Trump Must Learn the Lessons of Past Mistakes on the Border

A recent dust-up within the Trump coalition over America’s H-1B visa policy brought a pressing question to the fore: How will the president-elect move forward on the issue that delivered the election, when his own administration seems divided on the details?

Some of his most prominent supporters in the tech industry, which imports a great deal of cheap foreign labor under the H-1B program, have sought to downplay divisions. Incoming White House AI czar David Sacks claimed on X that vocal disagreement between the camps obscures the quiet 95% of agreement on immigration policy. Even after initially offering vocal support for H-1B visas, Elon Musk has charged that the program in its current form is “broken” and endorsed reforms to raise the minimum salary levels covered by the policy, thus reducing the visas’ use to undercut American wages.

Tensions have cooled since then, but a lingering distrust between the camps has only added to concerns over how this unusually diverse coalition will make the transition from winning an election to governing effectively.

We have been through this before. In early 2017, all eyes fixed on what the Trump 45 administration’s first moves would be on immigration. Those who hope Trump 47 succeeds would do well to recall how, the first time around, early moves undermined the administration’s broader effort to secure the border.

Within a week of his inauguration, President Trump issued Executive Order 13769, the so-called “travel ban” of 90 days on the entry of refugees and immigrants from countries affected by terrorist elements. Within hours of the Order’s announcement, confusion set in. E.O. 13769 had major drafting issues. Which countries were afflicted by the jihadist elements? Would the policy affect green card holders from those countries? Had the agencies charged with carrying out the order reviewed it and put the necessary plans in place?

With these elements of uncertainty, family drama at airports around the country provided fodder for a media all too happy to deploy a narrative of incompetence in the new administration. Eager blue state attorneys general in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals successfully stopped the order’s enforcement with court wins in early February. Though the Trump administration rescinded E.O. 13769 and replaced it with a legally tighter executive order in March, the damage had been done — despite, as I have written elsewhere, the Ninth Circuit’s astoundingly poor reasoning in the case.

Executive Order 13769 was principally shaped by Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, who moved the order to completion quietly and quickly so that it could not be derailed by Obama-era holdovers in the relevant agencies, like Customs and Border Patrol. While the fear of bureaucratic meddling is well founded, it is impossible to execute such a complex operation without the perspective and understanding of those who will carry it out in practice.  Further, the White House Counsel’s office, which normally has a hand in shaping E.O.s, had yet to be fully staffed until March 2017. E.O. 13780, in contrast, which replaced 13769 and survived Supreme Court review in Trump v. Hawaii, was in good part the product of that team of lawyers in the White House Counsel’s office.

Another significant issue was the lack of a media strategy. The administration must have known that a hostile press would pursue a narrative of chaos and division. As cameras descended on airports, media outlets captured dramatic scenes of families caught in legal limbo. The agencies and their spokespeople were not operating with clear guidance, and conflicting accounts of what the E.O. required created a feeding frenzy for journalists. In actuality, as the Washington Post would later report in 2018, 

Of the 1,976 immigrants who were detained as a result of the initial entry ban, 1,784 were ultimately admitted to the United States, according to DHS records. The roughly 200 others returned to their countries of origin, in some cases, immigration attorneys say, because they had signed DHS paperwork while being detained under the ban.

But still, without a designated figure in the Trump administration from whom the media could seek clarity, the narrative persisted.

While Trump and his advisors acted on justifiable instincts back in 2017, learning from the practical mistakes of the “travel ban” episode is crucial for the success of the Trump 47 administration — especially since the immigration policies it has in sight are far more ambitious than Executive Orders 13769 and 13780. Improved preparation and personnel who are both qualified to execute precisely and fully bought in on the agenda will be paramount. Aligned groups such as the Center for Renewing America have spent the past few years working on draft executive orders, with extensive input, for the incoming president. But the key lesson that should have been absorbed is that quality cannot be sacrificed for speed.

The good news is that this recent election did not hide the ball on Trump’s or the base’s thinking. “Mass Deportations Now!” signs appeared throughout his rallies. The electorate knew what they were voting for, and the administration should as well. The most immediate priorities entail regaining physical control of the southern border and expediting deportation proceedings, especially for violent criminals.

Further, chaotic media scenes can be avoided this time around with a proactive strategy. Incoming immigration czar Tom Homan is already well known for having testified before Congress and appeared on cable news for several years. He has the credibility to use the media to explain policy changes from the administration’s own perspective. He cannot allow left-wing journalists’ agenda to determine the narrative on immigration. While legal challenges are all but assured, a central figure such as Homan can head off the worst excesses in spin and speculation. 

Additionally, a real-time social media strategy will be essential  to correct journalistic malpractice. As I have written on the need for an administration to fight back on the media, “Thanks to Twitter/X, it has never been easier or more crucial to offer the masses a detailed, sufficient explanation in real time for why certain actions are being taken.” Homan and his surrogates will play an enormous role on social media as these policies are being rolled out and digested in real time. He must take the administration’s case directly to the people who delivered them a mandate.

Surely, time will be tight to correct course on immigration. A president rarely has more political capital than at the very start of his term. But every element of immigration policy will not be ironed out on day one. Once again, the president must not sacrifice quality for speed. A set of executive orders that address the most pressing areas of policy change on immigration, starting where agreement exists within the coalition, will build trust by showing we mean business on the most egregious areas of concern. From that base of credibility, and with the lessons of experience, enforcement can expand to the more difficult questions. All the while — knowing the propaganda war the Left will wage — the administration must stay on top of the debate, using established and new media to counter and preempt the falsehoods they will deploy. This is a recipe for more success and less distraction than in the past.