Was there ever an open border policy under the biden administration?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Claims that the Biden administration pursued an explicit “open border” policy are common in Republican reports and statements; congressional Republican resolutions and committee materials repeatedly label Biden’s immigration approach “open borders” [1] [2]. Federal actions under Biden included rolling back some Trump-era policies, keeping others like Title 42 longer than expected, creating humanitarian parole programs and parole/legal pathways, and issuing presidential proclamations that temporarily suspended or limited entry at the southern border — all of which complicate a simple “open borders” label [3] [4] [5].
1. What advocates mean when they say “open border” — political messaging, not a statutory program
Republican committees, state attorneys general and conservative lawmakers use “open border” as a political shorthand to describe a set of Biden administration decisions they say reduced enforcement, ended certain Trump-era programs, and expanded parole and humanitarian pathways; examples include H.Res.957 and numerous House hearings calling administration policies “open borders” [1] [2]. Those sources frame the term as an indictment of policy choices — not citation of a single executive order or statute formally titled “Open Border Policy” [1] [2].
2. What the administration actually changed: terminations, reversals and new pathways
Early in the administration, Biden halted construction of parts of the border wall and reversed or sought to terminate several Trump-era programs (including some Migrant Protection Protocols and changes to asylum cooperative agreements), while keeping Title 42 in place longer than critics wanted and later creating parole programs and humanitarian admissions — concrete policy shifts that critics say produced higher arrivals [3] [4]. The administration also announced parole and safe-mobility initiatives that expand legal pathways for certain nationalities — measures which Republican critics say “sidestep” the southwest border [6] [4].
3. Enforcement actions and limits: the record shows both restrictions and new limits
The Department of Homeland Security under Biden announced restrictions on some entries via Presidential Proclamation 10773 and regulations that “temporarily suspend and limit the entry of certain noncitizens at the southern border,” indicating the administration used exclusionary authority as well as parole and alternative pathways [5]. Independent analysts note Biden relied on Title 42 longer than initially signaled and faced legal hurdles when attempting to lift it, undermining any claim of a blanket open-door policy [3].
4. Political and legal framing from Republican officials and states
State attorneys general and congressional Republicans repeatedly describe Biden’s policies as “open borders,” mounting lawsuits and public campaigns against parole rules, asylum presumptions, and what they call releases without firm court dates [7] [8]. Those materials assert administration choices amount to mass release and weakened interior enforcement; they present these as policy failures rather than a single named program [7] [8].
5. Fact-checking and alternative views: not a single “open borders” directive
Fact-checkers and some reporters caution there is no single Biden executive order that declares the United States an “open border.” For example, verification reporting has concluded the administration does not have a formally stated “open-border policy” even while noting policy changes and enforcement choices that critics cite [9]. Academic and policy overviews place Biden’s record as a mix of restoring different priorities and responding to global migration pressures rather than an intentional abolition of border controls [3] [4].
6. How to reconcile the disagreement: policy complexity and political motive
The disagreement rests on scope and intent: critics (House committees, state AG offices, senators) portray the cumulative effects of policy reversals, parole programs and releases as an “open borders” crisis with national-security and fiscal frames [2] [10] [11]. Defenders and neutral analyses point to concrete enforcement tools used by the administration — Title 42 reliance, presidential proclamations, and legal channels — and emphasize global migration drivers beyond U.S. control [5] [3] [4]. This pattern suggests political messaging and litigation are important motives shaping whether observers call the situation “open borders” [1] [7].
7. Limitations of current reporting and what’s not in these sources
Available sources show strong partisan claims and documented policy shifts; they do not present a single, legally promulgated “Open Border” order from the Biden White House [1] [9]. Several sources assert statistics (e.g., millions of encounters or releases) but full independent empirical context on net migration flows, adjudication rates, or internal DHS implementation metrics are not contained in the materials provided here [4] [3]. Not found in current reporting: definitive, neutral government language describing an “open border policy” as a named administration objective [9].
Bottom line: Republicans and state officials consistently label Biden’s cumulative immigration changes “open borders” and litigate on that premise [1] [7]. Available government records and neutral analyses show the administration both loosened some Trump-era measures and used exclusionary tools such as Presidential Proclamation 10773 and Title 42, producing a complex record that does not map onto a single, formal “open border” directive [5] [3] [9].