As questions swirl around how a second Trump administration would approach immigration enforcement and international trade, University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein joined Chicago’s Morning Answer to offer a legal and economic perspective on the challenges ahead.
On the immigration front, Epstein addressed growing discussion on how to constitutionally remove large numbers of undocumented immigrants while respecting Supreme Court precedents and due process protections. In response to recent ideas floated by figures like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz—such as remote hearings held from third-party countries—Epstein emphasized that any mass deportation effort would still require some level of individualized review.
“There has to be some degree of individualization,” Epstein explained, noting that expedited removal processes used during the Obama administration may offer a legally viable model for handling high volumes of immigration cases. However, he cautioned against using broad, untested legal theories to justify rapid removals, warning that an overreach could lead to legal gridlock and political backlash.
Epstein also underscored that undocumented immigrants still have constitutional protections under the 14th Amendment once they are in U.S. custody. “You can’t shortcut due process,” he said, advocating for streamlined hearings that preserve legal rights while ensuring procedural efficiency. He stressed that President Trump would need to build legal and administrative frameworks based on precedent, not novel interpretations.
Switching to trade policy, Epstein was sharply critical of Trump’s renewed emphasis on reciprocal tariffs, warning that such a strategy is economically misguided and politically risky. He argued that reciprocal trade demands—whereby the U.S. threatens or imposes tariffs in response to trade deficits—ignore the realities of modern global commerce.
“The problem is that reciprocal trade ignores the benefits of multilateral supply chains,” Epstein said, pointing out that unilateral tariff policies often backfire by disrupting production networks and raising costs for American consumers and manufacturers.
He cited Trump’s past rhetoric on tariffs—framing trade surpluses as “cheating” by foreign governments—as unproductive and inflammatory. Instead, Epstein encouraged a return to the more pragmatic dealmaking seen in Trump’s first term, such as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). But he warned that the current political environment, along with Trump’s increased tendency toward punitive rhetoric, could undermine efforts to negotiate mutually beneficial trade deals.
In terms of geopolitics, Epstein noted that aggressive tariff actions could harm U.S. influence abroad, particularly with allies like Canada and Australia, and complicate future negotiations with major powers like China. He stressed that tariffs, when used broadly, can diminish U.S. competitiveness and credibility on the world stage.
Epstein also addressed the political tone of the Trump campaign and presidency, suggesting that a shift away from vengeance-driven rhetoric would be necessary for effective governance. He argued that while many investigations and prosecutions of Trump have been politically motivated, the response should be institutional reform—not retaliatory action.
Closing the interview, Epstein praised improvements in domestic energy policy and regulatory reform under Trump, but cautioned that the economic gains risk being undermined by poorly implemented trade strategies.
“He’s working off the worst administration in Western civilization,” Epstein said of Trump’s advantage over Biden. “But to make good on that, he needs to govern with discipline, not just impulse.”
With both immigration and trade expected to remain front-burner issues in the 2024 election and beyond, Epstein’s analysis offered a sobering reminder that political theatrics must be matched by legal precision and sound economics to succeed on the national and global stage.