How Trump’s 2025 Deportation Agenda Is Harming U.S. Economic Growth

America faces a stark policy choice. Trump’s 2025 deportation push, powered by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and broader entry limits, is already reshaping the labor market and public budgets. To help employers, workers, schools, and local leaders plan, this comparison reviews three distinct enforcement paths described by 2025 research and early implementation reports. Each path carries different timelines, economic effects, and operational trade‑offs tied to ICE’s scale‑up and the June travel bans.

The three options compared
– Option A: “Permanent” or multi‑year mass deportation policy with new funding and expanded travel bans (as modeled by the Penn Wharton Budget Model).
– Option B: A four‑year campaign removing about 4 million people (as modeled by the Economic Policy Institute).
– Option C: A severe mass deportation scenario with broad sector effects and large price increases (as modeled by Rice University’s Baker Institute).

What ties these together is OBBBA’s large funding boost and a coordinated push across agencies. The differences lie in the pace and breadth of removals, and the depth of labor supply shocks across sectors.

What each option means in practice

Option A: Multi‑year mass removals plus tighter entry

Core features
– Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) on July 4, 2025, adding roughly $170.1 billion for immigration enforcement, making ICE the most highly funded federal law enforcement agency in U.S. history.
– Public goals: 3,000 arrests/day and 1 million deportations/year, with early legal fights and capacity limits slowing the initial pace.
– June 2025 travel bans: entry barred from 12 countries and severely curtailed from 7 more, with potential expansion to 36 additional countries.

Economic modeling (Penn Wharton Budget Model, July 28, 2025)
– GDP and capital stock: down about 1% by the late 2020s/early 2030s.
– Consumption: down about 0.7%; hours worked: down roughly 1%.
– Fiscal effects: a permanent policy raises federal primary deficits by about $900 billion over the first decade beyond OBBBA’s funding, as outlays rise and the tax base shrinks.
– Wages: average wages fall over time as both capital and labor decline; small, short‑run wage gains for a narrow set of authorized low‑skill workers require the policy to run beyond four years.

Option B: Four‑year deportations totaling 4 million

Core features
– A concentrated removal program over four years, with results traced out to 2029.

Economic modeling (Economic Policy Institute, July 10, 2025)
– Total employment: falls by about 5.9 million by 2029, including large job losses among U.S.-born workers because many jobs are complementary, not one‑for‑one substitutes.
– Sectoral hits: construction workforce shrinks 18.8% versus 2024; child care contracts by 15.1%.
– Prices: rise as output drops; home prices climb with slower homebuilding, and child care costs rise as supply tightens.

Option C: Severe mass deportations with broad spillovers

Core features
– A deeper, longer disruption across industries, including construction, agriculture, hospitality, manufacturing, and logistics.

Economic modeling (Baker Institute, March 26, 2025)
– GDP: drops 2.6% to 6.2% over a decade.
– Consumer prices: could rise up to about 9.1% by 2028.
– Estimated job losses by industry: construction −1.5 million, agriculture −225,000, hospitality −1.0 million, manufacturing −870,000, transportation/warehousing −461,000.
– State‑level risk: places with large immigrant workforces, like Texas, face larger output declines (Texas could see a 10% GDP hit in a severe scenario using an FY2018 baseline).

Side‑by‑side: requirements, timelines, and operational costs

Requirements and machinery

• Option A
  • Requires sustained OBBBA funding, system‑wide coordination, and steady detention/removal capacity.
  • At least five federal agencies have shifted staff to enforcement; U.S. attorneys have been asked to prioritize immigration cases.
  • State Department visa revocations have increased; visa processing staff are being pulled into enforcement tasks, risking slower visa services later.
• Option B
  • Requires intense front‑loaded arrests and removals over four years.
  • Enforcement pace collides with court throughput, detention space, and transportation capacity.
  • Legal challenges and local cooperation determine how many removals stick.
• Option C
  • Requires multi‑agency surge at even larger scale for a longer period.
  • Greater reliance on detention, transport, and prosecution capacity, raising fiscal costs beyond OBBBA’s base funding.

Timelines and cadence

• Option A: Multi‑year “permanent” policy path; effects compound over time as labor and capital both shrink. Travel bans could expand to 36 more countries, deepening the talent pipeline shock.
• Option B: Four‑year removal window with effects peaking by 2029, per EPI’s modeling.
• Option C: Decade‑scale impacts; price and output effects build with time as industry‑specific shortages spread.

