During his second term, President Trump has implemented an array of immigration policy changes focused on restricting immigration and increasing interior enforcement efforts. While these policies have been a frequent topic of political discourse, the perspectives and experiences of immigrants themselves are often overlooked. To address this gap, this report includes new insights from a KFF Survey of Immigrants about their views and experiences during the early days of President Trump’s second term. This survey builds on the 2023 KFF/LA Times Survey of Immigrants and a KFF Survey of Immigrants in 2024 which examined claims about immigrants that circulated during the presidential election cycle. A companion report based on focus groups with Hispanic immigrants who are undocumented or living with an undocumented family member highlights the broad impacts of shifting immigration policies on this group.

Key Takeaways

• Immigrants’ worries about detention or deportation have risen sharply since 2023, even among lawfully present immigrants and naturalized citizens, and many say these worries are affecting their health. Four in ten immigrants overall (41%) now say they worry about the possibility that they or a family member could be detained or deported, up 15 percentage points from 2023 (26%). Six in ten lawfully present immigrants report being worried about immigration enforcement, as do about a quarter of naturalized citizens. About six in ten (59%) Hispanic immigrants (many of whom are noncitizens) say they worry about detention or deportation, roughly three times the share of Asian immigrants (19%) who say the same. These immigration-related fears have negatively affected immigrants’ health and well-being, with one-third of immigrants overall saying they’ve experienced worsening health conditions, increased stress and anxiety, or problems eating or sleeping since January due to concerns about their or a family member’s immigration status, rising to 41% among lawfully present immigrants.
• As the Trump administration ramps up immigration enforcement across the country, some lawfully present immigrants report avoiding their normal activities. About one in eight (13%) immigrants overall, including one in five lawfully present immigrants, say they or a family member have limited their participation in at least one day-to-day activity like going to a community event, work, or seeking medical care due to concerns about drawing attention to someone’s immigration status. Amid increased immigration enforcement, about one-third of immigrants say they have seen or heard reports of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) presence in their community. About a third of immigrants are unsure whether ICE and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) can make arrests at “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals, and churches.
• Amid confusion and fears, some immigrants have taken precautionary actions to prepare for possible immigration enforcement. Three in ten immigrants overall say they have taken at least one precautionary step like seeking out information about immigrants’ rights or consulting an immigration attorney to prepare for possible immigration enforcement, rising to 46% among lawfully present immigrants. One in twelve (8%) immigrants say they personally know someone who has been detained, deported, or arrested because of their immigration status since January, rising to about one in seven (14%) among lawfully present immigrants.
• Four in ten immigrants say they feel “less safe” since President Trump took office, and a similar share expect their financial situation to worsen in the coming year. Substantial shares of both lawfully present immigrants (44%) and naturalized citizens (34%) report feeling less safe. More broadly, two-thirds of immigrants disapprove of how President Trump is handling his job, and a similar share say things in the U.S. have gotten off on the wrong track. Immigrants also convey unease about the future in open-ended responses describing how President Trump has affected their lives, expressing concerns about the cost of living and the availability of work.
• Immigrants who identify with the Republican Party have generally positive views of President Trump and life in the U.S., though some express concerns. A majority of Republican immigrants say they approve (75%) of President Trump’s job performance, with substantial shares saying they feel safer since he took office (52%) and that they expect their financial situation to improve in the coming year (40%). However, there are some signs of discontent among Republican immigrants; while four in ten (42%) say President Trump’s actions so far have been “better” than they expected, about one-third (36%) say his actions have been “worse” than expected, and one-quarter disapprove of his job performance.
• Most immigrants disapprove of President Trump’s handling of key policy areas and many of his immigration-related measures, but about half approve of his handling of border security (54% approve) and the decision to send additional military forces to the U.S.-Mexico border (53% approve). President Trump’s worst approval rating among immigrants is on his handling of inflation (75% disapprove), and majorities also disapprove of his performance on foreign policy (66%), and immigration (62%). A large majority oppose the administration’s efforts to end birthright citizenship (79%), and a smaller majority oppose efforts to deport more people living the U.S. illegally (57%). Immigrants who are Republican or lean toward the party are much more approving of President Trump’s performance and his policies, but 41% of Republican immigrants disapprove of his handling of inflation, and this group is split on his efforts to end birthright citizenship (52% approve, 48% disapprove).

Immigration-Related Fears and Worries

Worries about being detained or deported are much higher among immigrants now than in 2023, including among lawfully present immigrants and naturalized citizens. Fielded largely before President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport people to El Salvador and the legal case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia made national headlines,¹  the latest KFF Survey of Immigrants finds that overall, four in ten (41%) immigrants worry they or a family member could be detained or deported, up from 26% in 2023. As the Trump administration expands its focus beyond undocumented immigrants, the latest KFF Survey of Immigrants finds worries about detention and deportation have also risen among immigrants who are naturalized citizens and those who are lawfully present. About six in ten (61%) lawfully present immigrants now say they are worried about being detained or deported, roughly twice the share (33%) who said this in 2023. About twice as many naturalized citizens also say they now worry that they or a family member could be detained or deported compared to 2023 (23% vs. 12%). Worries about being detained or deported have also increased substantially among Hispanic immigrants (59% vs. 41%) and parents (50% vs. 32%). Hispanic immigrants are about three times as likely as Asian immigrants to say they worry about themselves or a family member being detained or deported (59% vs. 19%), likely reflecting the fact that a larger share of Hispanic immigrants are noncitizens.

In addition to these worries, one in twelve immigrants (8%) say they personally know someone who has been arrested, detained, or deported due to their immigration status since President Trump took office in January, rising to 14% among lawfully present immigrants and 13% among Hispanic immigrants.

