Fact check: How has the Biden administration changed the Trump-era 'Remain in Mexico' policy?

1. Summary of the results

The Biden administration definitively ended the Trump-era 'Remain in Mexico' policy (officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols) in August 2022 ^[1]. This termination came after a complex legal battle that involved multiple court rulings and policy reversals.

The timeline shows that Biden initially attempted to end the policy upon taking office, but faced significant legal challenges. A federal judge in Texas blocked the administration's attempt to terminate the program, citing concerns that officials had not adequately considered the policy's deterrent effect on illegal border crossings ^[2]. This ruling was celebrated by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt ^[2].

However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled 5-4 in favor of the Biden administration, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing that a lower court had overreached in requiring the policy to remain in place ^[3]. This Supreme Court decision gave the administration the legal authority to terminate the program ^[4].

Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Department of Homeland Security stated that the program had "endemic flaws" and imposed "unjustifiable human costs" on asylum-seekers, announcing it would be unwound in a "quick and orderly manner" with no new enrollments ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important contextual elements missing from the original question:

• Scale of the original program: Under the Trump administration, the policy was used aggressively, with nearly 70,000 people sent back to Mexico ^[4]
• Replacement policies: While Biden ended 'Remain in Mexico,' his administration implemented other restrictive border policies, including the "Asylum Ban" that similarly limits access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border ^{[5] [6]}
• Humanitarian concerns: Immigration advocates consistently criticized the policy for exposing migrants to violence and making access to attorneys more difficult ^{[4] [3]}
• Political beneficiaries: The legal challenges were primarily driven by Republican state attorneys general who benefited politically from opposing Biden's immigration policies, while immigration advocacy organizations like the National Immigrant Justice Center benefited from the policy's termination ^[5]
• Continued restrictions: Despite ending 'Remain in Mexico,' critics argue that Biden's other policies, including Title 42 usage, have maintained effective barriers to asylum access ^[6]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation, as it simply asks for factual information about policy changes. However, the question's framing could lead to incomplete understanding by focusing solely on one policy without acknowledging that:

• The Biden administration replaced 'Remain in Mexico' with other restrictive measures rather than simply opening asylum access ^{[7] [8]}
• The policy change involved significant legal complexity and was not a straightforward administrative decision ^{[9] [2]}
• Immigration advocacy groups argue that the overall effect on asylum seekers remains restrictive despite the specific policy termination ^[8]

The question's neutral framing avoids bias, but a complete answer requires understanding that ending one restrictive policy does not necessarily indicate a comprehensive shift toward more permissive immigration enforcement.