Public budget and enforcement costs

• Option A: Beyond OBBBA’s $170.1 billion, PWBM estimates primary deficits rise by about $900 billion over ten years under a permanent policy.
• Option B: Enforcement resources surge for four years; EPI’s employment shock implies reduced payroll/income taxes along with higher enforcement spending.
• Option C: Larger GDP and revenue losses and higher price levels likely worsen federal and state budgets over time.

Economic results: jobs, wages, prices, and GDP

Jobs and labor force

• Option A
  • Hours worked down around 1% by late 2020s/early 2030s; labor force shrinks as removals persist and travel bans limit new entrants.
  • Complementarities mean fewer total jobs — even for U.S.-born workers — when large numbers of immigrants are removed.
• Option B
  • Net job losses: about 5.9 million by 2029, tied to 4 million deportations over four years.
  • Construction and child care face the steepest drops, with knock‑on effects as projects stall and parents reduce hours or leave the workforce.
• Option C
  • Employment falls across construction, agriculture, hospitality, manufacturing, and logistics, amplifying supply chain stress.

Wages

• Option A
  • PWBM finds average wages fall over time as capital formation slows and productivity slips.
  • Short‑run wage gains for some authorized low‑skill workers require the policy to continue beyond four years — a difficult assumption.
• Option B
  • Sector‑specific tightness may lift wages briefly in some roles; EPI shows total employment and output drop enough to offset broad gains.
• Option C
  • Deep output cuts and higher prices erode real wage power, even if some nominal pay rises occur in shortage roles.

Prices and inflation

• Option A
  • Price pressure rises as output falls; construction slowdowns and child care shortages add to inflation.
• Option B
  • EPI notes immigrants tend to lower inflation by increasing output more than demand; deportations reverse that, pushing costs up.
• Option C
  • Baker Institute projects price levels up to 9.1% by 2028 in a severe scenario, with supply constraints across food, housing, travel, and goods.

GDP and capital

• Option A: PWBM projects ~1% lower GDP and capital stock in the late 2020s/early 2030s; consumption ~−0.7%.
• Option B: Output falls as employment shrinks and key sectors retrench; EPI shows large negative spillovers to U.S.-born workers.
• Option C: GDP declines 2.6%–6.2% over a decade, with state‑level impacts most severe where immigrant labor is most embedded.

Sector‑by‑sector comparison

Construction

• Option A: Multi‑year labor losses slow new housing and infrastructure, pushing up prices and delaying timelines.
• Option B: EPI projects an 18.8% workforce reduction versus 2024 and loss of about 1.4 million immigrant workers plus 861,000 U.S.-born workers over four years.
• Option C: Baker Institute estimates 1.5 million fewer construction workers; supply tightness feeds higher housing costs and slower commercial builds.

Child care

• Option A: Ongoing contraction reduces slots, raises fees, and pulls parents (often mothers) out of the labor force.
• Option B: EPI projects a 15.1% sector contraction by 2029, shrinking parental work hours across the economy.
• Option C: Deep shortages ripple outward, lowering overall labor force participation.

Agriculture, hospitality, manufacturing, logistics

• Option A: Persistent staffing gaps strain production and supply chains.
• Option B: Shorter horizon but still disruptive for peak seasons and service recovery.
• Option C: Baker Institute estimates losses of 225,000 in agriculture, 1.0 million in hospitality, 870,000 in manufacturing, and 461,000 in transportation/warehousing, with broad price pass‑throughs.

Higher education and research

• Option A: Visa revocations and travel bans hinder student and researcher inflows; return trips become risky; institutions face enrollment drops and staffing gaps.
• Option B: Four‑year shock interrupts cohorts and academic labs but may ease if rules relax later.
• Option C: Long‑run talent drain grows, hurting STEM fields that rely on international students feeding into the U.S. workforce.

Travel bans and the talent pipeline

Across all options tied to 2025 policy steps, the June travel bans curtail entry from 19 countries (12 barred, 7 severely restricted), with possible expansion to 36 more. The American Immigration Council notes that:
– About 4.3 million people in the United States come from currently affected countries (2023 data).
– Recent entrants from possibly affected countries earned about $1.4 billion and paid $359.9 million in taxes in the year after arrival.
– The groups most affected work in sectors already short on staff: hospitality, construction, retail, manufacturing, and professional services.

