Poll Finds GOP Not Saying Trump Doing Too Much on Deportations

A new Pew Research Center survey taken October 6–16, 2025, shows a modest but noticeable shift inside the Republican Party: more Republicans now say President Trump is doing “too much” on deportations, even as most still back sweeping removals. Twenty percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters told Pew this, up from 13% in March 2025.

The change does not amount to a broad revolt against Trump’s immigration agenda, but it highlights cracks emerging around who gets targeted, how removals happen, and what costs—legal and human—follow mass enforcement. Public opinion matters because Congress is voting on money, rules, and guard deployments.

Who is shifting and where

That uptick came largely from Hispanic Republicans, among whom 47% said Trump is doing “too much,” up from 28% in March, according to Pew. Among White Republicans, the share rose to 13% from 8%.

Overall, however, Republican voters still lean heavily toward the sharpest option:
– 56% favor deporting all immigrants in the United States illegally
– 39% favor deporting some

These numbers help explain why party leaders largely continue to line up with Trump, even when particular cases stir unease. In Pew’s broader readout, immigration disagreements are often about methods, not the goal of removals at all levels.

Quick reference — Pew survey shifts (selected figures)

Broader public and immigrant-republican splits

Across the electorate, Pew found 50% disapprove of Trump’s overall approach to immigration — a reminder that hardline steps carry political risk outside the GOP.

Inside the party, Republican immigrant voters show distinct splits between broad enforcement goals and specific tactics:
– 80% of Republican immigrant voters support increasing deportations of people in the country illegally.
– 52% disapprove of “third country” deportations (sending immigrants to countries that are not their home).
– 44% oppose ending birthright citizenship.

These internal splits are increasingly shaping Capitol Hill debates and explain why some Republicans back enforcement but demand tighter guardrails.

Key takeaway: Many Republican immigrant voters support stronger enforcement in principle, but object to particular methods such as third-country transfers and ending birthright citizenship.

The Afghan aid dispute and congressional reactions

One of the most pointed disputes has involved Afghans who aided U.S. troops and later sought refuge. Some congressional Republicans have opposed the Trump administration’s crackdown on Afghan immigrants, arguing for intensive vetting rather than broad pauses in visa programs.

• Senator Susan Collins (R–Maine) highlighted concerns she said were coming from veterans about their safety if former partners are left exposed.
• Meanwhile, House Republicans removed a bipartisan provision from the National Defense Authorization Act that would have restored a State Department office for Afghan refugees, then passed the bill for Senate consideration.

The migration pause and criticisms

According to the source material, Trump announced a permanent pause on migration from countries including Afghanistan, Haiti, and Somalia. Immigrant advocates say the move can strand families and workers with long-standing ties in the U.S.

Supporters’ arguments:
– Matches a larger promise to reduce unauthorized migration
– Intended to speed removals

Critics’ arguments:
– Broad bans treat entire nations as security threats
– Cut off legal routes that allow screening and orderly travel
– Have fueled renewed litigation

Funding and enforcement — congressional moves

Even with internal frictions, Congress has been moving money toward enforcement. Lawmakers approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which allocates $75 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without oversight, to fund expanded deportations.

Supporters frame the spending as:
– Adding detention space
– Increasing staff and flights
– Removing people more quickly after arrest

Opponents counter that:
– Large unchecked funding invites mistakes and abuse
– Reports circulate of U.S. citizens being detained in immigration raids

ICE describes its removal mission on its site at ICE Removal Operations.

Political and legal pushback

Representative María Elvira Salazar (R–FL) has criticized related policies amid what the material calls “mass deportation operations,” reflecting a subset of GOP lawmakers worried about blowback in immigrant-heavy districts.

Democrats and advocates point to illustrative cases:
– U.S. citizens detained during raids
– Deportations of military veterans
– National Guard deployments for immigration enforcement without state consent

The source references a recent court ruling against a California deployment on state-consent grounds, adding another legal fault line as the administration presses ahead with rapid removals.

Practical impacts on families and communities

Immigration lawyers emphasize that the practical question for families is not poll wording but what happens at a traffic stop, a workplace visit, or a courthouse check-in.

Expanded deportations can sweep in:
– People with old removal orders
– Mixed-status families
– Asylum seekers waiting on hearings

Although public debate often focuses on “illegals,” expanded enforcement can affect a much broader set of people. The administration argues that sharper enforcement deters new arrivals; critics say fear drives people underground and reduces cooperation with law enforcement.

The Pew findings put these competing claims into sharper political view.

Important warning: Rapid, broad enforcement can produce legal challenges and human consequences — including detaining U.S. citizens and straining relationships with immigrant communities.

What may change going forward

For now, the Pew numbers suggest Republican doubts remain the exception, not the rule, and the source material stresses that no reporting shows widespread or majority GOP backlash against the volume of deportations as of December 2025.

The tension is largely about the edges of policy:
– Partners from past wars (e.g., Afghan allies)
– Use of third countries for deportations
– Constitutional questions such as birthright citizenship

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, these splits can matter in close House races, where a small shift among Hispanic Republicans may change how loudly candidates defend Trump’s approach.

If concerns continue rising from 13% to 20% and beyond, lawmakers may face pressure to pair enforcement funds with clearer limits in the next election cycle.

Final summary

• Most Republicans still favor broad deportations, but margins are shifting, especially among Hispanic Republicans and certain immigrant voters.
• Disagreements are concentrated on methods and targets rather than the general goal of enforcement.
• Legal, human, and political consequences — and growing public unease outside the GOP — may push some lawmakers to seek guardrails on enforcement funding and practice.