The Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement campaign may have caused significant economic damage across dozens of American cities, leading to an estimated 668,000 job losses and creating ripple effects that extended well beyond undocumented migrants, according to a new study released by the Brookings Institution.
The report argues that large-scale Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations conducted in major urban areas produced widespread economic disruptions, affecting businesses, consumers, and workers across multiple sectors of the economy. Researchers found that the consequences reached far beyond individuals directly targeted by immigration authorities, creating what they described as a broader climate of uncertainty and fear that weakened local labor markets.
The study examined immigration enforcement activities in 86 US cities that experienced substantial increases in ICE arrests during the first half of 2025. By comparing those cities with others that did not experience similar enforcement surges, researchers sought to isolate the economic effects of the operations from other factors influencing employment trends.
According to the findings, approximately 13 jobs disappeared for every additional ICE arrest recorded during the enforcement campaign. Researchers concluded that the cumulative impact resulted in roughly 668,000 lost jobs across the affected metropolitan areas.
The report was authored by Marcela Escobari, Ian Seyal, and Paul Beach, who argued that the scale and visibility of the immigration crackdown distinguished it from previous enforcement efforts undertaken by earlier administrations.
Unlike earlier immigration operations conducted during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the study claims the more recent campaign relied heavily on highly publicized enforcement actions designed to maximize visibility and deterrence.
Researchers described the strategy as a “shock and awe” approach that generated widespread anxiety throughout immigrant communities and beyond. They argue that the resulting uncertainty discouraged economic activity, reduced consumer spending, and forced businesses to adjust operations in response to labor shortages and declining demand.
The findings suggest that industries heavily dependent on immigrant labor experienced some of the most severe consequences.
Construction emerged as one of the sectors most affected by the enforcement campaign. Many businesses in the industry reportedly struggled to maintain adequate staffing levels after immigration arrests increased, resulting in delayed projects, reduced productivity, and lower overall employment.
However, the economic impact was not confined to industries traditionally associated with immigrant workers.
The report found notable employment declines in sectors such as arts, entertainment, hospitality, and recreation, where undocumented workers represent a much smaller share of the workforce.
Researchers argue that these declines reflect broader economic consequences rather than direct labor shortages.
As immigration raids became a dominant news story in many communities, residents reportedly reduced discretionary spending and avoided public activities. Businesses dependent on local consumer demand subsequently experienced falling revenues, prompting layoffs and hiring freezes.
The study suggests that fear and uncertainty spread throughout local economies, affecting businesses regardless of whether they employed undocumented workers.
According to the authors, immigration enforcement at such a large scale disrupted normal economic activity by creating instability across entire communities.
They argue that highly visible enforcement actions not only removed workers from local labor markets but also weakened confidence among consumers and employers.
The report contends that the resulting economic slowdown affected many American-born workers as well.
Of the estimated 668,000 jobs lost in the 86 cities analyzed, researchers estimate that between 51,000 and 297,000 positions would have been held by US-born employees.
This finding challenges the argument that aggressive immigration enforcement primarily benefits native-born workers by reducing labor market competition.
Instead, the report suggests that businesses experiencing sudden labor shortages often reduced overall operations, leading to job losses that extended beyond immigrant workers.
Construction companies, restaurants, retail businesses, and service providers reportedly faced difficulties maintaining normal operations when portions of their workforce disappeared unexpectedly.
As revenues declined and operational challenges increased, employers frequently reduced staffing across their organizations, affecting workers regardless of their immigration status.
The study also highlights the role of consumer spending in amplifying economic losses.
Researchers pointed to evidence showing that immigrant communities often respond to heightened enforcement activity by limiting public appearances, reducing purchases, and avoiding nonessential spending.
Such behavioral changes can have significant consequences for local businesses that depend on consistent consumer demand.
The report referenced separate research conducted in Los Angeles, where spending in neighborhoods with large foreign-born populations reportedly declined by as much as 25 percent in the months following the announcement of a local ICE enforcement campaign.
Researchers suggest that similar patterns may have emerged in other cities experiencing intensified immigration operations.
Lower spending levels can quickly affect local businesses, particularly small enterprises operating on narrow profit margins.
Restaurants, retail stores, entertainment venues, and personal service providers often depend heavily on neighborhood spending patterns. When customers reduce purchases, businesses may respond by cutting hours, delaying investments, or eliminating jobs.
The Brookings study argues that these indirect effects played a significant role in magnifying the overall economic impact of immigration enforcement.
The researchers relied on several data sources to develop their conclusions.
Information on immigration arrests came from the Deportation Data Project, which tracks ICE enforcement activities through Freedom of Information Act requests and publicly available government records.
Employment estimates were derived from labor market analytics firm Lightcast, supplemented by federal payroll data and other economic indicators.
By combining these sources, the authors attempted to measure changes in local employment following spikes in immigration enforcement activity.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the study’s findings.
The report arrives amid ongoing national debate over immigration policy and its economic implications.
Supporters of stricter immigration enforcement often argue that reducing undocumented labor benefits American workers by increasing job opportunities and wages.
Critics, however, contend that immigrant labor plays a vital role in many sectors of the economy and that abrupt enforcement actions can create significant disruptions for businesses and communities.
The Brookings researchers argue that their findings support the latter view.
They contend that broad enforcement campaigns may undermine economic stability by removing workers from key industries while simultaneously discouraging spending and investment.
According to the report, the economic costs associated with large-scale immigration crackdowns may outweigh any potential labor market benefits.
The authors also caution that local economies are deeply interconnected, meaning disruptions in one segment of the workforce can quickly spread throughout entire communities.
When businesses face labor shortages, consumers reduce spending, and uncertainty dominates public attention, economic activity can weaken across multiple sectors simultaneously.
This interconnected effect helps explain why industries with little direct exposure to immigration enforcement nonetheless experienced declining employment levels.
Beyond the immediate employment losses, researchers warn that prolonged economic uncertainty may have lasting consequences for affected communities.
Reduced business activity can discourage investment, slow job creation, and weaken economic growth over extended periods.
The report suggests that recovery may take time, particularly in areas where immigration enforcement remains a dominant political and social issue.
As policymakers continue debating immigration reform and border security measures, the findings add a new dimension to discussions about the broader economic effects of enforcement strategies.
The study concludes that if the objective is to strengthen local economies and improve employment opportunities for American workers, highly visible immigration crackdowns may prove counterproductive.
According to the authors, policies designed to generate widespread fear and disruption can create unintended consequences that extend far beyond immigration enforcement itself, ultimately affecting businesses, workers, and communities throughout the country.
The debate over immigration policy is expected to remain a central issue in US politics, particularly as economic concerns and labor market challenges continue to shape public discussion. The Brookings report adds fresh evidence to that debate, suggesting that immigration enforcement policies may carry economic costs that policymakers must carefully consider alongside broader security and immigration objectives.
