In the aftermath of Donald Trump's election, Democratic leaders including frontliners, media pundits, and political elites have increasingly treated immigration as a political liability rather than an opportunity. This strategy has backfired significantly, fracturing the Democratic coalition of Black and Latino voters while failing to produce lasting gains among moderates. The party's approach—either not responding to Republican attacks, pivoting away from the issue entirely, or adopting border security messaging that seems inauthentic and inconsistent with Democratic values—has left Democrats without a compelling alternative vision for immigration reform that could inspire voters and effectively counter Republican narratives.
Democrats' strongest offense is their strongest contrast to Trump and the GOP’s fear-driven, ineffective immigration policies. A review of Democratic spending and messaging shift on immigration ads in battleground states demonstrates that the party has ceded the issue to Republicans and nearly abandoned talking points centered on pathways to citizenship and a vision forward for a modern immigration system. With Trump and Republicans dominating the issue for nearly a decade, this Democratic retreat has squandered opportunities to reframe immigration as America's economic and cultural lifeblood and consolidate voting blocs who support something far more powerful than mass deportations: a future where pathways to citizenship and managed borders fuel innovation, empower workers, and strengthen our democracy.
Democrats Have Been Outspent, Out-Messaged for Nearly A Decade on Immigration
In an analysis of AdImpact’s data from 2018 to 2022, Democratic groups and candidates spent nearly $19 million on television ads on immigration while Republicans spent over $183 million on anti-immigrant ads across 11 battleground states and congressional districts, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In 2024, Democrats were once again outspent in 12 battleground presidential and senate states (AZ, FL, GA, MI, MT, NC, NV, PA, OH, TX, VA, WI): right-wing candidates and groups spent over $573 million on anti-immigrant TV ads versus Democrats who spent $107 million on immigration-related ads.
Based on the data, in the frame of six years, for every $1 Democrats have spent on immigration television ads since 2018, Republicans have poured nearly $6.40 into anti-immigrant messaging—nearly $800 million compared to a little over $125 million spent by Democrats. This 6-to-1 spending ratio reveals how Trump and Republicans have dominated the issue through political advertising, reaching voters in high-frequency with false claims and dehumanizing language, such as an “invasion” at the border and depicting immigrants as criminals.
Breakdown of Immigration TV Ad Spending from 2018 to 2024
(Analysis of 11 states from 2018-2022: AZ, GA, MI, NC, NV, NY, OH, PA, TX, VA and WI; 2024 analysis of 12 states: AZ, FL, GA, MI, MT, NC, NV, PA, OH, TX, VA, WI)
2018: Total Spending on Broadcast Immigration Ads: $56,405,500
Democratic Candidates and Groups on Immigration – $6,989,885
Republican Candidates and Groups on Immigration – $49,415,615
2019: Total Spending on Broadcast Immigration Ads: $1,639,542
Democratic Candidates and Groups on Immigration – $69,264
Republican Candidates and Groups on Immigration – $1,570,278
2020: Total Spending on Broadcast Immigration Ads: $18,131,002
Democratic Candidates and Groups on Immigration – $2,499,545
Republican Candidates and Groups on Immigration – $15,631,457
2021: Total Spending on Broadcast Immigration Ads: $6,082,573
Democratic Candidates and Groups on Immigration – $106,878
Republican Candidates and Groups on Immigration – $5,975,695
2022: Total Spending on Broadcast Immigration Ads: $120,780,081
Democratic Candidates and Groups on Immigration – $9,254,420
Republican Candidates and Groups on Immigration – $111,525,661
2024: Total Spending on Broadcast Immigration Ads: $680,452,236
Democratic Candidates and Groups on Immigration – $106,968,320
Republican Candidates and Groups on Immigration – $573,483,916
Deep Dive: Following the Money on 2024 Wins and Losses in Battleground States
In the 2024 cycle, right-wing candidates and groups primarily focused on immigration ads, outspending Democrats on the issue. By comparison, according to AdImpact, more than 30% of the ads by Democratically-aligned candidates and groups in battleground states centered on abortion. The spending and issue focus nearly mirrors presidential issue-ads.
Data Source and Visual: AdImpact's 2023-2024 Cycle in Review
A closer look at 2024 Senate and congressional races demonstrate that Democrats who launched a smart offense strategy on immigration that countered right-wing opponents’ attacks head-on, offered solutions and elevated their authentic positions or validators yielded positive results. In fact, some 2024 Democratic candidates in hotly contested seats who either matched or increased their spending on immigration ads and messaging defeated their opponents – for example:
Angie Craig (MN-02): Congresswoman Craig defeated Republican candidate Joe Teirab who attacked her on inflation and border security. Critically, Craig did not allow Teirab’s immigration-related attacks to go unanswered. The congresswoman responded with border security-related ads that centered (1) the voices of families who were affected by fentanyl overdoses and (2) Craig’s record on border security and public safety. Combining these messages that focused on the district’s people with safety solutions was an effective strategy to counter Teirab’s attacks, which mimicked national right-wing talking points, such as accusing the Democrat of favoring “open border” policies that allowed for drug-trafficking and criminal activity.
Pat Ryan (NY-18): Congressman Ryan’s opponent, Alison Esposito, claimed that the New York Democrat allowed “millions of illegal immigrants” to “flood” the district, name-calling him “Sanctuary Pat.” Ryan didn’t pivot away from the issue, responding with messaging that centered on border security solutions and legal pathways – taking a page from Tom Suozzi’s NY playbook.