Option A has the largest and longest talent shock, especially if the bans grow. Option B limits the window to four years. Option C projects the deepest, most lasting pipeline damage.

Pros and cons for different situations

Employers

• Option A
  • Pros: Slight, temporary relief on wages in a few low‑skill roles if the policy runs past four years.
  • Cons: Persistent shortages, higher project costs, slower growth, longer timelines, and more price pressure.
• Option B
  • Pros: Predictable four‑year window to adjust.
  • Cons: Large job losses and disrupted production through 2029, with lost contracts and delayed expansions.
• Option C
  • Pros: None on output or planning.
  • Cons: Severe, long‑lasting shortages, broad supply chain stress, and steep price increases.

U.S.-born workers

• Option A
  • Pros: Narrow, short‑run wage bumps in some low‑skill roles if policy persists.
  • Cons: Fewer total jobs and falling average wages over time as capital and productivity dip.
• Option B
  • Pros: Temporary hiring chances in certain local markets.
  • Cons: EPI projects millions of net job losses including U.S.-born workers due to complementarities.
• Option C
  • Pros: Limited and unlikely to last.
  • Cons: A weaker job market as output and demand slide alongside higher living costs.

Immigrant workers and families

• Option A: Heightened arrests, removals, family disruption; longer visa waits; reentry risks under travel bans.
• Option B: A four‑year high‑risk period with community instability and reduced local spending.
• Option C: Most severe removals and prolonged uncertainty, with deep local economic fallout.

Universities and research institutions

• Option A: Enrollment and staffing risks mount; labs lose team members; returning home during breaks can be risky.
• Option B: Cohort disruptions through 2029.
• Option C: Large, long‑term talent losses; program cuts; weaker regional innovation.

Public budgets

• Option A: PWBM estimates ~$900B higher primary deficits over a decade beyond OBBBA.
• Option B: Lower tax revenues and higher costs during the four‑year window; local revenues drop as workers leave.
• Option C: Larger GDP and revenue losses, with higher inflation raising public project costs.

Who is most exposed—and when

• Construction firms with thin benches and long backlogs are most exposed under all options; Option C is the most harmful, Option A the most lasting.
• Parents of young children feel the squeeze under Options A and B as child care closes or raises fees; Option C extends and deepens the strain.
• Agriculture and logistics face seasonal crunches under Options A and B; Option C drives sustained bottlenecks.
• Colleges with higher international enrollment are at greatest risk under Option A if travel bans widen and visa revocations continue.

Decision guide: how to plan across the three options

1) Map workforce risk by role and location
– Flag jobs where immigrants form a large share today (construction trades, child care, food service, processing, warehousing, hospitality, and some manufacturing lines).
– Rank exposure under each option (A highest and longest; C deepest rapidly; B sharp but time‑boxed).

2) Stress‑test timelines and budgets
– Add time buffers for projects and procurement; assume higher unit costs in construction and logistics.
– Build price contingencies in bids and grants to cover potential price spikes (notably under Option C’s 9.1% price path by 2028).

3) Protect current teams where lawful
– Recheck I‑9 files for accuracy, keep records clean, and follow the law carefully.
– Offer safe scheduling and clear HR channels so workers can report check‑in issues or travel ban concerns.
– For universities, plan remote options for students and scholars facing visa revocations or entry limits.

4) Diversify training and scheduling
– Cross‑train staff for critical tasks to cover absences.
– Pilot shift swaps and staggered schedules in warehousing, restaurants, and plants to reduce downtime.

5) Track policy tempo and court rulings
– Targets like 3,000 arrests/day depend on court capacity and legal outcomes. Adjust hiring plans as litigation speeds up or slows down the cadence.

6) Communicate with customers and families
– Explain likely delays and cost pressures in plain terms; set new delivery or service windows early.

Special notes on travel bans and visa operations

• Visa revocations have increased, including for students and researchers. Schools and labs should prepare for sudden staffing gaps and reentry problems after travel.
• Early 2025 visa issuance tracked 2024 levels before the bans; delays may grow as staff move to enforcement. Watch consular backlogs and interview wait times.
• According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, layered entry limits plus interior enforcement magnify labor gaps, especially where firms already face shortages in hospitality and construction.

