The role of a leader in managing border conflicts is crucial in ensuring efficiency and effectiveness in policy implementation. However, political leaders often manipulate these issues to serve their interests. Current U.S. President Donald Trump is a key example of how political figures leverage border crises to consolidate power and reshape administrative agencies. His handling of the U.S.-Mexico border and his stance on the Gaza conflict highlights how politicians use border security issues to stir public emotions, justify administrative changes, and benefit their political base. Instead of focusing on sustainable solutions, Trump prioritized rhetoric and political advantage over practical governance.
At the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump’s policies were largely defined by his “America First” ideology, emphasizing strict immigration controls, border wall expansion, and the demonization of migrants. His administration implemented policies such as the “Remain in Mexico” program, which forced asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while their cases were processed. Additionally, Trump pushed for Title 42, a pandemic-era rule that allowed the rapid expulsion of migrants under the guise of public health concerns. While these measures were justified as necessary for border security, they were also tools for political mobilization, reinforcing his image as a nationalist leader who prioritized American security over humanitarian concerns.
One of the significant ways Trump stirred the border situation was by reshuffling administrative agencies overseeing immigration policies. Rather than improving the efficiency of border security, his administration frequently replaced key officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with loyalists who aligned with his political ideology. This practice led to instability and inefficiency, as policy directions frequently shifted to match Trump’s political agenda rather than long-term border security goals. His approach exemplified how politicians manipulate administrative structures to serve personal and party interests instead of focusing on effective governance.
Also, this goes on Gaza; Trump’s handling of the Gaza issue followed a political playbook aimed at solidifying his support among specific voter bases. His administration’s unwavering support for Israel, including the controversial move to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and cutting aid to Palestine, further intensified the conflict. While his administration claimed these moves were for peace and stability, they significantly altered the balance of power, worsening humanitarian conditions in Gaza. His rhetoric, particularly on social media and in speeches, exacerbated tensions rather than fostering diplomatic solutions, showcasing how border conflicts can be politicized to secure domestic political gains. Furthermore, Trump’s background was as a businessman, specifically in the hospitality and property industries.
Another key aspect of Trump’s political manoeuvring was his ability to use border issues to attack political opponents and justify drastic policy changes. At the Mexico border, he repeatedly blamed Democrats for weak immigration laws, using the crisis as leverage to push for policy shifts that aligned with his political goals. Similarly, in the Gaza conflict, his administration’s actions undermined traditional diplomatic channels, sidelining established international agencies that previously mediated the conflict. His policies in both cases reflected a pattern where politicians create or amplify crises to justify changes that benefit their political standing rather than resolving the actual problem.
The real concern in these situations is that administrative agencies responsible for border management should focus on efficiency and effectiveness rather than political agendas. Ideally, these agencies should implement data-driven policies that ensure national security while balancing humanitarian considerations. However, when politicians interfere by frequently changing leadership or implementing policies based on ideological rather than practical considerations, the result is a system plagued by inefficiency and instability. Trump’s tenure demonstrated how politicized border policies often lead to administrative chaos rather than effective governance.
Amazingly, it succeeds; Trump’s approach underscores how politicians manipulate public perception by framing border issues as existential threats. By portraying immigrants at the Mexico border as criminals or terrorists, he heightened public fear, making extreme policies more acceptable. Similarly, his stance on Gaza, where he presented a one-sided narrative favouring Israel, deepened divisions and limited the potential for balanced diplomatic efforts. These tactics serve to rally political supporters but do little to resolve the underlying issues.
In reality, true border management requires a stable and competent administration that prioritizes problem-solving over political gains. Repeated leadership changes and policy shifts driven by political motivations weaken institutional capacity. This is evident in the last of Trump’s presidency, where immigration policies remained in flux, and diplomatic relations in the Middle East continued to suffer from the repercussions of his tenure. Political interference in administrative agencies ultimately results in inefficiency, as seen in the handling of both the U.S.-Mexico border and the Gaza crisis.
Future leaders must learn from these examples and ensure that border policies prioritize sustainability over short-term political advantages. We hate to admit it, but Trump’s approach to border issues—both in Mexico and Gaza—exemplifies how politicians stir up crises to push their own agenda rather than focusing on governance efficiency. The prospect of a reshuffling of administrative agencies, implementation of politically charged policies, and use of fear-mongering rhetoric highlight how border conflicts can be manipulated for electoral and ideological gains. It is supposed that effective border management should be about long-term stability and humanitarian balance, but when politicians prioritize political loyalty over institutional effectiveness, the result is a fragmented and inefficient system. Something that would disappoint many of us.
References
- Reedy, J., O’Brien, B. G., & Hurst, E. H. (2023). Pandemic politics: Immigration, framing, and Covid-19. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 8(2), 246-266.
- Montange, L. (2022). Political detentions, political deportations: Repressive immigration enforcement in times of trump. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 40(2), 332-350.
- Laurence Benenson and Nicci Mattey. Trump’s First 100 Days: Potential Immigration Actions. National Immigration Forum.
- Betsy Klein and Lex Harvey. Trump suggests his plan for Gaza Strip is to ‘clean out the whole thing’. CNN Politics.
- Sam Phelps. How Trump’s suggestion to ‘clean out’ Gaza sent shockwaves through the Middle East. The Conversation.
- Ibrahim Khazen and Betul Yilmaz. Thousands protest Trump’s ‘clean out’ Gaza proposal in Egypt’s Rafah border crossing. Anadolu Agency.
- https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/title-8-and-title-42-statistics
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_42_expulsion