President Donald Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law on Wednesday, January 29th, 2025, marking the first piece of legislation enacted in his second term. The bill broadens the scope of federal immigration enforcement, mandating the detention and deportation of noncitizens charged with theft-related offenses, assaulting law enforcement, or committing crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury.
Before signing the legislation, Trump called Riley’s death a tragedy that “should never have been allowed to happen,” vowing to prevent similar incidents through stricter immigration policies.
The bill passed both the House and Senate with bipartisan backing after initial Democratic resistance. At the same time, the Democratic-controlled Senate had stalled the measure, shifting political dynamics following the 2024 election led to renewed engagement. The legislation ultimately received support from all House Republicans and 48 House Democrats, as well as all Senate Republicans and 12 Senate Democrats.
Trump highlighted the bipartisan support behind the bill, stating that Riley’s name would “live forever in the laws of our country” and crediting her legacy for uniting both parties.
The act mandates that federal immigration officials detain and deport individuals in the U.S. without legal status if they are charged with crimes such as burglary, larceny, theft, shoplifting, or assault on a law enforcement officer. It also allows state attorneys general to sue the federal government over immigration policies they claim have harmed their states or residents.
The legislation is named after Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student killed while jogging in Georgia. The suspect, Venezuelan national José Ibarra, had been in the U.S. illegally and was previously charged with shoplifting in New York but was not detained by ICE. He has since been sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Riley’s family attended the bill signing, with her mother, Allyson Phillips, thanking Trump for keeping his promise to “never forget about Laken” and for his commitment to border security.
Despite its passage, enforcing the law presents significant challenges. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has warned that executing the law as written would require massive resources. In a memo sent to lawmakers, ICE estimated implementation costs at $26 billion in the first year alone, citing personnel expenses, increased detention capacity, transportation logistics, and cooperation challenges with state and local enforcement.
The agency also noted a lack of available detention space and predicted that local jurisdictions may be unwilling to assist.
Critics argue that the law risks leading to mass detention for minor offenses. Sarah Mehta, senior border policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, stated, “This is an extreme and reactive bill that will authorize the largest expansion of mandatory detention we have seen in decades.”
Supporters contend that the law could have prevented Riley’s murder. Republicans argue that had Ibarra been detained for his prior shoplifting offense, he would not have been in the country at the time of the crime.
The Laken Riley Act comes amid a broader push by the Trump administration to enforce stricter immigration policies. Since returning to office, Trump has issued a series of executive actions targeting border security, including attempting to end birthright citizenship, assigning the military to border enforcement, designating cartels and gangs as terrorist organizations, and shutting down asylum and refugee programs.
Congressional leaders are concurrently debating a large-scale reconciliation package to strengthen border security. The package, which includes funding for immigration enforcement, energy initiatives, and tax policies, remains under discussion.
The passage of the Laken Riley Act marks a significant shift in immigration enforcement, reflecting a renewed focus on detaining and deporting those charged with crimes before conviction. However, as logistical and legal hurdles persist, whether the law will be fully implemented as designed remains uncertain.
