Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Southern border biden administration
Executive Summary
The competing claims about the Biden administration and the southern border center on two measurable assertions: the scale of encounters at the border since 2021 and whether border conditions indicate improving security. Public data cited here show large totals of encounters during the Biden presidency but also CBP reports of recent decreases in apprehensions and higher drug seizures; interpretations differ depending on which statistics and timeframes are emphasized [1] [2] [3]. Below is a point-by-point, multi-source comparison of the central claims, timelines, and possible agendas in play.
1. “Record-high encounters” — what the numbers actually show and whose math is being used
Official CBP encounter data compiled and cited here report millions of encounters under the Biden administration, with figures such as about 2.9 million in fiscal 2024 and a cumulative total since 2021 measured in the low millions to roughly 10.5–14 million depending on inclusion criteria [1] [2] [4]. These numbers reflect encounters processed by CBP and generally exclude “gotaways” and inadmissibles released without formal processing; methodological differences drive large variations in the headline totals. That variance explains competing claims that the Biden era is either the second-highest or highest in U.S. history, depending on which dataset and definitions are used [1] [4].
2. “Border is most secure” — agency statements versus longer trends
Recent CBP press releases cited here assert declines in apprehensions and increases in drug seizures, language that some officials frame as evidence the border is becoming more secure [3] [5]. However, these monthly operational statistics are snapshots that can reflect seasonal shifts, enforcement changes, or policy tools like Title 42 or parole programs. The CBP statements do not alone establish causality between the administration’s policies and observed short-term declines; short-term operational improvements can coexist with historically large cumulative encounter totals, creating conflicting narratives [3].
3. Policy changes and administrative actions — reversing prior rules and new guidance
The Congressional Research Service and summary accounts document that the Biden administration reversed several Trump-era immigration policies and issued new ICE guidelines and legislative proposals such as the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 [6] [7]. Those administrative actions represent clear shifts in enforcement priorities and legal approaches but do not directly quantify enforcement outcomes at the border. Analysts must distinguish policy intent and legal changes from operational metrics like monthly apprehensions or drug interdictions, because policy changes often influence long-term flows and enforcement behavior in complex, lagged ways [6] [7].
4. Drug seizures and security framing — what the seizures mean
CBP updates highlighted an increase in fentanyl and other illicit drug seizures alongside reported drops in crossings [3]. Increased seizures can indicate enhanced interdiction or changing smuggler tactics, rather than a simple improvement in underlying border security. Agencies and advocates on both sides use seizure figures strategically: proponents present higher seizures as proof of active enforcement, while critics note that rising seizures can signal larger volumes of contraband reaching the border. The data here show seizure increases but do not alone resolve whether overall border conditions are improving or worsening [3].
5. Competing totals and political framing — whose figures get promoted
Different outlets and actors cited in these summaries emphasize different totals: CBP operational reports and The Center Square recited much larger cumulative totals, with estimates ranging from 10.5 million to roughly 14 million for encounters under Biden [2] [4]. These divergent figures reflect selective emphasis—for example, counting every processed encounter versus aggregating distinct individuals, or including versus excluding certain categories like gotaways. Political actors often present the version that best supports their agenda: critics highlight cumulative records, while defenders emphasize recent monthly declines and enforcement wins [4] [3].
6. Timing and source provenance — pay attention to who issues the claim and when
Several CBP statements in the dataset are dated in 2025 and are described as coming from different administrations or contexts; one release attributed “most secure in history” language appears tied to the Trump administration’s messaging rather than the Biden team [5] [3]. Timing and the issuing authority matter: agency statistics can be reused by succeeding administrations for political narratives, and press releases can reflect short-term operational data rather than long-term assessments. Comparing dates and authorship is essential to understand whether a claim is contemporaneous with the Biden administration’s policy choices [5] [3].
7. Bottom line: what is supported by these sources and what remains unsettled
The sources here collectively establish that encounters along the southern border have been historically large during the Biden administration and that CBP reported recent monthly declines in apprehensions and increased drug seizures, creating mixed signals [1] [2] [3]. What remains unsettled is the causal link between administration policies and these trends, the treatment of categories like gotaways in headline totals, and the extent to which short-term month-to-month changes reflect durable improvements versus cyclical variation. Policymakers and observers should cite both cumulative and short-term metrics and clarify definitions to avoid misleading comparisons [3] [4].