1 INTRODUCTION

The migration situation in the United States in 2025 was marked by an explicit intensification of border control and domestic surveillance policies, accompanied and, in part, enabled by institutional and budgetary changes that greatly expanded the capacity to detain and remove people. Recent data and analyses indicate that, although public officials and executive bodies claim to have conducted hundreds of thousands of deportations during the first year of the administration, the systematic and detailed disclosure of operational statistics from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has been selectively interrupted this year.

The central problem that this study proposes to investigate is the relationship between mass deportation, information blackout (shutdown) and concentration of power, specifically, how the opacity in the disclosure of migration data, whether through temporary interruption of reports, omission of historical series or fragmented publication of indicators, affects mechanisms of democratic control, administrative accountability and safeguards of human rights. The guiding hypothesis argues that the information vacuum is not a mere technical side effect (for example, an administrative shutdown), but a political component that reduces public and academic visibility on removal and detention practices, hindering the independent assessment of legality, proportionality and social impact.

Preliminary evidence suggests that, even during a partially paralyzed government scenario (shutdown), enforcement operations considered "essential" continued, while transparency and oversight functions were disproportionately affected, producing significant gaps in public data series.

 

2. THE ESCALATION OF MIGRATION REPRESSION

The punitive shift observed in 2025 is configured as a quantitative and qualitative escalation: quantitative, due to the significant increase in the number of detentions and deportations and the increase in average occupancy in detention centers; qualitative, due to the shift in focus from exclusively border operations to extensive interventions within the country and the adoption of accelerated removal administrative mechanisms.

The New York City Bar's Immigration and Nationality Law Committee and the Rule of Law Task Force published an updated version of their report (October, 2025) concerning the proposed changes to immigration legislation presented by the Trump administration for the year 2025. The document systematizes the initiatives adopted by the Executive and/or Legislative branches that affect non-citizens, points out the main legal questions arising from these measures, and records the locations in which lawsuits were filed, as well as the developments and results of these challenges. The report also documented that, during Trump's second term, the average detention of non-citizens reached unprecedented levels in the contemporary era and that removals overseen by ICE (including those from inland detention centers) grew dramatically in volume and frequency. These patterns were supported by increased budget and regulatory changes that expanded executive powers and reduced procedural safeguards.

According to the same data, early in his second term, President Donald J. Trump promoted immediate changes aligned with the central guidelines of his election campaign, prioritizing the immigration agenda. The measures adopted include strengthening deportation policies for foreigners, intensifying pressure on state and municipal governments to expand cooperation with federal immigration authorities, restricting access to protection mechanisms and humanitarian assistance, as well as actions aimed at stricter control of the southern border of the United States. These initiatives have been implemented through presidential decrees, administrative guidelines, and other normative instruments, indicating a systematic effort to reconfigure the institutional and operational framework of immigration policy, while at the same time raising debates about the extent and limits of the exercise of executive power.

The conjunction of these vectors explains why repression has ceased to be episodic and has begun to operate continuously and on a larger scale. Politically, the logic is twofold: on the one hand, the policy of hardening operates as a signal of governmental capacity for an electorate that values ​​order and immigration control; on the other hand, the production of results (high removal rates) internally legitimizes demands for more resources and authority, creating a feedback loop between repressive performance and budgetary expansion. The City Bar report, for example, finds that the legislative and administrative changes of 2025 formalized, in practical terms, prerogatives that facilitate the mass execution of expulsions — including rules that reduce the scope for judicial appeal and accelerate deportation processes.

Finally, the social and legal impact is profound: in addition to individual violations of procedural rights (restrictions on access to legal assistance, reduced time limits for appeals, increases in pre-trial detention), there are community effects of an economic, psychological and civic nature, as well as the erosion of community ties, increased job insecurity and reduced trust in public institutions. The combination of intensive repression and data blackout creates an empirical "blind zone" that hinders the mapping of victims, risk assessment, and the proposal of informed policy responses, increasing the risk of systemic violations and institutional impunity.

 

3. THE DATA BLACKOUT AND ITS EFFECTS

The transparency of information produced and disseminated by federal agencies is a central element for the evaluation and monitoring of public policies in the United States. As outlined by the Federal Information Transparency report from the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the availability of public data by government agencies increases accountability and public trust in state actions, while allowing policymakers and the general public to assess whether federal programs are “working as intended.” Data, to be useful, must be accessible, accurate, and disclosed in a timely manner; when these criteria are not met, the usefulness and reliability of this information are directly compromised.

During periods of partial shutdown of the federal government (government shutdown), the operations of numerous agencies are interrupted or severely reduced due to a lack of funding approved by the Congress. GAO reports on previous shutdowns, such as the one in 2018-2019, show that even with contingency plans drawn up in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines, many administrative and data disclosure functions fall into hiatus because they are not eligible for operations considered essential or "excepted" under current budget legislation. In these events, a large portion of the staff is laid off, information systems enter minimum maintenance mode, and the regular updating of public databases is suspended.