In addition to worries about detention and deportation, about four in ten (43%) immigrants overall say they worry they or a family member could have their legal immigration status revoked, rising to six in ten (63%) lawfully present immigrants. About half of Hispanic immigrants (54%) and immigrant parents (52%), and about a quarter of naturalized citizens (25%) and Asian immigrants (27%), say they worry about their own or a family member’s legal immigration status being revoked. Overall, about half of all immigrants (48%), rising to seven in ten (72%) lawfully present immigrants, say they worry that they or someone in their family could either be detained or deported or have their legal status revoked. While the survey does not have sufficient sample size to report on the worries of likely undocumented immigrants, recent focus groups with Hispanic immigrants who are undocumented or have an undocumented family member detail how immigration-related fears and worries are affecting their daily lives.

About a third (32%) of immigrants overall say they have experienced negative health repercussions due to worries about their own or a family member’s immigration status since January, rising to four in ten (41%) lawfully present immigrants. This includes about three in ten (31%) immigrants who report increased stress, anxiety, or sadness, one in five (20%) who report problems sleeping or eating, and one in eight (12%) who report worsening health conditions such as diabetes or high blood pressure as a result of immigration-related worries. Lawfully present immigrants are about twice as likely as naturalized citizens to report at least one of these negative health impacts (41% vs. 20%), as are Hispanic immigrants compared to Asian immigrants (43% vs. 17%). About four in ten (38%) immigrant parents of children under 18 say they have experienced at least one of these negative health effects due to concerns about immigration status since January. These negative effects on health are echoed in a companion report about the experiences of Hispanic immigrants living in an undocumented family, many of whom reported health impacts for themselves and their children, such as insomnia, feelings of isolation and stress, and avoiding medical care.

Impacts of Immigration Enforcement on Activities and Community

One in five (21%) lawfully present immigrants say they or a family member have limited their participation in activities outside the home since January due to concerns about drawing attention to someone’s immigration status. This includes about one in five lawfully present immigrants who say they or a family member have avoided traveling (18%), one in ten who have avoided going to church or other community spaces or activities (9%) or seeking medical care (9%), and smaller shares who have avoided applying for a government program that helps pay for food, housing, or health care (7%), going to work (5%), or taking a child to school or attending school events (2%). Even among immigrants who are naturalized citizens, about 5% say they or a family member have avoided at least one of these things. About one-third (35%) of immigrants overall say they know anyone (including non-family members) who has done at least one of these things, including about almost half (45%) of lawfully present immigrants and a quarter of naturalized citizens. In focus groups among Hispanic adults who are undocumented or living in a family with an undocumented family member, many participants told stories about how they are avoiding doing these activities and generally seeing fewer people out in their neighborhoods, while some said they try to avoid leaving their homes entirely due to fears about immigration enforcement.

Amid heightened immigration enforcement under the Trump administration, about one-third (36%) of immigrants say they’ve seen or heard reports of ICE in their community, even if they’re unsure those reports are true. About one in five immigrants say they saw or heard ICE being at store or business (22%) or a workplace employing immigrants (19%). Fewer said they heard about ICE being at or near a school (13%) or at a health care facility (6%).

As immigrants report avoiding some activities, many say they are unsure whether immigration enforcement activity can take place at “sensitive locations” such as hospitals, schools, and churches. As legal challenges continue over the Trump administration’s authority to do so, about a third (36%) of immigrants say they’re unsure whether ICE or CBP can arrest people at these “sensitive locations.” Four in ten (43%) say they think immigration enforcement arrests can take place at these places, while an additional one in five (21%) say they cannot. Confusion about this policy was echoed in KFF focus groups with Hispanic immigrants living with an undocumented family member, some of whom reported avoiding these places amid fears of immigration enforcement activity. In addition to confusion about this specific policy, one-third (36%) of immigrants say they feel they don’t have enough information about U.S. immigration policy to understand how it affects them and their family, though most (63%) say they do.

Amid confusion and worries, three in ten (30%) immigrants say they or a family member have taken steps to understand their rights or prepare for possible interactions with immigration authorities, rising to nearly half (46%) of lawfully present immigrants. This includes one in five immigrants who say they or a family member have sought out information about immigrants’ legal rights (20%) or who have started carrying proof of immigration status (17%). About one in ten say they or a family member have made a plan in case someone in the family is detained or deported (13%) or consulted an immigration attorney or other professional (9%). Lawfully present immigrants are more than twice as likely to say they or a family member have done at least one of these things compared to naturalized citizens (46% vs. 17%). In focus groups with Hispanic immigrants who are likely undocumented or have undocumented family members, some participants said they spoke with their children about potential scenarios involving detention, deportation, and/or family separation and said that they had assigned a local guardian for their children in case of such an event.

Four in ten (40%) immigrants say most people in the U.S. are not welcoming to immigrants, and one in ten report experiencing discrimination or mistreatment since January. While majorities of immigrants say most people in their neighborhood (72%) and in their state (68%) are welcoming to immigrants, far fewer (31%) say the same about most people in the U.S. overall. Further, about one in seven immigrants (14%) say they have experienced discrimination or mistreatment based on their race or ethnicity, appearance, accent, or immigration status since January, and similar shares say they have been criticized or insulted for speaking a language other than English (12%) or have been told they should “go back to where they came from” (12%).

Despite ongoing changes to U.S. immigration policy, most immigrants say they want to stay in the U.S. Overall, most (59%) immigrants say that, thinking about the future, they want to stay in the U.S., while one in eight (12%) say they want to move back to the country they were born in, 5% want to move to another country, and a quarter (24%) say they are “not sure.”

Immigrants’ Views of the U.S. Three Months into President Trump’s Second Term

Two-thirds (65%) of immigrants feel things in the U.S. have gotten off on the wrong track, while a third (34%) say things are going in the right direction. Most immigrants, regardless of citizenship status, say things in this country are on the wrong track, with majorities of both naturalized citizens (63%) and lawfully presents immigrants (73%) alike saying this. Similar to the public as a whole, immigrants’ views about where the country is headed are driven largely by partisan identification. About nine in ten (87%) immigrants who are Democrats or lean toward the party say things are on the wrong track, while about seven in ten (71%) who identify as Republicans or lean that way say the opposite—that things are going in the right direction.

