“‘Enforcement at this scale and speed—visible, shocking, designed to produce fear beyond the directly targeted population—destroys jobs, disrupts businesses that Americans own and run, and depresses the local economies in which Americans live and work,’ researchers wrote.”
A new study is challenging one of the central arguments behind President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, finding that aggressive enforcement measures may have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, including positions held by American-born workers.
The research, highlighted by Fortune, found that large-scale immigration enforcement campaigns carried out across dozens of U.S. cities were associated with significant employment declines, raising fresh questions about the economic impact of mass deportation policies.
According to researchers at the Brookings Institution, cities that experienced the sharpest increases in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests saw an estimated 668,000 jobs disappear following the enforcement surge. The findings suggest that the economic consequences extended far beyond the individuals directly targeted by immigration authorities.
The study examined 86 U.S. cities that recorded substantial increases in immigration arrests during the first half of 2025 and compared them with cities that did not experience similar enforcement spikes.
Researchers found that for every additional immigration arrest, approximately 13 jobs were lost within local economies. In some estimates cited by Fortune, the impact translated into roughly 30 jobs lost for every two arrests, illustrating the broad ripple effects created by large-scale enforcement actions.
The Brookings researchers argued that the losses were driven not only by arrests themselves but also by what they described as a “chilling effect” across communities.
“Enforcement at this scale and speed—visible, shocking, designed to produce fear beyond the directly targeted population—destroys jobs, disrupts businesses that Americans own and run, and depresses the local economies in which Americans live and work,” researchers Marcela Escobari, Ian Seyal, and Paul Beach wrote in the report.
The findings challenge a long-standing argument made by supporters of stricter immigration enforcement, who have often contended that removing undocumented workers would create more opportunities for American citizens.
Instead, the report suggests that the opposite may be occurring in many communities.
Of the estimated 668,000 jobs lost, Brookings researchers believe between 51,000 and 297,000 positions would likely have been held by American-born workers.
The reason, economists say, is that many industries rely on interconnected workforces where immigrant and native-born employees perform complementary roles rather than directly competing for the same jobs.
Construction provides one of the clearest examples. When labor shortages emerge because immigrant workers disappear from job sites, companies often reduce the number of projects they can undertake. As operations shrink, demand also falls for supervisors, managers, equipment operators, suppliers, sales staff, and other employees, many of whom are U.S.-born workers.
A separate study cited by Fortune found similar results. Researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder and the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that for every six undocumented workers pushed out of the labor force, one U.S.-born worker also lost employment. The study found no evidence that employers were replacing immigrant workers with large numbers of native-born employees.
“There is a common narrative out there that mass deportations will free up job opportunities for U.S.-born workers, but numerous studies, including ours, have shown that is false,” economist Chloe East said. “If a construction company can’t find laborers, they’re going to take on less work and hire fewer people overall.”
The Brookings report also found that industries with relatively few immigrant workers still experienced employment declines. Researchers noted that highly visible immigration raids can reduce consumer spending within affected communities. When residents become fearful about leaving their homes, shopping, dining out, or attending events, local businesses often see revenues fall, forcing them to reduce staffing levels.
Evidence of this trend has already appeared in some cities. The report referenced earlier research indicating that consumer spending in parts of Los Angeles with large immigrant populations fell by as much as 25% following announcements of local immigration enforcement campaigns.
The findings arrive amid broader concerns about labor shortages across several sectors of the U.S. economy. Construction, agriculture, hospitality, manufacturing, and food processing industries have all reported difficulties finding workers in recent years. Economists warn that removing large numbers of workers from the labor force could create additional pressure on businesses already struggling with staffing challenges.
Labor economist Mark Regets of the National Foundation for American Policy previously argued that immigration often supports, rather than harms, employment opportunities for U.S.-born workers.
“Most economic research shows that immigration increases employment opportunities for the U.S.-born, so it would not be surprising if reducing immigration harms American workers,” Regets said. The Trump administration has maintained that its immigration policies are necessary to strengthen border security, enforce immigration laws, and protect American jobs.
However, the growing body of economic research cited by Fortune suggests the relationship between immigration and employment may be far more complex than political rhetoric often implies. For policymakers, the debate increasingly centers on whether aggressive immigration enforcement can achieve its intended goals without imposing broader economic costs on businesses, communities, and workers.
The Brookings researchers offered a clear conclusion. “If the objective is to protect American workers and support resilient local economies, a wide-scale, ‘shock and awe’ enforcement approach in American cities is a costly and counterproductive tool.”
