President Trump's immigration crackdown has not expanded job opportunities for American workers and has instead led to reduced employment for some U.S.-born men, according to a new study cited by Axios that highlights unintended labor market consequences of heightened enforcement activity.
The research found an employment drain for some U.S.-born men and no evidence that employers raised wages to attract U.S.-born workers, concluding that the results reflected a reduction in overall demand. President Donald Trump's immigration raids and checkpoints are weighing on the labor market, leading to fewer jobs for U.S.-born men without a college degree as well as undocumented immigrants, according to an economic study out this week, The Washington Post reported.
First National Study of Trump 2.0 Enforcement
The research from Chloe East, an associate professor of economics at the University of Colorado Boulder, and Elizabeth Cox, a research assistant, was the first of its kind studying the national labor market impacts of the Trump 2.0 ICE blitz, according to Axios. The study examined employment patterns in areas experiencing heightened immigration enforcement activity.
CU Boulder noted in a post on the research that in areas hit with a "surge," there was a 4% decrease in employment among likely undocumented workers still in the U.S. in likely affected jobs. This reduction appears to have ripple effects throughout local labor markets rather than creating openings for native-born workers.
Administration Defends Enforcement Policy
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson responded to the findings, saying there "is no shortage of American minds and hands to grow our labor force" and that "President Trump's agenda to create jobs for American workers represents this Administration's commitment to capitalizing on that untapped potential while delivering on our mandate to enforce our immigration laws."
The administration's position emphasizes the legal mandate to enforce immigration laws and expresses confidence in the domestic labor pool's capacity to meet economic demands.
Complementary Labor Market Dynamics
East described U.S.-born workers as filling "complementary" jobs and explained the mechanism behind the employment reduction: "When a construction company has a hard time finding people to do those jobs, they're going to build fewer homes, and fewer new buildings in general, and hire less people in general, including jobs that are typically taken by U.S.-born workers, like electricians or roofers."
The research suggested the "chilling effect" under Trump 2.0 was bigger than it was during past mass deportation efforts. East said, "Because there is such a randomness and indiscriminate nature to what ice is doing right now, lots of people are afraid to leave their home, even more so than we've seen before."
This fear factor appears to be reducing labor force participation beyond those actually detained or deported, as workers in affected communities withdraw from the job market out of concern about enforcement activity.
Why This Matters:
These findings present a significant challenge to assumptions underlying current immigration enforcement policy. The study suggests that strict enforcement, while fulfilling a legal and political mandate to control borders, may be producing market distortions that reduce overall economic activity rather than reallocating jobs to American workers. For policymakers committed to both border security and economic growth, the data indicates a tension between these goals that requires careful calibration. The construction industry example illustrates how labor markets function as integrated systems where different worker categories complement rather than substitute for each other. Businesses facing labor shortages appear to be scaling back operations rather than raising wages to attract domestic workers, suggesting either wage stickiness or skill mismatches that prevent simple worker substitution. The administration's confidence in untapped domestic labor potential faces an empirical test in these results, raising questions about whether enforcement-only approaches can achieve both immigration control and job creation simultaneously without additional policy mechanisms to facilitate worker transitions.