In the final weeks of 2025, a sweeping clash over immigration enforcement and deportation practices has erupted across the United States, drawing in federal judges, city councils, state governors, and airline operators. The controversy centers on how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have carried out deportations—sometimes in defiance of court orders, often with the aid of private aircraft and charter airlines, and increasingly under the scrutiny of local and state officials.
Perhaps the most dramatic episode unfolded in El Paso, Texas, where a Guatemalan man, identified in court records only as FPP, was illegally deported to his home country on November 20, 2025—despite a standing court order explicitly forbidding his removal to Guatemala. According to El Paso Matters, FPP had fled Guatemala in 2012 and was granted protection under the Convention Against Torture after a U.S. immigration judge found in 2013 that he was likely to face torture if returned. This ruling, upheld in 2015, barred his deportation to Guatemala, though not to a third country.
Nonetheless, after being detained without warning during a routine check-in with ICE on November 5, FPP was swiftly placed on a flight to Guatemala. His wife, then pregnant and due to deliver on November 28, was left behind in California. Court documents show that ICE had been repeatedly reminded of the prohibition on deporting FPP to Guatemala, but proceeded anyway. Attorneys for the Trump administration later admitted the deportation was a “mistaken removal.”
U.S. District Judge David Guaderrama condemned the government’s actions as “blatant lawlessness,” ordering FPP’s return to the United States by December 12. ICE complied, and FPP was flown back to El Paso on December 11, where he was placed once more in ICE custody. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, declined to explain the decision, with Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stating, “One thing is certain: he is not going to be able to remain in the U.S. We will deport him to another country.”
FPP’s case is not isolated. The Trump administration has increasingly relied on so-called third-country deportations—a practice that has historically been rare in the United States. In another high-profile incident, Kilmar Abrego Garcia of Maryland was deported to El Salvador in March 2025, despite an immigration court order prohibiting his removal due to fear of persecution. Abrego was later returned to the U.S. after a federal judge intervened, but not before he reported being tortured in a Salvadoran prison.
The aggressive expansion of deportation tactics has not gone unnoticed at the state and local levels. In Massachusetts, Governor Maura Healey sent a sharply worded letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons on December 12, demanding that ICE “immediately stop using any Massachusetts airports and private jets to deport residents and obstruct due process, and to halt this practice across this country.” Healey’s letter, reported by State House News Service, called ICE’s use of private aircraft at Hanscom Field airport in Bedford “disturbing and anti-American deportation tactics.”
Healey’s concerns stem from reports that ICE has used charter flights operated by fixed base operators at Hanscom to quickly remove residents, often severing them from family, friends, and legal counsel “without due process of law.” The Massachusetts Port Authority, which manages Hanscom Field, said it receives no prior notice of ICE flights and has no role in their operation. According to Healey, “A significant majority of people detained by ICE in Massachusetts over the past year have no criminal convictions or charges. They are hard-working, productive, and beloved members of our community that you have indiscriminately targeted for deportation proceedings. Many of them are in the midst of a lawful process seeking citizenship through Massachusetts courts.”
Federal data released by DHS shows the scale of recent enforcement: since January 20, 2025, more than 605,000 people have been deported, with another 1.9 million “voluntarily self-deported.” During a weekslong operation in September 2025, ICE apprehended over 1,400 people in Massachusetts alone, more than 600 of whom had criminal convictions or pending charges. Yet, reporting cited by Healey revealed that 63% of immigrants arrested in Massachusetts during that period had no criminal charges at all.
The backlash is not limited to the Northeast. In Colorado, the Denver City Council voted overwhelmingly (11-1) on December 15 to deny a lease at Denver International Airport to Key Lime Air, a regional carrier based in Colorado. The reason? Key Lime Air’s involvement in ICE deportation flights, transporting detainees between ICE hubs like El Paso, Texas, and Alexandria, Louisiana. As reported by View from the Wing, council members were explicit in their opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration policies. Council member Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez stated, “When we’re talking about the values of our city, and we stand up here and we say time after time that we support our immigrant community and that we are a welcoming city — I cannot support a corporation that does not prescribe to that.”
The lease denial does not remove Key Lime Air from the airport; the airline can still use common-use cargo apron space, albeit with less convenience. However, the move has raised significant legal questions. Experts point out that the decision likely violates the Airline Deregulation Act and grant assurances tied to federal funding, which require airports to make facilities available “on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination.” If Key Lime Air pursues the FAA’s airport compliance process and Denver fails to take corrective action, the airport could risk losing federal funding. The Trump administration, for its part, may see this as a direct challenge, potentially prompting a federal response.
These local and state actions reflect a broader national debate about the role of federal immigration enforcement and the rights of states, cities, and individuals. Advocates and faith leaders in Massachusetts have rallied to demand greater protections for immigrants, urging the governor to use executive authority to “protect the rights, safety, and dignity of Massachusetts residents — especially immigrants — in the face of harmful federal actions.” Meanwhile, political parties have seized the moment, with Massachusetts Democrats calling on Republican gubernatorial candidates to denounce ICE’s use of state airports for deportations.
As the year draws to a close, the patchwork of court orders, executive actions, and local protests underscores a deeply polarized national landscape. While federal agencies tout their efforts to remove “the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens,” critics argue that due process and family unity are being sacrificed, sometimes in direct violation of the law. The ultimate outcome of these legal and political battles remains uncertain, but the stakes for immigrant communities—and for the nation’s approach to justice and enforcement—could not be higher.
