Which federal administrations have expanded criminal prosecutions for entry-related immigration offenses and with what impacts?
Executive summary
Three distinct federal turns — the Bush-era Operation Streamline launch in 2005, the Trump administration’s 2017–2018 prosecutorial push, and more recent surges under both the Biden years (as Title 42 unwound) and the 2025 Trump administration — account for the major expansions of criminal prosecutions for entry-related immigration offenses; those shifts moved large numbers of people from administrative immigration processes into the criminal courts, swelled convictions and incarceration of noncitizens, and realigned federal resources to sustain higher caseloads [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The Bush-era pivot: Operation Streamline and the creation of a prosecution pipeline
Operation Streamline, begun in 2005, systematically referred large numbers of people apprehended at the Southwest border into criminal court, producing a sustained rise in entry-related prosecutions and helping to reshape the undocumented population in federal custody by moving cases out of administrative removal and into the criminal justice system [1] [3].
2. Obama-era nuance: continued high prosecution levels but a gradual re-prioritization
Across the Obama years prosecutions remained elevated compared with pre‑2005 levels, but DOJ priorities shifted over time — particularly after 2014 — toward targeting noncitizens who posed public‑safety risks, a change that reduced the emphasis on mass misdemeanor entry prosecutions even as the institutional machinery set up earlier persisted [5] [3].
3. Trump I: an explicit Attorney General directive that re‑accelerated entry prosecutions
In April 2017 Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered federal prosecutors to prioritize entry‑related prosecutions, and the Government Accountability Office documented a marked increase in such cases in 2017–2018 with southwest border U.S. Attorney’s Offices adopting misdemeanor improper‑entry priorities and federal actors realigning personnel and space to handle the surge [6] [2].
4. The pandemic interlude: Title 42, suppressed filings, and a pent‑up caseload
The COVID‑era Title 42 expulsions, adopted during the Trump administration and continued into the Biden years, meant many migrants were turned away administratively rather than funneled into criminal court — driving immigration prosecutions down to historic lows while removing people from the criminal prosecution pipeline [4] [7].
5. Biden-era prosecutions: high volumes, deterrence framing, and documented harms
Despite Title 42’s dampening effect earlier in the Biden term, DOJ under Biden prosecuted tens of thousands for unlawful reentry and unlawful entry in FY2021–FY2022, with immigration offenses comprising a large share of federal prosecutions (e.g., 34 percent of district court prosecutions in FY2021 per one NGO fact sheet), and advocacy groups warn the strategy is framed as deterrence but causes widespread harms, racial and ethnic disparities, and substantial fiscal costs [8] [6].
6. Trump 2.0 and 2025: executive directives and another push to prioritize criminal enforcement
The January 2025 executive order and related administration statements explicitly directed DHS and DOJ to prioritize criminal prosecutions of unauthorized entry and to rebuild enforcement capacities, and independent trackers recorded a sharp jump in filings for illegal entry (8 U.S.C. 1325) in early 2025 — including a near‑doubling of suits filed in March 2025 versus February and immigration convictions making up over half of federal convictions that month — signaling renewed emphasis on misdemeanor entry prosecutions [9] [4].
7. Tangible impacts: convictions, incarceration, costs, and institutional realignment
The cumulative effect of these policy turns has been measurable: surges in convictions and guilty pleas for entry offenses; larger numbers of noncitizens processed through federal criminal courts and into prisons; large fiscal and logistical investments (e.g., reassignment of U.S. Marshals, courtroom space); and a prosecution pipeline that scholars and advocates link to increased federal incarceration of migrants rather than administrative removal, with Operation Streamline and later priorities repeatedly identified as drivers of those outcomes [3] [2] [5].
8. What the sources do—and don’t—conclusively show
Government reports, academic reviews, and NGO analyses converge on when priorities changed and how filings rose or fell, but source material here does not fully settle questions about deterrence effectiveness, long‑term impacts on migration flows, or detailed demographic outcomes beyond broad warnings of disparate harms; those remain areas where additional, disaggregated DOJ and DHS data and peer‑reviewed studies are needed [2] [8] [3].