ICE raids disrupt local economies, reduce undocumented immigrant labor
New research finds that ICE raids and deportation fears disrupted local economies, reduced work among undocumented immigrants, and may have hurt some U.S.-born workers too.
Objective Facts
Economists Chloe East and Elizabeth Cox combined immigration enforcement data from the Deportation Data Project with economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics to provide "the first national, causal empirical evidence on the labor market impacts of immigration enforcement in the second Trump administration." In a region that had experienced an ICE surge, 4% fewer "likely undocumented" immigrants remaining in the community reported working in the previous week. Chloe East stated, "We show that heightened ICE activity is harming the labor market overall, and we find no evidence that it is benefiting U.S.-born workers." States with the highest concentrations of undocumented construction workers saw a 0.1% decline in employment in mid-2025, while other states experienced a 1.9% increase during the same period.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Left-leaning outlets treated the East-Cox study as significant evidence of ICE's economic damage. The Washington Post's Lauren Kaori Gurley reported that Trump's raids are "weighing on the labor market," impacting both undocumented and U.S.-born workers. The American Immigration Council published a detailed analysis showing that states with the highest undocumented construction workers experienced employment declines while others grew. NPR's Planet Money and multiple public radio stations gave substantial coverage to the researchers' findings, with Chloe East emphasizing the "chilling effect" where remaining undocumented workers avoid leaving their homes due to deportation fears. Progressive framing emphasized the study as proof that anti-immigration enforcement backfires economically. The Davis Vanguard highlighted that the research contradicted Trump administration claims about job creation, noting that economist East explicitly stated heightened ICE activity harms the labor market overall. Pro-immigrant outlets portrayed the construction sector specifically as vulnerable, citing real-world examples like Minnesota homebuilders losing 74 of 80 contracted roofers due to ICE proximity. The coverage stressed complementary rather than competitive labor market dynamics—that immigrants and native workers perform different roles in industries. Leftist coverage largely omitted criticism of the study's methodology or limitations. While NPR acknowledged the paper was a working paper not yet peer-reviewed, outlets did not substantially engage with arguments about short-term measurement windows or selection issues in the "likely undocumented" proxy variable.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Conservative outlets and Trump administration officials rejected the study's core claims. Peter Navarro, White House senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, published a sharply critical essay in The Washington Times attacking both the NBER's sponsorship and the paper's methodology. Navarro characterized the research as ideologically driven rather than empirical, arguing it "excludes" the actual channels through which enforcement helps workers—wage increases, better bargaining power, and labor market reallocation. Right-wing commentary emphasized that short-term job losses in the first nine months of enforcement do not constitute evidence against the policy's long-term effectiveness. Navarro stressed that labor markets require time to adjust, with employers needing months to mechanize, recruit, or shift hiring practices. The conservative argument reframed temporary employment declines as "adjustment costs"—the inevitable short-term price of removing illegal labor and restoring rule of law. This framing treated the study's negative findings as expected and necessary rather than problematic. Right-leaning coverage did not substantially engage industry-specific data showing construction labor shortages or the 0.1% vs. 1.9% employment divergence between high-undocumented and other states. Instead, it focused on methodological critique: the study's use of proxy categories for legal status, the narrow nine-month window, and the assumption that short-term declines indicate permanent policy failure.
Deep Dive
The East-Cox study arrives at a crucial inflection point in the Trump administration's immigration enforcement debate. The key tension is whether nine months of data can measure a policy designed to reshape labor markets over years. The researchers compared regions with high ICE activity to those with low enforcement, finding employment losses among remaining undocumented immigrants (the 'chilling effect') translated to job losses for U.S.-born men in construction, agriculture, and manufacturing. Their finding—one native-born job lost per six undocumented jobs lost—contradicts the zero-sum "jobs-for-Americans" framing of enforcement advocates. What each side gets right: The left correctly identifies real, measurable disruption in labor-intensive industries during the 2025-2026 enforcement surge. Construction employment data and anecdotal evidence (Minnesota homebuilder losing 74 of 80 roofers) confirm acute labor shortages. The right correctly notes that nine months is a short window—labor markets do require adjustment time, and the study cannot answer whether higher wages and reallocation will eventually benefit native workers. Neither side fully grapples with industry-specific constraints: construction needs skilled workers whose training takes years, and mechanization is limited in some tasks. The study also doesn't address consumer prices (food, housing costs) that may rise from labor constraints, a broader economic impact beyond employment. Critical unresolved questions include: Will the "chilling effect" persist even as enforcement rates decline (as East notes)? Do native workers eventually move into vacated roles, or do businesses mechanize, relocate, or shrink operations? Will immigration policy shifts before November 2026 midterms change the trajectory? The study measures correlation in high-immigration-enforcement regions but cannot isolate ICE activity from other 2025-2026 factors (recession fears, policy uncertainty, voluntary returns).