By Srishti Katuri, MA, and Cynthia J. Najdowski, PhD, University at Albany.
On March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act—historically employed only during wartime—so that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could immediately remove Venezuelan citizens alleged to be terrorists from the United States. That same day, ICE deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador’s Center of Terrorism Confinement, claiming he belonged to a street gang the administration had designated as a terrorist organization. These actions were part of Trump’s movement to execute “the largest deportation effort in American history,” according to a statement from the White House. The legality of these actions has already been contested in the courts. A class action suit arguing against the use of the Alien Enemies Act to circumvent established rules prompted a temporary order halting immigrant removals. On April 7, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the restraining order but affirmed immigrant detainees’ rights to notification and challenge. Three days later, the court ruled that Garcia’s removal violated those rights and ordered the government to “facilitate” his release to the United States. (On June 6, Garcia was returned to the U.S. He is currently in detention awaiting trial for charges related to trafficking undocumented migrants into the U.S., which Garcia alleges were brought against him as punishment for exercising his due process rights.)
Time will tell whether courts will continue to rule in favor of due process and limit attempts to broaden ICE’s scope of authority. Meanwhile, psychologists should consider the effects of restrictive policies on immigrant populations, even those policies that are ultimately deemed illegal and reversed.
Research that looked at the effects of restrictive immigration actions taken during Trump’s first presidential term may offer a glimpse of what’s to come.
Studies show that the anti-immigration rhetoric and policy of that period heightened fear of deportation and stress in immigrant communities. In contrast to the relative sense of safety experienced prior to 2016, after Trump’s election undocumented immigrant people reported having more intrusive status-related worries that negatively impacted their daily functioning (Offidani-Bertrand, 2023). Several studies revealed increases in panic attacks, anxiety, depression, feelings of vulnerability, and fear of encounters with immigration authorities (e.g., Dadras & Hazratzai, 2025; Olukotun et al., 2019).
While restrictive immigration policies negatively impact immigrant people’s psychological well-being, they decrease the likelihood that immigrant people will receive the Mental health care they need (Cha et al., 2019). For instance, undocumented students have reported avoiding seeking care because they believe providers cannot address the immigration issues at the root of their stress and, therefore, cannot provide any relief. Even when they overcome this barrier and seek services, they are reluctant to disclose their undocumented status due to fear of being detained or deported or stigma concerns, making it difficult for Mental health providers to support them effectively.
Psychologists have several important roles to play in addressing these Mental health impacts of anti-immigrant policies. Providers can make their services more accessible to those affected by shifts in immigration control and enforcement, including by working with interpreters to overcome language barriers and implementing trauma-informed interventions, as suggested by the APA Task Force on Immigration and Health (Psychological Science and Immigration Today, 2024). Finally, researchers should adopt culturally sensitive, inclusive, and decolonized approaches, foster true partnerships with immigrant communities, and examine systemic impacts to better understand immigrant people’s needs and develop interventions to meet them.
Edited by Ashley M. Votruba, J.D., Ph.D., SPSSI Blog Editor, Associate Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