The shutdown experienced under the current administration had particularly acute impacts on the disclosure of data relating to the activities of ICE and EOIR, central bodies of the immigration law enforcement and review system. According to investigative reports based on interviews with researchers and reviews of the Freedom of Information Act, the suspension of administrative activities during the shutdown interrupted the regular publication of detention and removal statistics, which historically constituted a crucial source for analyzing immigration enforcement practices. Without this updated data, researchers, journalists, and civil society were left without information on variations in detained populations, profiles of incarcerated individuals, and temporal trends in enforcementactions.

The absence of updated ICE data was characterized by observers as a setback in the ability to monitor changes in enforcement operations. For example, previously released and then suspended data included not only aggregated numbers of detainees but also disaggregation by criminal history and other characteristics that allowed for analyses of the targeting of actions. The disruption of these datasets meant "walking blind" for academic projects and journalists who used such information to contextualize policies and their practical consequences, as well as making it difficult to identify abrupt changes or emerging patterns of enforcement.

On the immigration courts' side, although more recent GAO reports note EOIR efforts to improve the management and quality of publicly available data through the implementation of its Data Quality Guidelines & Data Management Plan, there is a history of challenges related to tracking and publishing information on court attendance and decisions. The GAO, for example, identified gaps in case management systems that did not systematically collect data on the presence of non-citizens at hearings, resulting in incomplete information on procedures performed and possible deportation orders issued in absentia. In this context, the combination of government shutdown with data systems already challenged by limitations in scope and consistency amplifies adverse effects on government transparency. The suspension of updates to public databases reduces the capacity for continuous monitoring, limits pressure from oversight bodies and hinders empirical research on the social and legal impacts of immigration policies. For journalists and analysts, this means fewer factual elements available for reporting and studies, while civil society organizations face additional obstacles when trying to substantiate advocacy or litigation based on observable trends in immigration enforcement data.

 

4 TRANSPARENCY, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Transparency of government data is a fundamental principle of both representative democracy and international human rights obligations. In democratic regimes, the disclosure of public information is not merely a technical mechanism of administration, but an essential vector for accountability, citizen participation, and the protection of civil rights. International norms and recommendations from multilateral organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines on open government and public integrity emphasize that the availability of clear, complete, reliable, and timely public data promotes government accountability and the inclusion of multiple actors in the development and implementation of public policies. Transparency, understood as active and reactive access to government information, is correlated with trust in institutions and the informed exercise of citizenship.

In the United States, transparency takes on a particularly problematic dimension in the context of immigration enforcement operations, notably in relation to the detention system overseen by ICE and the EOIR. GAO reports analyze contract management, oversight of detention centers, and the quality of data made available to the public. Despite such institutional monitoring, civil rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticize the lack of effective transparency in several areas (observed in a report on the subject already in the Trump I administration), arguing that this deficiency compromises democratic principles and opens space for abuses of authority.

The relationship between transparency and democracy is firmly established in contemporary political theory: according to the Western tradition, democratic regimes require state actors to account for their actions and decisions to the population, facilitating public scrutiny and vertical control through mechanisms ranging from electoral participation to permanent oversight through accessible public data. The principle of transparency therefore includes both the proactive availability of information and the willingness of institutions to respond to inquiries and explain decisions that affect fundamental rights. From a human rights perspective, the absence of transparency, especially in areas involving deprivation of liberty, generates significant normative tensions. International human rights obligations, such as those enshrined in covenants guaranteeing the right to information and civil and political rights, presuppose that the State must ensure that administrative and judicial proceedings that directly impact the freedom and dignity of individuals are subject to effective accountability and oversight mechanisms. Systematic opacity in the disclosure of data on detentions, custody conditions, and judicial decisions undermines this principle, hindering independent monitoring by civil society organizations, human rights defenders, and the media itself.

This contradiction between the “essential” nature attributed to immigration law enforcement practices and the insufficient accountability of such practices reveals not only institutional gaps but also structural challenges in promoting normative and operational transparency. While the administration of certain enforcement programs may justify temporary restrictions on the disclosure of sensitive information for security or operational reasons, the lack of aggregated, accessible, and contextualized data weakens, as previously mentioned, public scrutiny and reduces the capacity for legal advice, academic research, and advocacy in favor of protecting civil rights.

Therefore, transparency should not be understood merely as an abstract ideal but as an operational and legal requirement that underpins both democratic legitimacy and respect for human rights. Institutional opacity, especially in areas involving deprivation of liberty and state supervision of vulnerable populations, points to a democratic deficit that demands normative and practical responses, including expanding data disclosure mechanisms, strengthening independent audits, and guaranteeing full access to relevant information for all sectors of society.

It is still necessary to discuss the role of data transparency as a democratic principle and international obligation, and the contradiction between the "essential" operation of detentions and the lack of accountability.

 

5 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

This analysis examined the articulation between the intensification of deportation policies, informational opacity, and the concentration of power under the Trump administration in 2025, taking as its analytical axis the partial blackout of migration data related to the activities of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Based on evidence documented by institutional reports, civil society organizations, and recent empirical analyses, it was demonstrated that the hardening of immigration policy was accompanied by selective and significant interruptions in the dissemination of public information essential for the democratic monitoring of state actions.