About four in ten (43%) immigrants overall expect their financial situation to get worse in the coming year, while about a fifth expect it to get better and one-third expect it to stay the same. Fielded both before and after President Trump’s announcement and subsequent 90-day pause of widespread tariffs, the latest KFF Survey of Immigrants finds that how immigrants view their economic futures varies widely by partisanship. A majority (57%) of immigrants who are Democrats think their financial situation will get worse, whereas a plurality of Republicans (40%) think it will get better. Yet, on this question, even three in ten (30%) Republican immigrants say they think their financial situation will get worse in the coming year.

About two-thirds (64%) of immigrants overall disapprove of Trump’s handling of his job as president, but there are wide divides by party identification. Similar to U.S. adults overall, nearly nine in ten (87%) immigrants who are Democrats disapprove of the way President Trump is handling his job as president, whereas three-quarters (75%) of immigrants who are Republican say they approve. Overall, majorities of both immigrants who are naturalized citizens (60%) and those who are lawfully present immigrants (70%) say they disapprove of the way President Trump is handling his job.

A majority (57%) of immigrants say the Trump administration’s actions are worse than they expected, including about a third (36%) who say they are “a lot worse.” While immigrants who identify as Democrats are much more likely to say the Trump administration’s actions have been worse than they expected, even among Republicans, about one-third (36%) say the Trump administration’s actions at are least “a little worse” than they expected.

About half (49%) of immigrants say President Trump’s actions have had a generally negative impact on them and their family, while one in seven (14%) report a positive impact and about a third (36%) say they have had “no real impact.” About seven in ten (69%) immigrants who are Democrats say the president’s actions have had a generally negative impact on them and their family, whereas about four in ten (45%) Republicans say his actions have had a generally positive impact. Across citizenship status, partisanship, and race and ethnicity, about three in ten or more immigrants say President Trump’s actions since taking office have had “no real impact” on them and their families.

When asked to describe how they have been negatively affected by President Trump’s actions, the largest share express concerns about the economy and impacts to their financial situation, including inflation and rising prices as well as job losses (57% among those who report a negative impact). Some (18%) say the president’s actions have caused increased stress and anxiety, while others say his actions have caused immigration-related fears (17%) like worrying about deportation or experiencing more hostility because they are an immigrant. Among immigrants who say they have been positively affected by President Trump’s actions, many (27%) said they feel more secure because of the administration’s actions on the border and immigration, or that they generally like President Trump (20%).

Four in ten (40%) immigrants, including 44% of lawfully present immigrants and a third (34%) of naturalized citizens, say they feel “less safe” since President Trump took office, but most (52%) Republican immigrants say they feel safer. Overall, about four in ten immigrants (42%) say they feel “about the same in terms of safety,” while 18% report feeling “safer” since President Trump took office. Feelings about safety are strongly shaped by partisanship, with about half of immigrants who are Republicans (52%) saying they feel “safer” and a similar share of immigrants who are Democrats saying they feel “less safe” (57%) since President Trump took office.

Immigrants’ Views of President Trump’s Performance and Policies

Most immigrants disapprove of the way President Trump is handling inflation (75%), foreign policy (66%), and immigration (62%), but a slim majority (54%) say they approve of how he is handling border security. Recent polls of the general public similarly find that President Trump gets his lowest marks for handling inflation and somewhat higher approval on immigration-related issues.

President Trump’s job approval among immigrants across various domains varies widely by partisanship, but across groups his lowest marks are on handling inflation. Large shares of Republican immigrants approve of how President Trump is handling border security (97%), immigration (81%), and foreign policy (75%). A smaller majority (59%) of Republican immigrants approve of how he is handling inflation. Large shares of immigrants who are Democrats say they disapprove of how President Trump is handling border security (68%), immigration (81%), foreign policy (87%), and inflation (92%). On most policy areas, the views of immigrants who are lawfully present immigrants are similar to those who are naturalized citizens, but lawfully present immigrants are more likely to disapprove of how President Trump is handling immigration than naturalized citizens (72% vs. 54%). Slim majorities of naturalized citizens (54%) and lawfully present immigrants (55%) alike approve of how he is handling border security.

Majorities of immigrants disapprove of the administration’s efforts to end birthright citizenship (79%) and to deport more people living in the U.S. illegally (57%), but many approve of sending additional military forces to the U.S. border (53% approve). A Pew Research Center survey conducted earlier this year found that among the public overall, majorities disapproved of the Trump administration’s efforts to end birthright citizenship, but majorities approved of increasing deportations and sending more troops to the U.S. Mexico border.

Republican immigrants are more likely than those who identify as Democrats to support the Trump administration’s immigration policies but remain divided on ending birthright citizenship. On each of the three immigration policies polled, immigrants who are Republican are much more likely than Democrats to say they approve of the administration’s efforts. Notably, while about eight in ten or more Republican immigrants say they approve of the administration’s efforts to deport more people and send additional troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, Republican immigrants are split on efforts to end birthright citizenship (52% approve, 48% disapprove). Immigrants who are naturalized citizens and lawfully present immigrants have similar views on all three of the immigration policies polled.

The KFF Survey of Immigrants: Views and Experiences in the Early Days of President Trump’s Second Term was designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF. The survey was conducted March 6-April 13, 2025, online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 511 U.S. immigrants in English (394), Chinese (20), Spanish (83), Korean (13), and Vietnamese (1). The sample was reached through the SSRS/KFF Immigrants Panel either online (n=469) or over the phone (n=42). The SSRS/KFF Immigrants Panel is a nationally representative probability-based panel of immigrants where panel members were recruited randomly in one of three ways: (a) Through invitations mailed to respondents randomly sampled from an Address-Based Sample (ABS) provided by Marketing Systems Groups (MSG) through the U.S. Postal Service’s Computerized Delivery Sequence (CDS); (b) a random digit dial telephone sample of prepaid cell phone numbers obtained through MSG from a dual-frame random digit dial (RDD) sample provided by MSG or (c) calling back telephone numbers from recent SSRS RDD polls whose final disposition was “language barrier,” meaning the person answering the phone spoke a language other than English or Spanish.

