Mullin isn’t expected to shift the administration’s hardline stance on deportations or asylum policy. Instead, the change is likely to be one of execution rather than direction. Compared with former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, enforcement under Mullin is expected to be less media‑driven and confrontational, and more targeted, operational, and politically calibrated. Deportation totals may remain high, but tactics and optics are likely to evolve, with narrower targeting, greater internal coordination, and more attention to political and public backlash.

Republican lawmakers describe Mullin as pragmatic and politically aware, even as he strongly supports ICE and Customs and Border Protection. Early signals point to a move toward fewer high-profile raids and away from broad urban dragnet operations toward prioritizing migrants with criminal records and fewer high‑profile raids. The net effect could be a steadier enforcement pace and fewer workplace disruptions, potentially reducing the economic shock in sectors reliant on undocumented labor even if overall removals remain elevated.

Trade Policy in Flux

In February, the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, putting nearly $170 billion in potential refunds at stake and forcing the administration to search for alternative authority. To preserve leverage, the White House turned to Section 122 of the Trade Expansion Act, imposing temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days. While those measures could raise an estimated $35–50 billion, they’re already facing legal challenge.

The Court of International Trade is scheduled to hear arguments in early April, with challengers arguing that the tariffs fail to meet the statute’s requirement of a serious balance‑of‑payments deficit, even as courts have historically granted the executive branch wide latitude on trade. An adverse ruling could push the total financial impact of refunds above $200 billion. However, by the time appeals are exhausted, the Section 122 tariffs will likely have expired. The administration appears prepared to pivot toward Sections 301 and 232 instead, shifting the legal battleground from tariff authority to the size and timing of the Treasury’s refund obligations.
 

USMCA Under Review Ahead of July Deadline

The administration is also using trade uncertainty as leverage closer to home. Trump has privately raised the possibility of withdrawing the US from the US‑Mexico‑Canada Agreement (USMCA) ahead of the mandatory six‑year review on July 1, framing the threat as a way to extract additional concessions from Canada and Mexico. Demands under discussion range from stricter rules of origin for industrial goods to issues well outside traditional trade negotiations, including migration and drug enforcement.

Although officials emphasize that withdrawal isn’t a settled decision, even the suggestion has introduced volatility into the $2 trillion North American trading relationship, contributing to fluctuations in the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso. Consultations and public hearings concluded late last year, and the US Trade Representative has been laying groundwork with Congress and stakeholders to signal that renewal won’t be automatic. For now, USMCA remains in force, talks are active, and uncertainty appears intentional—keeping both partners engaged while the White House assesses whether additional leverage can produce a “better deal” ahead of the July decision.

House Retirements Signal Midterm Headwinds

House retirements are emerging as an early warning sign ahead of the 2026 midterms. As of mid‑March, 56 House members have announced plans to retire or seek other offices (FIGURE 1). That tops the total seen in 2018, the last midterm cycle that cost Republicans control of the chamber, and puts 2026 on pace to challenge the modern record set in 1992.

Historically, elevated retirement rates tend to coincide with broader political headwinds. Open seats are more competitive, demand greater party resources, and often reflect lawmakers’ private assessments of the electoral environment. In this cycle, retirements appear less about individual transitions and more about structural challenges: a narrow House majority, legislative gridlock, difficult intraparty dynamics, and a national backdrop shaped by inflation sensitivity, foreign-policy strain, and trade uncertainty.

For Speaker Johnson, the implications are significant. Each departure reduces the margin for error, complicating efforts to advance a cohesive agenda and defend vulnerable districts simultaneously. The loss of incumbency advantages also forces House leadership to make harder trade-offs between governing priorities and political preservation as the campaign calendar accelerates.

While retirements alone don’t determine election outcomes, their scale and timing suggest rising caution within the Republican party. Combined with the policy pressures outlined above, they reinforce the view that 2026 is shaping up to be a highly contested midterm—with control of the House likely to hinge on a small number of competitive districts and the broader economic narrative unfolding between now and November.