Readers Side With Trump Over Supreme Court on Immigration Enforcement: Epoch Readers’ Poll

Strong majorities support swift removals, limited due process rights for illegal immigrants, and tougher executive authority.

A new poll of Epoch Times readers shows overwhelming support for President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda—including his use of emergency powers to speed up deportations of foreign gang members, a tactic recently challenged by the Supreme Court.

Of the 35,704 responses, large majorities of readers endorsed fast-track deportations, rejected due process protections for illegal immigrants, and backed Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to expel non-citizens tied to transnational criminal networks. The poll results suggest a broad mandate for aggressive enforcement, even in the face of judicial resistance.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has moved rapidly to deliver on his campaign promise of mass deportations. On his first day in office, he declared a national invasion at the southern border and began dismantling policies from the era of former President Joe Biden that Trump blamed for fueling a tidal wave of illegal immigration under the prior administration.

In a flurry of executive orders, Trump deployed military assets to the border, ramped up vetting procedures, reinstated the “Remain in Mexico” program, and launched a self-deportation initiative aimed at accelerating the removal of illegal immigrants.

But perhaps the most controversial move came in March, when Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act—a rarely used 18th-century law used to repel “predatory incursions” into U.S. territory by foreign invaders—to remove Venezuelan gang members without full court hearings. The Supreme Court intervened, ruling on May 16 that this approach violated due process protections, faulting the administration for giving detainees only 24 hours’ notice and insufficient opportunity to contest their removal.

Trump denounced the decision, saying it hobbled his ability to ensure national security and protect Americans by delaying the removal of dangerous criminals. Vice President JD Vance also weighed in, saying in a recent interview that the Supreme Court’s decision reflects a deeper institutional clash between judicial power and the democratic will of voters.

Answers to the poll’s opening questions make clear that readers of The Epoch Times are strongly aligned with Trump’s vision of immigration enforcement—one defined by speed, severity, and strong executive control.

Strong Support for Swift Deportations

Respondents overwhelmingly back aggressive immigration enforcement, with large majorities favoring fast-track deportations, expedited removals, and tough penalties for illegal immigrants, especially in cases involving crime or national security.

The poll showed that an overwhelming majority of respondents—88 percent—strongly agreed that illegal immigration poses a threat to public safety, while another five percent somewhat agreed. Just five percent disagreed to some extent. The findings align with the Trump administration’s view that weak border policies compromise national security and make Americans less safe.

Trump has repeatedly emphasized this risk, vowing to implement the largest mass deportation campaign in U.S. history, with a primary focus on criminal aliens and foreign gangs. His Jan. 20 inaugural address reiterated that goal and announced plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act—which permits fast-track deportations during wartime or invasion.

A variety of federal police remove two persons after an immigration court hearing outside an immigration court in Phoenix, on May 21, 2025. Ross D. Franklin/AP Photo

That same day, he signed a proclamation declaring a national emergency, describing the southern border as the front line of an unlawful incursion. The proclamation stated that gangs and foreign nationals were committing “irregular warfare” against the United States and called for the immediate arrest and deportation of those involved.

One of the first targets was Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department. Trump’s March proclamation identified the group as a national security threat and directed immigration authorities to begin removing its members without the usual court process.

Premium Picks

DOGE Official Says They’ve Found Illegal Immigrants Who Have Voted in US Elections

Federal Judge Blocks Oklahoma From Enforcing Immigration Law

ICE Says It Arrested More Criminal Illegal Immigrants in ‘Sanctuary’ Cities Operation

Support for such swift action was strong among Epoch Times readers. Asked whether fast-track deportations discourage future illegal immigration, 86 percent said they strongly agreed, and another seven percent somewhat agreed. Only six percent voiced any level of disagreement, suggesting broad support for the view that swift removals deter future unlawful entries.

Similarly, 85 percent strongly agreed—and another eight percent somewhat agreed—that the government should prioritize faster deportations overall. Just six percent opposed that position, reinforcing the view that readers want immigration enforcement to move quickly and decisively.

That sense of urgency also extended to Trump’s handling of Tren de Aragua. The administration announced in March that over 250 alleged members of the gang had been deported to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a 40,000-capacity prison designed to isolate dangerous offenders. The United States agreed to pay El Salvador $6 million to detain the gang members for one year.

Readers overwhelmingly backed the move. Eighty-three percent strongly supported the deportation of Venezuelan gang members to the high-security facility, while another 8 percent somewhat agreed. Just six percent disagreed, indicating widespread approval for tough-on-crime deportation tactics.

The Trump administration’s push for rapid deportations—including to overseas prisons—clearly resonates with readers, who back the president’s bolder legal moves despite judicial resistance.

Backing Trump’s Use of Extraordinary Powers and Criticism of the Court

Respondents strongly support the administration’s use of emergency authority to bypass traditional legal hurdles in deportation cases.