An initial invitation letter to the survey was sent to panel members via USPS asking them to take the survey online or by calling a toll-free number. Invitation letters were also sent via email to panelists who provided an email address during registration. Outbound call attempts were also made to panelists who provided a phone number. Online respondents received a $10 electronic gift card incentive, and phone respondents received a $10 incentive check by mail.

The sample was weighted to match the sample’s demographics to the national U.S. adult immigrant population using data from the 2023 American Communities Survey. The demographic variables included in weighting are home ownership, number of adults in household, presence of children in household, census region, length of time in the U.S., English proficiency, citizenship status, gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, and country of origin. Weights account for recontact propensity and the design of the panel recruitment survey.

In order to ensure data quality, cases were removed if they failed both quality checks: (1) had over 30% item non-response, and (2) had a length less than one quarter of the mean length by mode. In addition, respondents were asked their country of birth, and if they stated they were born in the U.S., they were asked to re-confirm that response. A small percentage of respondents (n=7; 1%) re-confirmed that they were born in the U.S. Based on this last criterion, 7 cases were removed.

The margin of sampling error including the design effect for the immigrant adults sample is plus or minus 7 percentage points. Numbers of respondents and margines of sampling error for key subgroups are shown in the table below. For results based on other subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher. Sample sizes and margins of sampling error for other subgroups are available by request. Sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error and there may be other unmeasured error in this or any other public opinion poll. KFF Public Opinion and Survey Research is a charter member of the Transparency Initiative of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.

1. Most (n=322) interviews were completed before deportation flights began on March 15, 2025 and before Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case made national news. Abrego Garcia’s court case was filed on April 1, 2025 when 474 interviews had been completed. Since the bulk of survey interviews were conducted before President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants to El Salvador, it’s possible that views on his handling of immigration may have shifted since the poll was conducted.   ↩︎

Introduction

During his second term, President Trump has implemented an array of immigration policy changes focused on restricting immigration and increasing interior immigration enforcement efforts. These policy changes include restrictions on both lawful and unlawful immigration into the U.S., increased interior enforcement activities to support mass deportation, attempts to end birthright citizenship for the children of noncitizen immigrants, and rescinding protections against enforcement action in previously protected areas such as schools, churches, and health care facilities. These actions have broad impacts across immigrant families of all statuses, including the millions of U.S. citizen children living in them.

To better understand how the shifting policy environment is affecting immigrant families, KFF conducted four focus groups in March 2025 with 29 Hispanic adults who were likely undocumented or living with a likely undocumented family member in California, Texas, New Jersey and New York, and parts of the Midwest (Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Nebraska) (see Methodology). These findings provide deeper understanding of experiences reported in a KFF survey of immigrant adults. The focus group participants’ experiences highlight the broad impacts of shifting immigration policies on their lives, including negative impacts on work as well as their and their children’s daily lives and routines, health, and well-being. Research suggests that many of these impacts may have long-term negative effects on health, including the health of their children. They may also have broader impacts on the nation’s economy and workforce, given the role immigrants play, particularly in certain industries such as health care, agriculture, and construction.

Major Concerns Among Immigrant Families Today

Most participants expressed major concerns about the economy and their financial situation today despite being employed. When asked about how things are going in the U.S. for them and their family, participants frequently cited concerns about the economy and its impact on their family’s finances. Like immigrant adults overall, most participants said they came to the U.S. for improved economic and/or educational opportunities for themselves and their children and talked about the significant contributions they make to the U.S. workforce. However, participants shared growing concerns about their financial situation amid the current economy, noting that it is becoming increasingly difficult to make ends meet due to rising costs. Business owners and service workers also said they were experiencing declines in income due to lower spending by consumers.

Participants also noted that it has become much harder to be an immigrant in the U.S. due to the changes in immigration policy and shifting attitudes towards immigrants. Many focus group participants expressed that it is much harder to be an immigrant in the U.S. due to the Trump administration’s changes to immigration policy and growing economic challenges, with one participant expressing that “The American Dream… is not like before.” Additionally, some participants reported experiencing increasing levels of discrimination and unfair treatment. Some felt they were experiencing growing levels of discrimination not only due to their immigration status but also due to their Hispanic background. Several focus group participants expressed that they feel less welcome in their communities and/or the country, with one saying that they are being made to feel like Hispanic people “shouldn’t exist”. Several participants said that they no longer feel wanted in the country even though they are following all the rules and contributing to the economy, often doing jobs that U.S.-born citizens don’t want to do.

Knowledge of Immigration Policies and Rights

Many participants said they have received information about their rights as immigrants, with a number referencing the “Know Your Rights Red Card,” although awareness varied by region. Most focus group participants in California, New Jersey, New York, and Texas reported hearing or receiving information about “Know Your Rights Red Cards.” The “Red Card” is a pocket-sized card available in numerous languages that contains information about constitutional rights during encounters with immigration enforcement officials that have been widely shared by immigrant-serving community-based organizations (Figure 1). However, most focus group participants in the Midwest were not aware of “Know Your Rights” cards, and many said that they didn’t believe they had any rights as immigrants, suggesting less outreach and education in some areas of the country.

Figure 1

Source: www.redcardorders.com

Despite many participants receiving information on immigrant rights, most remain confused and say they do not have enough information about their rights or U.S. immigration policies. Like immigrant adults overall, focus group participants said they do not have enough information to understand how U.S. immigration policies impact them and their families. Participants reported using a variety of sources to obtain information about immigration policies including but not limited to social media such as TikTok, immigration attorneys, government websites, friends and family, and English as well as Spanish-language news. However, several participants noted that they were concerned about misinformation being spread through social media. Participants expressed a need for increased availability of clear and accurate information related to immigration policy from trusted sources.

Some participants said they have sought legal advice from attorneys but noted concerns about costs and potentially fraudulent immigration attorneys or notarios. Some participants said they have consulted immigration attorneys to better understand their rights as an immigrant and/or to discuss adjusting their immigration status. Participants who consulted or who had considered consulting an attorney said that the costs associated with legal services were a major barrier, with one immigrant noting they were charged a one-time, $10,000 cash payment from a lawyer. A few participants also noted concerns about “notarios”, who may represent themselves as licensed or qualified to provide immigration assistance, but are not and take advantage of the Hispanic immigrant community.

