The irony is almost too rich to stomach. Democrats spent the better part of two years hammering Republicans over grocery prices and gas bills, positioning themselves as the champions of working families who just can’t catch a break. Now they’re backing immigration policies that could drain between $440 billion and $613 billion from taxpayers over the next decade. You want to talk about kitchen table economics? Let’s talk about that.

A new White House economic report from the Council of Economic Advisers lays bare what many Americans already suspected. The immigration agenda pushed by Democratic Socialists of America isn’t just radical on principle. It’s financially ruinous in practice. We’re talking mass amnesty, expanded federal benefits, and the kind of enforcement rollback that would make border security effectively ceremonial. President Trump has now gone 16 months without releasing illegal immigrants at the southern border, a record that stands in stark contrast to the chaos we witnessed under previous leadership.

DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin isn’t mincing words either. He’s calling out Democrats for their attempts to defund border protection while sanctuary cities become magnets for the exact criminals ICE is trying to remove. The Trump administration has taken a zero-tolerance stance against anyone harboring criminals or assaulting law enforcement. That’s not controversial. That’s common sense.

Here’s where the numbers get uncomfortable for the affordability crowd. The CEA estimates that each illegal immigrant carries a lifetime net fiscal cost of $166,716 to American taxpayers. Think about that figure. It exceeds what it costs to send a kid through four years at an in-state public university, covering tuition, room, board, and books. The current illegal immigrant population could account for somewhere between $1.4 trillion and $1.9 trillion in taxpayer costs under the administration’s model. Those aren’t fringe calculations from some think tank with an axe to grind. That’s the Council of Economic Advisers doing the math.

White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis put it plainly enough. President Trump supercharged ICE to remove murderers, rapists, pedophiles, gang members, and terrorists from our communities. Meanwhile, radical Democrats want to reverse course, grant amnesty to illegal aliens, and pretend there won’t be consequences. Not only would these policies make America less safe, they’d cost billions. The contradiction is glaring.

Socialist-aligned candidates have been gaining ground too. They’ve won key Democratic primaries in 2026 and expanded their influence within the party. Some have formally introduced legislation to abolish ICE and Border Patrol entirely, dismantling DHS in the process. That’s not hyperbole. That’s their actual platform. And voters are supposed to believe this is the path to economic relief?

The midterms are approaching fast, and Democrats are campaigning heavily on making life more affordable. Fair enough. Everyone wants relief from inflation and cost-of-living pressures. But you can’t credibly claim to care about working families while simultaneously pushing policies that compound those exact pressures. The White House is framing the DSA immigration agenda as both a financial and public safety threat, and honestly, the evidence backs them up.

USCIS reports that Trump’s first year in office saw a sweeping immigration crackdown. There were 14,000 ICE referrals, record removals, and widespread fraud detection. That’s what enforcement looks like when it’s taken seriously. California, of all places, is now facing a tax revolt over billions spent on illegal immigrant healthcare costs. Even blue state voters have limits when their wallets start screaming.

The American people aren’t stupid. They can see through messaging that promises affordability with one hand while emptying their pockets with the other. Immigration policy has real costs. Security has real value. And pretending otherwise is just political theater dressed up as compassion.

Related: Gavin Newsom’s Anti-ICE Crusade Hits a Constitutional Wall at the Ninth Circuit