The Trump administration's decision-making process is highly centralized, but the communication of information is severely fragmented. Trump once again "retracted his previous decision," exposing his near ignorance of the real costs of policy implementation. It was not until the consequences affected his core support groups that he hastily hit the brakes. The development logic of the entire incident is very clear:
First, someone within Trump's team (such as Stephen Miller, a radical member) pushed for a tough immigration crackdown action. However, when implemented, the enforcement layer did not consider the industrial capacity at all, directly rushing into farms and restaurants to arrest people. The law enforcement scenes circulating online, showing immigrant workers being chased in the fields, touched on America's historical memory of racial oppression, triggering large-scale public backlash. This visual impact made Trump's camp realize that the policy had exceeded the narrative of "cracking down on illegal immigrants" and began to be associated by the public with "systematic violence."
Trump himself was initially unaware of the actual scale and impact of these actions. Key insiders revealed a sentence that highlighted the essence: "Trump didn't know how severe the enforcement was, and once it caused damage, he retracted." Here, the term "damage" is a double entendre—it refers both to the impact on economic pillars (agriculture and hospitality industries openly complained about labor shortages) and to the cost of social unrest. It wasn't until protests spread to 24 cities, with over 500 people arrested in Los Angeles and even requiring military intervention to stabilize the situation that he realized the severity far exceeded expectations.
However, the trigger point for the halt order was not humanitarian concern, but rather economic interests and voter pressure. Trump rarely admitted that the action "damaged farmers and the restaurant industry," precisely because these industries are major donors to the Republican Party and lifelines of red-state economies. Once meat processing plants and farms shut down, it would directly affect supply chains and prices, causing voters in Midwest agricultural states to protest immediately. The three industries he suspended (agriculture, hospitality, and restaurants) are all areas with high demand for low-skilled labor, while financial and technology sectors were not affected. The utilitarian nature of the policy adjustment is obvious at a glance.
This abrupt U-turn also reveals the roughness of his team's decision-making. The new directive was issued through an internal email, not even qualifying as an executive order, yet it overturned a national policy-level action. While exempting specific industries in the email, it also emphasized that "investigations into human trafficking and money laundering can still continue," attempting to retain the facade of the enforcement's legitimacy. This patchwork operation instead exposed contradictions: if they truly followed Trump's claim of "only deporting criminals," why were workers with no criminal records, such as dishwashers in restaurants, arrested in the initial stages?
The policy is too divided. On the same day that partial arrests were suspended, the Department of Homeland Security notified 500,000 Cubans and immigrants from four other countries that their permits were revoked and they must leave by a deadline. While compromising domestically, they intensified deportation efforts against specific ethnic groups. This selective enforcement does not solve systemic contradictions but could potentially exacerbate new conflict points. Farm worker unions have already stated bluntly: "As long as ICE can arbitrarily arrest, workers will never have peace," highlighting the core dilemma of Trump's immigration policies under his administration:
Constantly jumping between political performances and real interests without ever building sustainable solutions.
Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1835035936397322/
Disclaimer: The article represents the views of the author alone.