EXCLUSIVE: Trump ‘Will Never Allow For Mass Amnesty’ After Floating Working With Dems On Immigration

President Donald Trump is signaling immigration cooperation with Democrats as Vice President JD Vance warns against amnesty.

During an interview Tuesday on Fox News’ election night coverage, President Trump spoke with hosts Martha MacCallum and Bret Baier about whether he expects Democrats to work with him when the new Congress takes office in January.

Baier asked whether Democrats, despite what Trump has called “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” would be willing to work with him and send legislation to his desk that he could sign.

🚨 JUST NOW: President Trump reveals he’s looking to do possible IMMIGRATION DEALS with Democrats, but they AREN’T in control because HE has the veto pen “They can send over 50 different great bills that they’re all excited about and I send them back with a nice stamp veto and, you know, there’s not a thing they can do about that.” “I’m a person that likes getting things done…immigration is a big deal. I’ve always felt we should be able to work at immigration.” That is, if it’s NO AMNESTY 🇺🇸🇺🇸 The American people do NOT want amnesty.

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 4, 2026

Trump acknowledged that Democrats would be “in control but not in control,” noting he retains veto power and hopes he will not have to use it.

“I’m a person that likes getting things done, and there are things that we can work with. We can’t work on everything.”

Trump specifically pointed to immigration as an area where he believes the two parties could find common ground.

“But I can work with them on a lot of things. I mean, we can work with them on immigration. I think. Immigration is a big deal. I’ve always felt we should be able to work on immigration.”

Still, in comments exclusive to the Daily Caller, a White House official emphasized that mass amnesty for illegal immigrants is not on the table.

Trump’s comments come as Democrats across the country have criticized his administration’s immigration enforcement efforts, with some campaigning on promises to abolish ICE or restrict its operations.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) approved two resolutions in August calling for changes to immigration enforcement, including one urging Congress to abolish ICE and phase out the immigration detention system, according to a Newsweek report.

The resolutions also called for restricting Department of Homeland Security funding unless the agency ends certain enforcement operations, including workplace raids, mass arrests and immigration actions near schools and places of worship.

They also called for ending contracts with private immigration detention companies.

The developments come as Republicans grapple with losses in both chambers of Congress.

Vance offered his first assessment of the midterm results in a post on X, arguing that voter frustration over the war, rather than poor turnout, drove many 2024 Trump voters to defect to Democrats.

He said Republicans must refocus on ending the war, lowering living costs, advancing America First policies, and reassessing the U.S. relationship with Israel to win back voters who abandoned the party.

Vance also warned Republicans against embracing amnesty as a solution to the party’s political struggles, accusing establishment politicians of “gaslighting” voters.

“In the next few months, there’s going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I’m open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you,” Vance wrote.

One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was “composition”—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up. So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we’re going to shock the world? “No,” he told me. “We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us.” Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026. There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true. But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone. Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were: 1) End the war 2) Focus on cost of living/inflation 3) Put America First 4) Change our relationship to Israel Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.) In the next few months, there’s going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I’m open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you. The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night. If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest. But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there. I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.

— JD Vance (@JDVance) November 4, 2026

The Caller asked the White House if amnesty would be on the table following Trump’s indication that he would be willing to work with Democrats on immigration.

A White House official wrote, “There has never been a stronger administration on immigration enforcement than the Trump Administration. Both the President and Vice President have delivered the most secure border in American history and under their leadership, ICE has shattered arrest records. The Administration will never allow for mass amnesty.”

Trump has consistently taken a hard-line stance on immigration, making the issue a central focus of his political career and a defining priority of his administration. Immigration played a major role in his 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential campaigns, and his administration has pursued an aggressive deportation agenda since returning to office.

Despite the administration’s stated opposition to mass amnesty, a source familiar with internal discussions told the Daily Caller that “amnesty is not on the table” when asked whether the administration was considering changes to its immigration policy.

Trump was also asked about Vance’s assessment of the midterm results Wednesday during an event at the White House ballroom construction site, saying the vice president’s post “was fine. I thought it was good.”

He also acknowledged that the conflict had driven up gas prices in the short term but defended the decision to launch military action.

“I think it’s largely true because it drove the gasoline up a little bit short term, and probably that’s probably true. But at the same time, if I had it to do again, I’d have to do it again, because long term, it’s the only answer. You can’t let Iran have a nuclear war.”

President Donald J. Trump on Vice President JD Vance’s statement: “I thought it was good.” https://t.co/g1fJ4wk70W

— Vice President JD Vance (@VP) November 4, 2026

Trump did not address Vance’s separate comments on immigration or his warning against amnesty.

Meanwhile, NBC News exit polls found that voters preferred Republicans over Democrats on handling immigration, with 44 percent saying the GOP was better equipped to handle the issue, compared to roughly 40 percent to 41 percent who favored Democrats.

Several Republicans who backed the Dignity Act, a sweeping immigration proposal that supporters have pitched as a way to curb illegal immigration, overhaul the asylum system and provide legal status for long-term undocumented immigrants, also lost their House seats.

Those lawmakers include Republican Reps. David Valadao of California, Monica De La Cruz of Texas, Mike Lawler of New York, Gabe Evans of Colorado and Jen Kiggans of Virginia.

Valadao, Lawler and Evans were original co-sponsors of the legislation, while De La Cruz and Kiggans later signed on as co-sponsors.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Florida Rep. Maria Salazar, retained her seat.

Immigration was the only issue on which Republicans held an advantage, while Democrats led on several other issues, including the economy in some polling breakdowns.

The Caller reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.

AUTHOR