Immigration Related Fears

Nearly all participants said that they are experiencing resounding levels of fear and uncertainty due to shifting policies under the Trump administration. These fears extended beyond those who were undocumented to those with lawful status. Some participants noted that, during the campaign, President Trump said enforcement activity would focus on criminals, but now it feels like everyone is at risk since the administration is focusing enforcement activity on all undocumented immigrants, even if they have not committed crimes, and has eliminated lawful status and protections for some groups. Some participants were uncertain about who is and who is not at risk for deportation and the implications of registering with the Department of Homeland Security as an undocumented immigrant under the new requirement established by President Trump. A few participants noted that they heard about or previously experienced terrible conditions in detention centers, making them feel like they will take whatever steps necessary to avoid detention. Participants also noted a lot of uncertainty about the future given continually shifting policies and worried whether they or their family members may be at risk for deportation in the future. Some participants also noted growing fears among children about their parents being detained or deported.

In some cases, participants’ fears have been amplified by increases in enforcement activity in their communities as well as by news and social media reports of immigration raids. Participants living in border areas in California and Texas were particularly likely to report a large presence of ICE agents in their communities and noted that there was this presence before President Trump took office. However, some participants, particularly those in Texas, reported that the atmosphere was different now with ICE agents having “their weapons” or being “dressed in civilian clothes.” Several participants said they know someone who was detained or deported since President Trump took office, including neighbors and family members. Many participants noted that news stories and social media posts about enforcement activity can stoke fears, but that sometimes the social media posts about raids in the community are false. Some participants indicated that they knew that enforcement activity can now happen in places that were previously protected, such as schools and churches, further adding to their fears.

Some participants said they have planned for the care of their children or other family members in case they are detained or deported. Some participants said they spoke with their children about potential scenarios involving detention, deportation, and/or family separation and said that they had assigned a local guardian for their children in case of such an event. A few also reported making plans for their homes or businesses in case they are detained or deported. However, others said they were avoiding talking to their children and other loved ones about potential deportation so as not to create more fear and stress.

Impacts of Fears on Workplaces and Employment

Some participants said they have become increasingly fearful of going to work and/or that they have noticed fewer workers showing up at their workplaces due to immigration-related fears. Those working in restaurants or transportation also reported declines in income due to fewer people leaving their homes to eat or travel. Those employed in factories, construction work, and field work said they were working longer hours and more shifts since some coworkers had left. While this resulted in higher incomes for some, others felt stressed about the increases in hours and some of those working in management roles said that they were struggling to find new workers to replace those who left, with one noting that, “no one wants to work right now… they’re really scared”. While one participant said her employer had offered to provide support and resources to help protect her, another said that her employer had told her there was nothing the company could do if there was a raid at the workplace.

Impacts of Fears on Daily Lives

Participants reported stark changes in their daily lives due to immigration related fears. Many said they were limiting their time outside the home and avoiding a range of activities, such as driving, traveling, and participating in community and recreational activities, including attending church or events. One participant said she had started attending church virtually and a few others said they were no longer going to church due to fear. Many reported seeing empty restaurants, streets, and parks in their neighborhoods. Some participants noted that these changes are leading to feeling isolated and alone and spending long hours inside the home. Many said, when they do go out, they are constantly on edge and looking around the environment because they do not feel safe.

Some participants also described impacts on children’s daily lives and routines, noting that they or others in their community were scared to send their children to school, particularly in the days immediately following the election. Other participants talked about no longer being able to take their children to parks in their neighborhoods or on other outings or vacations and expressed sadness about not being able to explain to their young children why. Some participants also described instances of their children taking on more family responsibilities. For example, one participant said his U.S.-born daughter has taken on primary responsibility for running the household errands to limit the parents’ time outside the home. The participant also said that his daughter was considering joining the Army because she was told it helps her father adjust his immigration status.

Impacts on Health and Well-Being

Immigration-related fears have taken a toll on the mental health and well-being of many focus group participants, as well as their children. Many participants described feeling anxious, stressed, depressed, isolated, and lonely due to the changes in their daily lives and constantly having to be on high alert. Participants described suffering from insomnia, loss of appetite, and symptoms such as stomach problems and migraine headaches due to fears and stress. For example, one participant said that she had lost “almost ten pounds in two weeks.” Participants also talked about how the environment has impacted children, with them experiencing increased fears and feelings of sadness.

Many participants report avoiding seeking health care due to concerns about costs and fears. Some participants said they are more fearful of seeking health care due to heightened fears, with a few saying that they had heard on the news that hospitals may be sharing patient information with ICE. While hospitals in Texas and Florida request information on immigration status under recent state laws, at the time the focus groups were conducted, such information was not shared with immigration officials for enforcement purposes. However, beyond fears, costs continue to be a major barrier to health care, particularly amid growing financial challenges. A few participants said that when they do seek care, they prefer to go to smaller Hispanic-serving community clinics or pop-up medical fairs as those are more affordable and that they trust those places more than larger health care facilities. Some focus group participants said they prefer to use “natural” or home health remedies instead of seeking mainstream health care in the U.S., in part due to immigration-related fears as well as challenges paying for health care in the U.S. Several participants also said that they relied on medicines that they or a family member brought from their home countries instead of purchasing medicines or seeking health care in the U.S.

Many focus group participants are fearful of accessing public programs, including health coverage, and there is persistent confusion and misunderstanding around whether participating in these programs can negatively impact immigration status. Most participants said that they were not using public assistance programs due to immigration-related fears and/or a preference to be self-reliant. A number indicated that they believe that using such programs may negatively affect their ability to adjust their immigration status in the future or put them at risk for deportation, although under public charge policy as of the time the focus groups were conducted, use of non-cash assistance programs does not negatively affect immigration status and programs cannot share information for immigration enforcement purposes. Some participants indicated that they were receiving health coverage or other assistance for their children, most of whom are U.S. citizens. Some participants also said they received health coverage for themselves through Medi-Cal, which offers state-funded coverage to immigrants regardless of status in California, or a local program in Harris County, Texas, knows as the “Gold Card.”

