An AP-KFF poll released on Monday, Oct. 5, 2026, found that rural voters are divided on the local impact of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. According to the survey of more than 2,000 rural voters conducted in August, about a third reported the administration's immigration enforcement has had a positive effect on their community, while another third said the impact was negative. Roughly 30% of respondents stated the policies had no impact.
The results follow more than a year of immigration enforcement actions under the Trump administration, including mass deportations and rapid removals of immigrants to third countries. While President Trump made tough enforcement a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign, the poll indicates that even among his base, views are mixed regarding the economic and social consequences for small towns and farming communities.
Specific voter segments showed varying degrees of support for the administration's actions. About two-thirds of rural voters identifying as MAGA Republicans reported a positive local impact, with about half of that group saying the administration has not gone far enough in deportations. In contrast, only 40% of all rural voters said Trump has "gone too far" in his efforts, a figure lower than the 55% of all U.S. adults who expressed that view in a September AP-NORC poll.
The survey also highlighted the economic role of immigrants in rural areas. Approximately 70% of rural voters described immigrants in the country legally as important to their local economies, and a similar share said the same regarding temporary or seasonal agricultural workers. Shannon Monnat, director of the Center for Policy Research at Syracuse University, stated that for many small towns, immigration has prevented the closure of schools and hospitals and slowed population decline.
The scale of the reported sentiment involves a population where 45% of rural voters believe even those in the U.S. without legal authorization are at least "somewhat important" to local economies. For an individual household in these regions, the impact is felt through the stability of local institutions; as Monnat noted, the presence of immigrant families can be the deciding factor in whether a county hospital or school remains open. Conversely, some residents like John Thomas of Kentucky stated that reducing the immigrant population is necessary to lower the burden on the healthcare system, though a Harvard Medical School researcher cited in the report stated that research suggests immigrants use less healthcare than native-born citizens.
As the midterm elections approach in November 2026, these divisions show how candidates must address the balance between enforcement and economic stability. Roughly 75% of rural voters indicated it is important for candidates to discuss immigration, though they prioritized cost-of-living issues higher. What happens next depends on the election results; voters like Laura Leigh Taylor of Georgia indicated they may switch party support due to the impact of deportations on families. Candidates will face continued pressure to define whether they support expanding exceptions for workers or maintaining the current pace of removals.