-(4)-1731951738-q80.webp){kind=small}
In a surprising twist to his historically hardline immigration stance, former President Donald J. Trump revealed a new proposal this week that would offer a stipend and plane ticket to undocumented immigrants who voluntarily choose to leave the United States.
The plan, which he referred to as a "self-deportation program," also includes a vague promise to facilitate the legal return of immigrants who are deemed “good” and useful to the American economy.
“We're going to give them a stipend. We're going to give them some money and a plane ticket,” Trump said in a taped interview with Fox Noticias that aired Tuesday. “If they're good — if we want them back in — we’re going to work with them to get them back in as quickly as we can.”
The former president’s comments have already stirred confusion, skepticism, and debate across the political spectrum. Some see it as a rare moment of pragmatism. Others view it as political sleight of hand designed to soften Trump’s image while preserving the hardline ethos of his base.
Immigrant rights advocates, policy analysts, and political strategists alike are scrambling to make sense of the proposal — and to understand whether it represents a genuine shift in Trump’s immigration platform or just another calculated pivot in a high-stakes election season.
The phrase "self-deportation" is not new. It gained notoriety during Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, when he suggested that undocumented immigrants would choose to leave the U.S. voluntarily if life was made difficult enough through strict laws and limited job access. Critics called it both naive and cruel.
Trump's version, however, carries a different tone. Instead of punitive measures, he is now offering what appears to be an incentive package — airfare, a financial stipend, and even the potential of legal reentry.
“This is a man who built his political brand on immigration crackdowns, border walls, and mass deportations,” said Dr. Angela Ramos, an immigration policy expert at UCLA. “Now he’s pitching self-deportation as a humane, mutually beneficial solution. It’s a rhetorical pivot — but we don’t yet know if it’s a policy shift.”
Indeed, Trump offered few concrete details during the Fox Noticias interview. No timelines, no eligibility criteria, and no explanation of how the government would determine who qualifies as "good" or “desirable” enough to return.
That ambiguity leaves many questions unanswered — especially for the more than 10 million undocumented immigrants currently estimated to live in the United States.
The interview, conducted by Rachel Campos-Duffy — a conservative media personality and wife of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy — included a pre-recorded message from a Mexican man who reportedly entered the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago and now has American-born children.
While it’s unclear whether the man currently has legal status, he expressed support for Trump’s immigration philosophy, particularly the idea that those who commit crimes should be returned to their countries of origin, including himself if necessary.
Trump’s reaction was strikingly personal. “I look at this man. I say, this is a guy that we want to keep,” he said, appearing visibly moved. “I’ll probably take heat for saying it.”
For a man known for sweeping generalizations and tough-on-immigration rhetoric, the moment seemed unusually reflective. “I don’t think he’s in any danger of [deportation],” Trump added. “No, he didn’t say that. Good.”
One of the more controversial elements of Trump’s comments was his characterization of the program as a way to “make it comfortable for people.”
The phrase quickly drew ire from immigration advocates.
“It’s an oxymoron,” said Luis Martínez, Director of Policy at Immigrant Legal Alliance. “There is no such thing as a ‘comfortable deportation’ for someone who’s built a life here, who has kids in school, a job, a mortgage. You can’t put a ribbon on forced exile.”
Others, however, saw the proposal as an attempt to introduce nuance into an area where Trump has previously offered only blunt force.
“Look, if it’s voluntary, if it comes with financial assistance, and if there’s a credible pathway for legal return — that’s a major departure from the mass raids and family separations of 2018,” said Elena Voskov, a former immigration attorney now working at a think tank focused on bipartisan policy solutions.
Still, Voskov added a caveat: “But if it’s just branding — if the goal is still removal without due process — then it’s just the same policy in different packaging.”
Trump’s comments come amid growing signs that immigration will once again be a centerpiece of the upcoming election cycle. Polls show that Americans remain sharply divided over how to handle undocumented immigrants, but there is increasing concern about labor shortages in industries like agriculture, construction, and hospitality.
Trump himself alluded to this, noting that he wanted to help “hotels and farms get the workers they need.”
“We’re going to recommend people,” he said. “We’re going to fill those jobs. It’ll be very soothing to farmers.”
The language suggests a potential revival of guest worker programs or seasonal labor permits — another idea that has support in both parties but has stalled in Congress amid broader immigration gridlock.
“He’s trying to have it both ways,” said Dr. Carlos Medina, a political science professor at the University of Arizona. “Be tough on crime, hard on the border, but also the guy who fixes the labor shortage. The ‘self-deportation’ plan is a way to thread that needle — at least rhetorically.”
Some analysts believe the proposal is part of a calculated effort to soften Trump’s image with Latino voters, many of whom were alienated by his past remarks about immigrants from Mexico and Latin America.
Recent polling indicates that Trump is gaining traction among working-class Latino voters, especially men. His message of economic revival, tough policing, and anti-elite populism has found resonance in some communities traditionally considered Democratic strongholds.
“The plane ticket thing is bizarre, yes,” said Sylvia Rivera, a political organizer with Vota Latino. “But if he can position himself as the guy who’s tough on bad actors but fair to the rest — that could sway some undecideds.”
The risk, however, lies in alienating his base. Trump’s supporters have long valued his uncompromising stance on immigration. Any whiff of leniency — even in the form of voluntary removal — could trigger backlash among the far-right media ecosystem.
“If you’re paying undocumented immigrants to leave, some people are going to see that as rewarding law-breaking,” said conservative radio host Tom Adler. “What message does that send to the people waiting in line, doing it the legal way?”
Beyond the politics, the plan raises serious legal and ethical concerns. Would accepting the stipend constitute a formal deportation on someone’s immigration record, thereby making them ineligible for future visas? Who determines who is “good” and who is not? What safeguards would exist to prevent abuse?
“There are no clear answers,” said attorney Sofia Alarcon, who specializes in removal defense cases. “And until we see them, it’s irresponsible to dangle this as a solution.”
Then there’s the cost. With over 10 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., even offering a modest $2,000 stipend would equate to a $20 billion program. That doesn’t include airfare, processing costs, or any legal infrastructure needed to support the program.
“Who’s paying for this?” Alarcon asked. “And how would it be administered? We’re talking about a massive logistical operation.”
For now, the “self-deportation” proposal remains just that — a proposal, with no executive order, legislative draft, or agency guidance backing it up. But it has already sparked a national conversation, and its political utility may be as significant as its policy implications.
“It puts Trump in the headlines,” said Dr. Medina. “It forces his opponents to respond. And it lets him play both sides of the immigration debate.”
As the 2024 race heats up, Trump’s evolving stance on immigration will likely remain one of the most closely watched — and hotly contested — aspects of his campaign.
Whether his latest idea is remembered as a breakthrough, a blunder, or a bait-and-switch will depend on what comes next — and whether, for once, rhetoric translates into reality.
