[xviii] Chandelis Duster, "Some European Countries and Canada Issue Advisories for Travelers to the U.S.," NPR, March 22, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/03/22/nx-s1-5336792/european-countries-canada-travel-warnings-us.

^[xix] Andrew Chung, "U.S. Supreme Court May Rule on Allowing Enforcement of Trump Birthright Citizenship Limits," Reuters, June 27, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-may-rule-allowing-enforcement-trump-birthright-citizenship-2025-06-27/

^[xx] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, "QUESTION NO- 2272 DEPORTATION OF INDIAN NATIONALS FROM USA," Lok Sabha Unstarred Question, answered August 1, 2025, https://www.mea.gov.in/lok-sabha.htm?dtl/39928/QUESTION_NO_2272_DEPORTATION_OF_INDIAN_NATIONALS_FROM_USA=.

^[xxi] Ted Hesson, "Trump Administration proposes new H-1B visa process favoring higher-skilled, better-paid workers," Reuters, September 23, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-Administration-proposes-new-h-1b-visa-process-favoring-higher-skilled-2025-09-23/.