However, most battleground Democrats who secured narrow victories or underperformed and won by thin margins faced a key challenge: they were significantly outspent on immigration messaging, or failed to articulate a compelling alternative vision that clearly distinguished their approach from their Republican opponents, or both. Often Democratic immigration messaging in their ads was void of a critical thread that connected the issue to the economy and working families. Importantly, the messaging also neglected to highlight popular policy proposals, particularly offering Dreamers and long-settled immigrants in the U.S. a pathway to citizenship—an overwhelmingly favored alternative that could have effectively countered Republican rhetoric focused on deportation and maligned attacks against immigrants already in the U.S. Examples include:
Elise Slotkin (MI): In a razor-thin win, Senator Slotkin launched 2 broadcast ads on her record on border security and cracking down on fentanyl versus Republican Mike Rogers’ 9 anti-immigrant ads. According to AdImpact, Rogers and right-wing groups spent over $11 million on ads attacking Slotkin on the issue while the Democrat spent $6,295 on her border ads.
Ruben Gallego (AZ): Kari Lake and right-wing groups launched 33 anti-immigrant ads (mostly focused on “open borders” and “illegal invaders”) against Democrat Gallego who was backed by 6 immigration-related ads. Among the mostly border security-related ads, Gallego’s campaign released one focused on his family’s immigrant background – yet none of the ads made mention of a pathway to citizenship. The Arizona senator won by 2.4 percentage points.
Jacky Rosen (NV): Rosen’s reelection campaign was hit by 17 anti-immigrant ads, compared to two ads focused on Rosen’s support for border security measures (messaging on pathway to citizenship was absent from these ads). According to The Nevada Independent, Rosen's 2024 margin "was a little more than double Cortez Masto's slim 0.77 percentage point advantage" from 2022, but well below her own 2018 performance.
Losses among battleground Democrats have a consistent thread: parroting right-wing talking points and/or failing to match ad dollars on immigration doesn’t pay off. A number of studies have demonstrated that Democrats gain support when they offer a forward vision to address the broken immigration system with both border security solutions and legal pathways. What’s more, they often appear inauthentic or indistinguishable when they employ right-wing immigration messaging.
Sherrod Brown (OH): In the most expensive Senate race to date, Brown’s re-election campaign faced 50 anti-immigrant ads versus the incumbent’s nine border security ads. In ad after ad, then-candidate Bernie Moreno tied the “border crisis” and influx of migrants to inflation, crime, fentanyl-trafficking, Social Security and Medicare. Brown spent $18 million on ads, compared to Moreno’s $73 million, focused on distancing himself from Biden and Harris, deporting “criminals,” increasing border security dollars, the bipartisan border deal and cracking down on drug-trafficking and cartels. While he was nearly indistinguishable from Moreno on the issue, he failed to directly address Moreno’s false claims on migrants’ impact on rising costs and public programs.
Susan Wild (PA-07): In one of the closest races of 2024, Wild was unseated by Ryan MacKenzie who, along with right-wing groups, launched 7 anti-immigrant ads against the incumbent, spending more than $4 million compared to Wild’s one border security ad for a little over $800,000.
Matt Cartwright (PA-08): Robert Bresnahan defeated the incumbent by 1.6 percentage points. The Republican deployed 14 anti-immigrant ads (airing over 4,000 times), spending more than $14 million, against Cartwright who responded with 3 ads (airing over 1,500 times), spending over $700,000. The Democrat focused his ads on increasing border security, supporting deportations and opposing sanctuary cities.
Jenna Stelson (PA-10): Stelson publicly supported mass deportation and shutting down the border and was still defeated by the GOP incumbent, Scott Perry. Compared to her two ads to the tune of $699,088, Perry and right-wing groups launched 9 anti-immigrant ads, spending over $3 million against the Democrat.
Yadira Caraveo (CO-08): Caraveo made a sharp turn into tough border security talking points, publicly and in ads. The incumbent was defeated by 0.7 percentage points. Republican Gabe Evans launched several ads against her, accusing the Democrat of being responsible for “open borders” and fentanyl trafficking.
In the End It’s All About Authenticity And A Vision Forward
The data is clear: Democrats' retreat from a pro-immigrant vision has proven to be a strategic failure. By abandoning their core vision—citizenship as a pathway to collective prosperity—Democrats have ceded the immigration battlefield to Republican fear-mongering. The $6.40-to-$1 spending disadvantage reveals not just a resource gap but a courage gap that has allowed Republicans to dominate the narrative with dehumanizing rhetoric about "invasions" and criminality.
Battleground results tell the story. Democrats who matched Republican spending or offered authentic alternatives to deportation-focused policies performed better, while those who simply parroted right-wing talking points on border security without offering their own vision failed to distinguish themselves and often lost. The message is unmistakable: copying Republican rhetoric makes Democrats appear inauthentic and indistinguishable, while failing to counter false claims about immigrants' impact on inflation, public services, and community safety leaves dangerous narratives unchallenged.
For Democrats to reclaim ground on immigration, they must invest in messaging that connects immigrant contributions to economic strength, advances pragmatic solutions for both border management and legal pathways, and reframes the debate around deeply American values of opportunity and inclusion. The mounting evidence suggests that voters respond to this authenticity and vision—not to pale imitations of Republican rhetoric. The party's future electoral success may depend on whether it can summon the courage to champion pathways to citizenship as essential to America's continued vitality rather than retreating into defensive postures that neither inspire core voters nor persuade moderates.
Share this post