Future Outlook

Several participants said they are considering leaving the U.S. or are uncertain about their future plans due to the current environment. KFF survey data found that most immigrants would still choose to move to the U.S. knowing what they know now. In contrast, several focus group participants said they would not choose again to move to the U.S., in part due to the strong anti-immigrant rhetoric in society and in part due to the economy. Some participants also said that they were making plans to move back to their countries of birth in the future while others expressed uncertainty and said that they were going to “wait and see what happens with this government.” Participants who were considering moving back to their countries of birth also noted challenges associated with a potential move, such as no longer being familiar with their country of birth, not knowing where to go back to, and not having any family left there since their lives, livelihoods, home, and families are in the U.S.

KFF conducted four focus groups with 29 Hispanic adults who are themselves a likely undocumented immigrant or living with a likely undocumented immigrant across the country to provide deeper insights into the experiences of these families amid the current environment. The four groups were conducted in March 2025 virtually in Spanish and each lasted two hours. Each group was mixed gender and included six to eight participants from several regions in the U.S.: California, Texas, New Jersey and New York, and parts of the Midwest (Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Nebraska).

For each group, participants were chosen based on the following criteria: Must be at least 18 years of age, identify as Hispanic, and either they or someone living with them are a noncitizen immigrant without lawful permanent resident status (a “green card”) and without a valid work or student visa, meaning they were likely undocumented. In addition, groups were chosen to represent a mix of household composition, including at least some participants who are parents; a mix of areas of employment; and a preference for recruiting participants who had sought health care in the U.S. and have someone in their household with an ongoing health condition. Participants had a variety of countries of birth including: Mexico (14), Colombia (4), Ecuador (3), El Salvador (2), Venezuela (2), Costa Rica (1), Argentina (1), Dominican Republic (1), and Honduras (1).

PerryUndem recruited and hosted the focus groups. The screener questionnaire and discussion guides were developed by researchers at KFF in consultation with PerryUndem. Groups were audio and video recorded with participants’ permission. Transcripts and recordings were de-identified and are used for research purposes only; they will be deleted after use. Each participant was given $200 after participating.

Key Findings

• As the Trump administration attempts to overhaul many government health agencies, the latest KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust finds that partisans’ trust in these agencies as sources of reliable vaccine information has shifted from where it stood under the Biden administration with trust declining among Democrats and rising among Republicans. While Democrats remain more likely than Republicans to trust the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the share of Republicans who have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in these agencies to provide vaccine information has increased by about 10 percentage points from 2023. Concurrently, trust in these agencies as reliable sources of vaccine information has fallen among Democrats by double digits, including for the CDC (70% now v. 88% in 2023) and the FDA (67% v. 86%).
• Less than half of the public express confidence in government health agencies like the CDC and FDA to carry out many of their core responsibilities, including just three in ten (32%) who have confidence in them to act independently without interference from outside interests. Six in ten adults — including three in four Democrats and nearly half of Republicans — say these agencies are not paying enough attention to science when it comes to making decisions and recommendations about vaccines. In addition, at least three in ten say these agencies are paying “too much attention” to the beliefs of officials running the agencies (34%) and the interests of pharmaceutical companies (30%) when making vaccine-related decisions.
• Most adults say they are at least “somewhat confident” in the safety of many routine vaccines, including those for measles (83%), the flu (74%), and — among adults ages 50 and older for whom these vaccines are recommended — pneumonia (82%) and shingles (79%). The public, however, remains less confident in the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine amid continued partisan disagreement. Just over half (56%) of adults say they are at least “somewhat confident” that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, including nearly nine in ten Democrats (87%), about half of independents (55%), but just three in ten Republicans.
• With the public split in their confidence of the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, the oft-politicized mRNA technology that many of these vaccines rely on remains obscure to much of the public. About twice as many adults think vaccines that use mRNA technology are “generally safe” (32%) as say they are “generally unsafe” (16%), but about half (52%) report not knowing enough about this technology to say. In addition, nearly half of the public (45%) report having heard the false claim that mRNA vaccines can alter a person’s DNA – a myth related to COVID-19 vaccines that began circulating early in the pandemic. While just 3% think this claim is “definitely true,” most are uncertain, saying it is either “probably true” (26%) or “probably false” (45%). However, there are important differences by party identification and ethnicity when it comes to believing or leaning toward believing the myth that mRNA vaccines alter DNA, with at least one-third of Republicans (37%), independents (33%), and Hispanic adults (38%) saying the claim is either “definitely true” or “probably true.”

Partisan Trust in Government Health Agencies and Officials as Reliable Sources of Vaccine Information

The latest Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust finds that partisan trust in government health agencies on vaccines has shifted notably since the Biden administration, with trust declining among Democrats and rising among Republicans.

Overall, doctors remain the most trusted source of reliable vaccine information among the public with eight in ten adults (83%) saying they trust their doctor or health care provider a “great deal” or “fair amount” to provide reliable information about vaccines and a similar share (81%) of parents saying they trust their child’s pediatrician. Smaller shares of the public, but still a majority, say they trust government health agencies, including their local public health department (66%), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC (59%), or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA (57%) to provide reliable information about vaccines. About half of the public (51%) say they trust pharmaceutical companies at least a “fair amount” as source of reliable vaccine information. Fewer than half of adults – or about four in ten – say they trust Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (41%) or President Trump (37%) to provide reliable information about vaccines.

The share of adults who say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the CDC and the FDA to provide reliable information about vaccines is similar to the share who said so in September 2023. However, this apparent stability masks some notable shifts in partisan trust amid a change in leadership at these agencies. Fewer Democrats – though still a majority — now say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the CDC (70% now v. 88% in 2023) and the FDA (67% v. 86%) to provide reliable information on vaccines. Conversely, the share of Republicans who express trust in these agencies has risen by about ten percentage points, with about half of Republicans now saying they trust the CDC (51% now up from 40% in 2023) and the FDA (52% v. 42%) to provide information on vaccines.