Real‑world snapshots

• A mid‑sized homebuilder with 120 workers in a fast‑growing metro could see framing and drywall crews shrink under Option B, then face longer hiring droughts under Option A. Projects slip by months, and bids rise to cover overtime and material holds.
• A regional child care chain loses aides and teachers, leading to fewer classrooms. Parents reduce work hours or leave jobs, cutting retail and local service demand. Under Option C, closures spread to nearby towns, turning a staffing squeeze into a regional employment problem.
• A public university with a strong engineering program struggles to replace graduate research assistants as travel bans widen. Labs delay grant milestones, and local startups that rely on those labs slow hiring.

How the options stack up for key goals

If the aim is lower prices:
– Research points the same way: all three options raise price pressure by cutting output. Option C shows the largest price increases; Option A keeps pressure in place longer.

If the aim is higher wages for U.S.-born workers:
– Any boosts are narrow and short‑lived. PWBM finds average wages fall over time in Option A. EPI shows complementary jobs held by U.S.-born workers also shrink in Option B.

If the aim is smaller federal deficits:
– PWBM estimates Option A adds about $900B to primary deficits beyond OBBBA’s funds over the decade. Option C likely worsens the gap further through deeper GDP losses. Option B also cuts revenue as employment and output fall.

If the aim is faster growth:
– Option A reduces GDP and capital about 1%; Option B’s employment shock reduces output and weakens recovery; Option C delivers the largest GDP declines.

Recommendations by stakeholder type

• Construction, manufacturing, logistics, hospitality
  • Build larger applicant pools now; widen training classes; lock in prices on long‑lead materials early.
  • For Option A and C exposure, plan phased expansions rather than single large builds to limit risk.
• Child care providers and large employers with many parents on staff
  • Budget for wage increases to retain staff; add backup care stipends.
  • Under Option B pressure, expect higher turnover and plan cross‑coverage among teams.
• Universities and research labs
  • Offer summer and break‑period remote roles; provide clear travel guidance to students and scholars from affected countries.
  • Keep emergency funds to retain research staff during visa gaps.
• Local governments
  • Expect weaker tax receipts and higher service costs; rephase capital projects to reflect construction delays and higher bids.

Monitoring official status

For operational updates, enforcement statistics, and removal data, check U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations page: https://www.ice.gov/ero

This single source will help you follow the pace of arrests and removals tied to OBBBA funding and see how close operations come to the public targets.

The bottom line across the three options

• Option A (multi‑year “permanent” policy with travel bans) is the most sustained drag: GDP ≈ −1%, average wages down over time, ~$900B higher primary deficits beyond OBBBA, and continued talent losses as bans widen.
• Option B (four‑year, 4 million deportations) inflicts large short‑to‑medium‑term shocks: ~5.9 million fewer jobs by 2029, construction −18.8%, child care −15.1%, and higher prices from reduced output.
• Option C (severe mass deportations) hits the hardest: GDP −2.6% to −6.2% over a decade, prices up to +9.1% by 2028, and deep losses in construction, agriculture, hospitality, manufacturing, and logistics.

All three options point to fewer jobs overall, higher prices, and weaker growth. Only narrow groups may see short‑term wage gains—and those gains fade as capital and productivity fall. The research record, including historical evidence summarized by the Baker Institute, finds no lasting gains for U.S.-born workers when removals surge. Meanwhile, the June 2025 travel bans shrink the flow of students, workers, and researchers, adding a second squeeze on the talent pipeline.

Actionable takeaways

• Employers: Build redundancy in teams, add time and cost buffers, and keep I‑9 records clean. Expect higher project costs, longer timelines, and tougher hiring across Options A–C.
• Workers: Be ready for slower job growth and higher living costs. Parents should plan for child care disruptions and possible schedule changes.
• Universities: Create remote options for affected students and scholars, and prepare for sudden staffing gaps in labs and classrooms.
• Local leaders: Reforecast revenues and bids with higher prices and longer build times. Prioritize essential projects and add contingencies.

Trump’s 2025 deportation push, backed by OBBBA and carried out by ICE with support from other agencies, is not only an immigration shift—it’s a broad economic event. The numbers from PWBM, EPI, and the Baker Institute line up on the core point: as removals rise and entry tightens, output falls, prices rise, and public budgets strain. The degree and timing differ across Options A, B, and C, but the direction is the same. Planning ahead—early, clearly, and within the law—will help employers, families, and schools and keep communities steadier as this policy cycle unfolds.