When asked whether illegal immigrants accused of gang affiliations should be deported without a court hearing, 82 percent of readers said they strongly agreed, while another eight percent somewhat agreed. Only seven percent opposed the approach. The responses suggest that, for many, national security concerns outweigh procedural safeguards.

Readers also shared Trump’s frustration with the courts. In a social media post reacting to the Supreme Court’s May 16 decision, Trump warned that it would open the floodgates to criminal activity and hamstring immigration enforcement. “The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,” he wrote. “This is a bad and dangerous day for America.”

Seventy-nine percent of readers strongly agreed with Trump’s assessment that the court ruling would encourage more crime and illegal immigration, with another 12 percent somewhat agreeing. Just six percent disagreed, showing broad alignment with the president’s stance.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on May 19, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Concerns about judicial interference extend beyond a single ruling. Asked whether the Supreme Court’s decision undermines Trump’s broader immigration strategy, 79 percent again said they strongly agreed, and 12 percent somewhat agreed. Just six percent expressed disagreement.

Readers also backed the legal foundation for Trump’s actions. When asked whether it is appropriate to use the Alien Enemies Act for immigration enforcement, 78 percent said they strongly agreed and 10 percent somewhat agreed. Only seven percent objected. The results suggest readers view the invocation of emergency wartime authority as a justified response to what the administration views as an invasion inspired or facilitated by foreign powers.

By contrast, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sued the Trump administration over the use of the Alien Enemies Act, praised the Supreme Court’s decision. “The court’s decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government’s attempt to hurry people away to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador. The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance,” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead counsel, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, reader support for Trump’s tougher immigration enforcement also appears to tie into backing for solutions that bypass bureaucratic bottlenecks to keep the president’s mass deportation drive from stalling—like third-country transfers and prioritizing criminal cases.

Public Awareness and Support for Expanded Deportation Policies

A significant share of readers voiced strong awareness of the threats posed by transnational criminal groups, particularly the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which has become a key focus of Trump’s enforcement strategy.

In February, the State Department formally designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization, citing its ties to drug trafficking, extortion, kidnappings, and murder across South and Central America. In April, federal prosecutors followed up with sweeping indictments.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and Acting U.S. Attorney Matthew Podolsky announced charges on April 21 against 27 alleged members and associates of Tren de Aragua, accusing them of racketeering, drug and sex trafficking, and violent assaults. “Tren de Aragua is not just a street gang—it is a highly structured terrorist organization that has destroyed American families with brutal violence, engaged in human trafficking, and spread deadly drugs through our communities,” Bondi said in a statement at the time, vowing to “completely dismantle and purge this organization from our country.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Readers appear highly attuned to the threat. Seventy-three percent said they were strongly aware of the gang’s activities in the United States, while another 14 percent reported being somewhat aware. Only six percent said they were unfamiliar with the group, suggesting the gang’s notoriety has galvanized public attention.

Beyond awareness, readers expressed strong support for expanded deportation policies, including transferring illegal immigrants to safe third countries when their home country refuses repatriation. Although a federal judge in Massachusetts blocked that policy in April—ruling that such transfers require prior notice and an opportunity to claim potential persecution—readers were largely unmoved. Sixty-six percent said they strongly supported third-country deportations, with another 14 percent somewhat agreeing. Only nine percent were opposed.

Support was also high for expediting deportation hearings—especially in criminal cases. When asked whether the United States should invest more resources into accelerating proceedings for illegal immigrants facing additional charges, 66 percent strongly agreed and 10 percent somewhat agreed. Only 16 percent opposed the idea, suggesting significant support for accelerated removals in higher-risk cases involving crimes other than just unlawful entry.

That same urgency extended even to less severe cases. Sixty-four percent strongly supported faster deportations for illegal immigrants who had not been accused of violent crimes, and another 18 percent somewhat agreed. Just eight percent were opposed, suggesting that many respondents believe efficiency and speed in deportation should guide enforcement priorities rather than the nature of the offense.

Taken together, the responses suggest a clear preference for action over gridlock. Readers appear highly focused on ensuring that deportations continue—regardless of procedural hang-ups or if courts throw up roadblocks.

Distrust of Due Process for Illegal Immigrants and Judicial Overreach

Another major theme emerging from the poll is reader skepticism toward the judicial system and civil liberties groups—particularly when it comes to immigration enforcement. The data show a clear preference for national security and executive authority over judicial oversight and procedural safeguards.

U.S. military personnel escort alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and the MS-13 gang recently deported by the U.S. government to be imprisoned in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison, at the El Salvador International Airport in San Luis Talpa, El Salvador, on April 12, 2025. Secretaria de Prensa de la Presidencia/Handout via Reuters

Asked whether they trust the government to correctly identify gang members among illegal immigrants, 60 percent of respondents strongly agreed, and another 24 percent said they somewhat agreed. Just nine percent expressed some level of doubt, suggesting general confidence in immigration enforcement authorities, despite occasional concerns about misidentification.

