May 4 note: [FACT] Congress approved a plan to add up to $70 billion more for immigration enforcement — on top of the $75 billion already approved last year. The extra money has not been finalized yet. [ANALYSIS] If passed, this would give immigration enforcement nearly 12 times its 2025 budget. [SIGNAL] Historically, large increases in enforcement budgets have led to expanded operations in the following years.

June 1 update (9 → 10): [FACT] Government data shows 32,531 people were booked into immigration detention in March 2026 alone. In Washington D.C., more than half of all immigration arrests were "collateral" — meaning the person arrested was not the original target. At least 8 states had 30% or more collateral arrests. [ANALYSIS] Monthly booking numbers confirm operations are now routine and widespread, not targeted or occasional. [SIGNAL] When collateral arrests become the majority in major cities, it means entire communities — not just specific individuals — are being affected by enforcement.

June 29 update (8 → 9): [FACT] On June 25, the Supreme Court ruled in two cases: (1) TPS for Haitians and Syrians was ended and courts cannot review the decision, and (2) the government can block asylum seekers at the border before they set foot on U.S. soil. Both decisions were 6-3 along partisan lines. Justice Kagan cited the president's own statements about Haiti as evidence of racial motivation. Justice Alito wrote that none of the statements were "overtly racial." Justice Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, an unusual step. Alito publicly retorted. [ANALYSIS] The previous score of 8 was held because "pending rulings and partial court blocks" distinguished the situation from full elimination. Those court blocks are now gone. The Supreme Court removed them and declared them unreviewable. [SIGNAL] When a court declares that its own review power does not apply to how the government treats a group of people, the last protection for that group is removed. Score moves to 9/9 — the highest level in this framework.

May 28 update (6 → 7): [FACT] Multiple federal judges have now documented in writing that the administration is ignoring their rulings. One judge said officials were seeking to "erode any semblance of separation of powers" and could "only do so in a world where the Constitution does not exist." [ANALYSIS] The pattern is no longer isolated cases — it is being described by courts themselves as a broader strategy. [SIGNAL] When a government stops following court rulings, the courts lose their ability to protect people — even when they rule in their favor.

May 19 update (4 → 5): [FACT] The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to weaken a law used to challenge voting maps that make it harder for certain groups to elect the representatives they choose (Louisiana v. Callais). The court acted quickly — skipping its normal waiting period — to let states redraw maps before the 2026 elections. Between 12 and 19 voting districts where Black or Latino voters are the majority are now at risk of being redrawn. [ANALYSIS] This makes it harder for these communities to challenge maps that reduce their voting power in court. [SIGNAL] Historically, reducing the ability of certain groups to vote or be represented has been an early sign of democratic backsliding in other countries.

May 11 update (4 → 5): [FACT] The Supreme Court used its fast-track process to allow expanded immigration stops in Los Angeles while a legal challenge was still ongoing. Three justices said in writing that the conditions of those stops could lead to people being stopped based on how they look, speak, and what work they appear to do. [ANALYSIS] Multiple justices have now said the fast-track process is being used to give the government more power with less review. Courts are still blocking many government actions. Score holds at 5/6.

June 1 correction: A previous update incorrectly cited the DOJ lawsuit against Maryland federal judges as a new June 2026 development. [FACT] That lawsuit was filed in June 2025 and dismissed in August 2025 by a Trump-appointed judge who wrote the executive branch "must find a proper way to raise those concerns." The case was then filed to be dismissed as moot in January 2026. It does not support a score increase. Score holds at 5/6.

June 1 update (1 → 2): [FACT] Trump signed an executive order on May 20, 2026 directing banks to flag immigration status as a financial risk. The order stops short of requiring citizenship checks for every account — but it directs regulators to issue guidance within 60 days on "red flags" tied to immigration status. The SBA 7(a) small business loan ban for all noncitizens including permanent residents is already in effect. The CFPB advisory protecting immigrants from immigration-based discrimination in credit decisions was withdrawn. [ANALYSIS] These are not restrictions on moving money out of the country. But they change who can access financial services based on immigration status — which disproportionately affects people who pay taxes and contribute to the economy. [SIGNAL] Historically, restricting financial access by identity category precedes broader financial control measures.

Current read (May 4, 2026): Moved to 3/5. Americans are now the largest group applying for foreign citizenship globally — up 75% in 2025. Source note: the company reporting this data makes money by helping people get foreign citizenship. Treat as a general trend only. We also check U.S. Treasury data and international financial press to confirm the direction.