The data analyzed indicates that, during Donald Trump's second term, immigration repression operated on an expanded scale and continuously, sustained by budgetary increases, regulatory changes, and the expansion of detention infrastructure. Reports from the Migration Policy Institute and the New York City Bar document the significant increase in detentions and deportations, as well as the adoption of administrative mechanisms that reduced procedural safeguards and accelerated removal processes. These elements confirm that immigration policy has ceased to be episodic or reactive and has become part of a structural government strategy.

In parallel, we highlight that the partial shutdown of the federal government disproportionately affected transparency and data disclosure functions, while operations classified as "essential," such as detentions and deportations, continued to be carried out. Reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) demonstrate that, in shutdown contexts, administrative activities and the updating of public databases are frequently suspended, even though operational programs remain active. In the specific case of immigration policy in 2025, this dynamic resulted in the interruption of the regular publication of ICE and EOIR statistics, creating significant gaps in the historical series available to the public.

The consequences of this data blackout are empirically observable. As pointed out by journalistic investigations and analyses based on Freedom of Information Act requests, the absence of updated data has hindered independent monitoring of enforcement practices, limited the ability of journalists and researchers to identify operational patterns and changes, and reduced the instruments available for the work of civil society and human rights organizations. The interruption of disaggregated information, previously used to assess targeting criteria for enforcement actions, directly compromised the possibility of qualified public scrutiny.

From a normative point of view, the study confirmed that this opacity contrasts with established principles of transparency and accountability associated with both representative democracy and international human rights obligations. OECD guidelines, as well as institutional analyses and positions of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), reiterate that deprivation of liberty requires high levels of public oversight and access to information. The persistence of large-scale detentions without adequate disclosure of data weakens accountability mechanisms and increases the risk of systemic violations, especially in the context of expanding executive power.

It is concluded, therefore, that the blackout of migration data observed in 2025 cannot be understood merely as a contingent administrative effect, but as a politically relevant element of the institutional arrangement that underpinned the intensification of deportations. The coexistence between active repressive operations and the suspension of transparency instruments produced an informational asymmetry that limited democratic control, reduced the public visibility of state practices, and weakened human rights safeguards. Considering the evidence presented, transparency emerges not as a secondary attribute of migration policy, but as an indispensable condition for the legality, legitimacy, and accountability of government actions in the field of immigration.

REFERENCES

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU). ACLU statement on Government Accountability Office report. Washington, DC, [s.d.]. Available at: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-government-accountability-office-report. Accessed on: Dec. 17, 2025.

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL. What the 2025 government shutdown means for the immigration system. Washington, DC, 2025. Available at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/what-government-shutdown-2025-means-immigration-system/. Accessed on: Nov. 20, 2025.

CITY BAR OF NEW YORK. The Trump administration’s early 2025 changes to immigration law. New York, out. 2025. Available at: https://www.nycbar.org/reports/the-trump-administrations-early-2025-changes-to-immigration-law/. Accessed on: Nov. 17, 2025.

CITY BAR OF NEW YORK. Trump Administration changes to immigration law (updated report). New York, out. 2025. Available at: https://www.nycbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/20221419-TrumpAdminChangesImmigrationLaw.pdf. Accessed on: Dec. 17, 2025.

CITY BAR OF NEW YORK. Immigration and Nationality Law Committee. New York, [s.d.]. Available at: https://www.nycbar.org/committees/immigration-nationality-law-committee/. Accessed on: Dec. 17, 2025.

CITY BAR OF NEW YORK. Task Force on the Rule of Law. New York, [s.d.]. Available at: https://www.nycbar.org/committees/task-force-on-the-rule-of-law/. Accessed on: Dec. 17, 2025.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO). Federal information transparency: opportunities to improve public access to federal information. Washington, DC, 2020. Available at: https://www.gao.go/federal-information-transparency. Accessed on: Nov. 18, 2025.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO). Shutdowns: agencies’ contingency planning and effects of the 2018–2019 lapse in appropriations. Washington, DC, 2020. Available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-377.pdf. Accessed on: Dec. 17, 2025.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO). Immigration courts: EOIR has taken steps to improve data quality, but challenges remain. Washington, DC, 2025. Available at: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-106867. Accessed on: Dec. 17, 2025.

KOCHER, Austin. ICE and EOIR data cut off during the 2025 shutdown. Substack, 2025. Available at: https://austinkocher.substack.com/p/ice-and-eoir-data-cut-off-during. Accessed on: Dec. 16, 2025.

MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE. A new era of immigration enforcement under Trump’s second term. Washington, DC, 2025. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/new-era-enforcement-trump-2. Accessed on: Nov. 16, 2025.

MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE. Immigrant detention under the Trump administration. Washington, DC, 2025. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-immigrant-detention. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2025.

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD). Government at a Glance 2025: transparency of public information. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2025. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/06/government-at-a-glance-2025_70e14c6c/full-report/transparency-of-public-information_60a963c4.html. Accessed on: Nov. 18, 2025.

THE MARSHALL PROJECT. How the government shutdown disrupted ICE immigration data. New York, 15 nov. 2025. Available at: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025/11/15/data-ice-chicago-shutdown-immigration. Accessed on: Dec. 17, 2025.