When asked about the adequacy of current due process safeguards, 53 percent strongly agreed they are sufficient to prevent wrongful deportations, and another 18 percent somewhat agreed. Fourteen percent disagreed, while 15 percent were neutral—indicating that while most respondents trust existing protections, a significant minority sees room for error.

However, when the question turned to whether illegal immigrants should receive basic due process protections, respondents were far more decisive. Sixty-seven percent strongly disagreed, and another 14 percent somewhat disagreed, with only 12 percent expressing support. The results reflect a strong belief that entering the United States unlawfully does not entitle an individual to the same legal rights as citizens or lawful residents.

When asked whether illegal immigrants should be entitled to basic due process protections in deportation cases, a decisive 67 percent strongly disagreed with the idea, and another 14 percent somewhat disagreed. Just 12 percent supported the proposition. The message seems clear—most readers believe that entering the United States unlawfully should not grant an individual the same legal rights as a citizen.

Trump has echoed this sentiment, arguing that giving illegal immigrants the same due process as U.S. citizens would flood the courts with millions of cases and undermine the government’s ability to carry out mass deportations efficiently.

That frustration with procedural delays was evident in responses to the Supreme Court’s May 16 decision blocking Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to fast-track deportations. Only seven percent of respondents agreed with the ruling, while 84 percent strongly disagreed, and another six percent somewhat disagreed. In open-ended write-in responses, many readers described the decision as a dangerous obstruction of the president’s ability to remove foreign gang members quickly and protect U.S. communities from danger.

Meanwhile, civil liberties arguments found little traction with respondents. When asked about the ACLU’s claim that the Alien Enemies Act violates due process, just six percent agreed. Eighty-two percent strongly disagreed with the ACLU’s legal reasoning, suggesting deep skepticism toward what many write-in responses described as progressive legal challenges to Trump’s immigration agenda.

Together, the responses suggest a clear preference for tough, decisive immigration enforcement—and skepticism toward the legal or procedural checks that delay deportation.

President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

What’s Really Broken in Deportations?

When asked to identify the biggest problem in how the United States handles deportations—and how they would fix it—Epoch Times readers delivered a consistent verdict across thousands of write-in responses: the current system moves too slowly, is skewed towards excessive legal protections for illegal immigrants, and obstructs executive power too much.

The most commonly cited problem was the extension of due process protections to illegal immigrants. Many readers argued that such rights should be reserved for U.S. citizens and lawful residents, not for those who entered the country unlawfully. Several proposed constitutional amendments to clarify the limits of legal protections, while others called for administrative proceedings or “notice-based” removals to streamline the process. Only a minority defended full due process as a universal principle.

Respondents also blamed judges—especially those who have issued nationwide injunctions—as key obstacles to enforcement. Many decried what they see as ideological overreach by federal courts and called for structural reforms, including jurisdictional limits, term limits, or even impeachment. A recurring theme was the demand to strip lower courts of the power to block presidential immigration orders.

Closely tied to objections to what readers described as judicial obstruction was a strong push for mass deportation. Thousands said the solution was obvious: deport everyone who entered the United States illegally. Many readers rejected case-by-case hearings and advocated for blanket removals, with many saying that merely entering the country without permission should be grounds for immediate expulsion. A smaller group favored leniency for longtime residents with clean records, but only if they first self-deported and reapplied through legal channels.

Courts came under additional fire, with many respondents viewing the judiciary as an activist branch that routinely overrides the executive and undermines public safety. Some proposed the creation of special immigration courts with limited appellate oversight. Others demanded legislation to rein in judicial authority and eliminate legal avenues that allow for seemingly indefinite delay.

Illegal immigration itself was cited as a root cause of dysfunction. Respondents often framed the issue in terms of national security, sovereignty, and law and order—arguing that those who enter illegally should forfeit all claims to rights or protections. Related responses highlighted the Constitution, with many asserting that it applies only to Americans and should not be extended to foreign nationals who violate U.S. borders.

The Supreme Court was also a frequent target of write-in comments—especially after its May 16 ruling that blocked Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. Respondents accused the high court of political bias and judicial overreach, with some going so far as to demand term limits, impeachment proceedings, or outright defiance. While a small number expressed hope for eventual reversal, the overall mood leaned towards distrust of the judiciary.

A Blackhawk crew flies along the fence at the southern U.S. border with Mexico, in Douglas, Ariz., on April 3, 2025. David Swanson/AFP via Getty Images

A number of respondents also argued that Congress has abdicated its duty entirely. They blamed lawmakers—especially Democrats, but also establishment Republicans—for failing to pass strong immigration laws, fund deportation operations, or protect the executive branch from court interference. Many called for sweeping reforms, including codifying Trump-era orders, restricting birthright citizenship, and curbing legal immigration pathways.

Overall, there was a powerful consensus that the deportation system is broken at many levels—from clogged courts to congressional gridlock to constitutional misinterpretation. Readers’ proposed solutions emphasized speed and executive authority, often calling for uncompromising action in the face of institutional resistance.