Project Homecoming: Key Findings

June 29th, 2026

Embold Research surveyed 2,810 likely voters nationwide from June 18–29, 2026, including an oversample of Hispanic and Black voters. Below are the top-line findings. Toplines here.

Support for Project Homecoming is broad and cross-partisan

After reading a description of the program – that it allows immigrants without legal status to choose to leave voluntarily, without detention, with assistance for themselves and their families – 79% of voters support Project Homecoming, with just 11% opposed. Support holds across party lines: 82% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats, and 73% of independents back the program. 56% of voters had not heard of it before the survey – meaning the program’s real-world support floor is likely higher than it appears, not lower. Put simply, when voters understand what Project Homecoming is, they support it.

The fiscal case is the strongest argument – and it works with everyone

Learning that the program saves taxpayers an estimated $2.3 billion compared to forced removal makes 71% of voters more likely to support it – including 74% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans. Learning that participants depart in an average of 36 days versus 130 days in detention under forced removal moves 69% more toward support, including 67% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans. By contrast, every fact voters learn about forced deportation moves them away from it:

the $6,045 per-person cost of a deportation flight (-45)
every day a person is in detention the private company makes a profit with no incentive to send detainees back quickly (-43)
the $19,760-per-person detention cost (-37)
the 130-day average hold in a privately run facility (-36)
the U.S. has spent over 1.6 billion on detention costs alone for people who could have left voluntarily (-31)

Taken together, the more voters learn about how both programs actually work, the stronger the case for Assisted Voluntary Return becomes.

Voters want Congress to act

69% of voters want their member of Congress to actively support funding for a program that achieves the same result as forced removal at lower cost and in a more humane way – including making it mandatory for ICE to offer the option before or upon detention. Just 17% say no. And if a member votes to cut AVR funding, 44% say that makes them less likely to vote for that member, against just 18% more likely. That net is similar regardless of whether the program is framed around taxpayer savings (-26) or humanitarian treatment (-22). Even among Republicans, cutting AVR funding produces a net negative at the ballot box. For members across the political spectrum, voting to cut this program carries more electoral risk than reward.

Opposition arguments do not reach majority persuasion

The strongest critique of AVR – “without serious consequences, people will just come back” – finds 46% convinced and 48% unconvinced. The argument that paying people to leave rewards illegal behavior convinces 41%, with 54% unpersuaded. The “too soft” enforcement argument convinces just 35%, with 59% finding it unconvincing. None of the three opposition messages reaches a majority. The recidivism concern is the closest to competitive and the one most worth monitoring. The data suggests, even when critics make their strongest case against the program, it does not move a majority of voters.