While Democrats are still more likely than Republicans to trust either the CDC or FDA as a source of vaccine information, the shifts in trust mark a notable reversal in partisan trends first observed during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022, KFF tracking polls showed declining trust in government health agencies to provide information about COVID-19 vaccines – a change largely driven by declining trust among Republicans alongside consistently higher levels of trust among Democrats. More recent KFF polling has shown declining trust in government agencies to provide health information in general among the public, with trust declining among both Democrats and Republicans in some cases. The most recent uptick among Republicans and decline among Democrats in trust of the CDC and FDA may be a reflection of polarized views on the Trump administration’s efforts to overhaul government health agencies and shift vaccine policy and messaging, including the way vaccines are tested.

While individual doctors garner the highest shares of trust across partisan groups, there are partisan gaps in trust in nearly all sources of vaccine information. At least eight in ten Democrats, independents and Republicans say they trust their own doctor or health care provider “a great deal” or “fair amount” to provide reliable information about vaccines; however, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say this (93% v. 78%). Similarly, while majorities of parents regardless of partisanship trust their child’s pediatrician at least a fair amount to provide reliable vaccine information, Democratic parents are more likely than Republican parents to say so (91% v. 73%). Notably, about one in four (27%) Republican parents say they trust their child’s pediatrician “not much” or “not at all” to provide reliable information about vaccines.

Beyond the CDC and FDA, there are additional divides in trust between Democrats and Republicans on the share who trust their local public health department (83% of Democrats v. 51% of Republicans), pharmaceutical companies (69% v. 39%), and among parents, their child’s school or day care (71% v. 33%). These partisan divides in trust are consistent with findings from previous KFF polling.

Republicans are much more likely than both independents and Democrats to say they trust President Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as reliable sources of vaccine information. Three quarters of Republicans say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in President Trump (74%) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (73%) to provide reliable information about vaccines. This is considerably larger than the share of independents and Democrats who say they trust either as reliable sources of vaccine information: 30% of independents and 10% of Democrats say they trust President Trump, while 35% of independents and 16% of Democrats say they trust Secretary Kennedy.

Notably, Republicans are as likely to say they trust President Trump and Secretary Kennedy as they are to say they trust their own doctor as a source of reliable vaccine information.

Confidence in Federal Government Health Agencies To Carry Out Responsibilities

Even as majorities of the public express trust in government health agencies to provide information on vaccines, less than half of the public express at least some confidence in agencies like the CDC and FDA to carry out many of their responsibilities, such as ensuring the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs (46%) or to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines approved for use in the U.S. (45%). About four in ten (42%) have confidence in government health agencies to respond to outbreaks of infectious diseases. Even fewer, or one-third (32%), express at least “some” confidence in government health agencies to act independently without interference from outside interests. Fewer than one in five adults say they have “a lot” of trust in these agencies to fulfill each of these tasks.

Less than half of Democrats, independents, and Republicans have at least “some” confidence in government health agencies to ensure the safety of prescription drugs, respond to infectious disease outbreaks, or act independently without outside interference. Democrats, however, are more likely than Republicans to say they have “some” trust in government health agencies to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines (52% v. 43%). However, similar shares of Democrats and Republicans express confidence in these agencies to ensure the safety of prescription drugs, respond to infectious disease outbreaks, or act independently.

One reason behind a lack of confidence in government health agencies may be that most of the public, including larger shares of Democrats, say that under the Trump administration, government health agencies like the CDC and FDA are not paying enough attention to science when making decisions about vaccines. Six in ten adults say these agencies are not paying enough attention to science when making decisions about vaccines, while one-third say they are paying “about the right amount of attention” (34%) and fewer than one in ten say they pay “too much attention” to science (6%). The share of adults who now say government health agencies are not paying enough attention to science when making decisions about vaccines is higher than the share who expressed similar sentiments in September 2020, when just under half of adults said that under the Trump administration, the CDC and FDA were not paying enough attention to science when reviewing and approving treatments for coronavirus.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has raised question about pharmaceutical companies’ influence and conflicts of interest within government health agencies, while Kennedy himself has faced criticisms over how his own views on vaccines might influence government policy. The public is split over whether government health agencies are paying the right amount of attention to pharmaceutical companies or the beliefs of officials running the agencies when making decisions about vaccines. Three in ten adults say government health agencies are paying “too much attention” to the interests of pharmaceutical companies and similar shares say they are paying “about the right amount of attention,” while four in ten say they are paying “not enough attention.” Adults are similarly divided over whether government health agencies are paying the right amount of attention to the beliefs of officials running these agencies, with similar shares saying they’re either paying “too much attention” (34%), “not enough attention” (36%) or “about the right amount of attention” (29%) when it comes to making decisions or recommendations about vaccines.

Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say government health agencies like the CDC and FDA are not paying enough attention to science when making decisions about vaccines (73% v. 45%). On the other hand, Republicans are more than twice as likely as Democrats to say government health agencies are paying about the “right amount of attention” to the beliefs of officials running these agencies (45% v. 19%).

Confidence in Vaccine Safety and Views of mRNA Vaccines

A majority of the public continues to express confidence in the safety of most routine vaccines; however, nearly four years since they were first approved for use, views on the COVID-19 vaccines remain divisive and largely partisan, consistent with prior KFF polling.

At least three in four adults, including majorities across partisans, say they are either “very confident” or “somewhat confident” that vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella (83%) or the flu (74%) are safe. Among adults ages 50 and older – for whom the CDC currently recommends both the pneumonia and shingles vaccines – eight in ten say they think vaccines for pneumonia (82%) or shingles (79%) are safe, including majorities across partisans.

However, confidence in the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine is much lower than these other routine vaccines. About half (56%) of adults say they are at least “somewhat confident” that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, including nine in ten (87%) Democrats compared to just three in ten Republicans. The share of the public and partisans who express confidence in the safety in the flu and COVID-19 vaccines has not changed notably since September 2023. For more information on the public’s views on measles and the MMR vaccines, see KFF’s prior release from the April Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust.

