MAGA Burgers and Immigration Battles: The Case of Roland Beainy
A Texas burger joint decked out in MAGA memorabilia might seem like a harmless expression of political fandom—but for Roland Beainy, the owner, it has become a focal point of a very different controversy.
At 28, the Lebanese-born entrepreneur is now facing deportation, raising questions about whether patriotism—or even business branding—offers any protection under U.S. immigration law.
Beainy launched his first Trump Burger location in Bellville in 2020, eventually expanding to several outlets. His restaurants, entirely independent of former President Donald Trump, feature items like the “Trump Burger”—an eight-ounce Angus patty layered with lettuce, tomato, pickles, two slices of American cheese, mayonnaise, and signature barbecue sauce—and the larger “Trump Tower.”
The walls are adorned with Trump photos, flags, and MAGA-themed decor, creating a dining experience steeped in political nostalgia.
Despite his public support for Trump, Beainy was arrested in May for overstaying his visa. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), “Roland Mehrez Beainy does not have any immigration benefits preventing his arrest or removal from the United States.” ICE stated that he entered the country as a non-immigrant visitor in 2019 and failed to depart by February 2024.
Following his arrest on May 16, 2025, Beainy was placed into removal proceedings, though an immigration judge granted him bond on June 13 while his case moves forward. ICE emphasized that enforcement applies uniformly, irrespective of political leanings or business ownership.
Adding to his legal challenges, Beainy faces allegations of immigration fraud. Authorities claim he attempted to gain legal status through a marriage that USCIS later determined to be fraudulent, citing admissions from family members that the couple never lived together.
Previous claims of illegal marriages and an assault charge further complicate his case. While Beainy has largely refrained from public comment due to legal counsel, he maintains, “90 percent of the stuff they’re saying is not true.” His next immigration hearing is scheduled for November 18.
Conclusion
Roland Beainy’s situation illustrates the intersection of high-profile entrepreneurship, political branding, and the rigor of U.S. immigration law.
No amount of patriotic decor or public admiration shields someone from legal scrutiny. As Beainy awaits his hearing, his case spotlights ongoing debates around immigration enforcement, fraud, and the limits of personal and political expression in the eyes of the law.