Many of the COVID-19 vaccines – including other vaccines under development for diseases including cancer – rely on a vaccine technology known as messenger-RNA (mRNA). COVID-19 vaccines that use mRNA technology have been proven safe and effective but have long been the subject of misinformation and recently come under attack, with Republican legislators in some states recently attempting to ban or limit the use of mRNA vaccines and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reportedly urging scientists to remove references to the technology from their grant applications.

The latest poll finds that while few adults think mRNA vaccines are unsafe, many say they don’t know enough about the technology to have an opinion. Overall, one-third (32%) of adults say vaccines that use mRNA technology are “generally safe” compared to about one in six (16%) who say they are “generally unsafe.” But at the same time, about half of the public (52%) say they do not know enough about this technology to say. At least one in five Republicans (23%) and independents (18%) say they think mRNA vaccines are “generally unsafe” compared to far fewer Democrats (3%), but still, most Republicans (61%) and roughly half of independents and Democrats say they do not know enough to say whether mRNA vaccines are safe or not.

Large shares of the public report having heard the false claim that mRNA vaccines alter your DNA – a persistent myth that began circulating early on during the COVID-19 pandemic — and while few think this is definitely true, most are uncertain. Exposure to and uncertainty surrounding this false claim has existed since early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, when KFF polling found that about one in five adults who had heard the claim believed or were unsure whether COVID-19 vaccines could change your DNA.

About half of the public (45%) say they have read or heard the false claim that mRNA vaccines can change your DNA, including about half of Republicans (48%) and independents (47%) and four in ten Democrats (38%). Exposure to the false claim also differs across race and ethnicity. About half (51%) of White adults say they have heard the myth that mRNA vaccines can alter DNA compared to fewer Hispanic adults (35%) and Black adults (27%).

With about half the public saying they have heard the myth that mRNA vaccines alter your DNA, just 3% of all adults say they think this claim is “definitely true,” and a quarter (24%) say it is “definitely false.” However, as previous KFF polling has found on a wide array of misinformation topics, most adults express uncertainty and fall in the “malleable middle” with seven in ten saying it is either “probably true” (26%) or “probably false” (45%) including majorities of Republicans and independents, and about half of Democrats.

While at least four in ten across party and race and ethnicity say they think this false claim is “probably false,” larger shares of Republicans, independents, and Hispanic adults believe or lean toward believing it, saying it is “probably true” or “definitely true.” Overall, three in ten adults say it is “definitely” or “probably true” that mRNA vaccines can change your DNA, but this increases to 37% of Republicans and one in three independents (compared to 13% of Democrats). About four in ten (38%) Hispanic adults believe or lean toward believing the myth that mRNA technology alters DNA, compared to about a quarter of White adults (28%) and Black adults (26%).

Believing or leaning toward believing the myth that mRNA vaccines can alter your DNA is tied to negative perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccines’ safety. Among those who say it is “definitely true” or “probably true” that mRNA vaccines change your DNA, a large majority (77%) say they are not confident that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, including half (51%) who say they are “not at all confident.” While the vast majority of those who say it is “definitely false” that mRNA vaccines alter DNA in turn express confidence in the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines (86%), confidence drops among those who lean toward thinking this is false, with just six in ten (63%) of those who say this myth is “probably false” expressing confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety.

This KFF Health Tracking Poll/KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust was designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF. The survey was conducted April 8-15, 2025, online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 1,380 U.S. adults in English (1,322) and in Spanish (58). The sample includes 1,022 adults (n=48 in Spanish) reached through the SSRS Opinion Panel either online (n=997) or over the phone (n=25). The SSRS Opinion Panel is a nationally representative probability-based panel where panel members are recruited randomly in one of two ways: (a) Through invitations mailed to respondents randomly sampled from an Address-Based Sample (ABS) provided by Marketing Systems Groups (MSG) through the U.S. Postal Service’s Computerized Delivery Sequence (CDS); (b) from a dual-frame random digit dial (RDD) sample provided by MSG. For the online panel component, invitations were sent to panel members by email followed by up to three reminder emails.

Another 358 (n=17 in Spanish) adults were reached through random digit dial telephone sample of prepaid cell phone numbers obtained through MSG. Phone numbers used for the prepaid cell phone component were randomly generated from a cell phone sampling frame with disproportionate stratification aimed at reaching Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black respondents. Stratification was based on incidence of the race/ethnicity groups within each frame. Among this prepaid cell phone component, 194 were interviewed by phone and 164 were invited to the web survey via short message service (SMS).

Respondents in the prepaid cell phone sample who were interviewed by phone received a $15 incentive via a check received by mail. Respondents in the prepaid cell phone sample reached via SMS received a $10 electronic gift card incentive. SSRS Opinion Panel respondents received a $5 electronic gift card incentive (some harder-to-reach groups received a $10 electronic gift card). In order to ensure data quality, cases were removed if they failed two or more quality checks: (1) attention check questions in the online version of the questionnaire, (2) had over 30% item non-response, or (3) had a length less than one quarter of the mean length by mode. Based on this criterion, no cases were removed.

The combined cell phone and panel samples were weighted to match the sample’s demographics to the national U.S. adult population using data from the Census Bureau’s 2024 Current Population Survey (CPS), September 2023 Volunteering and Civic Life Supplement data from the CPS, and the 2024 KFF Benchmarking Survey with ABS and prepaid cell phone samples. The demographic variables included in weighting for the general population sample are sex, age, education, race/ethnicity, region, civic engagement, frequency of internet use, political party identification by race/ethnicity, and education. The weights account for differences in the probability of selection for each sample type (prepaid cell phone and panel). This includes adjustment for the sample design and geographic stratification of the cell phone sample, within household probability of selection, and the design of the panel-recruitment procedure.

The margin of sampling error including the design effect for the full sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points Numbers of respondents and margins of sampling error for key subgroups are shown in the table below. For results based on other subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher. Sample sizes and margins of sampling error for other subgroups are available on request. Sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error and there may be other unmeasured error in this or any other public opinion poll. KFF public opinion and survey research is a charter member of the Transparency Initiative of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.