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: Did Biden “open” the borders?
Executive Summary
President Biden implemented a series of policy reversals and changes to Trump-era immigration rules early in his term — notably halting some deportations, ending the "Remain in Mexico" program, and rescinding restrictions on presenting at ports of entry — but those moves do not equate to an unregulated or permanently "open" border; federal data for fiscal year 2025 shows Southwest Border apprehensions fell to their lowest level since 1970 [1] [2] [3]. Critics and supporters interpret the same policy shifts differently, while subsequent administrative actions and migration trends have reshaped outcomes over time [4] [5].
1. What people mean when they claim “Biden opened the borders” — policy changes that altered enforcement posture
The assertion that Biden “opened” the borders typically rests on early executive actions that reversed or paused Trump-era measures: the administration halted certain deportations, stopped new enrollments in the Migrant Protection Protocols (the “Remain in Mexico” program), and rescinded a policy that limited asylum seekers presenting at ports of entry [1] [2] [6]. Those administrative reversals signaled a different enforcement posture and created pathways for some migrants to pursue asylum hearings in the United States rather than waiting in Mexico, which opponents framed as a de facto invitation or laxity and supporters described as restoring access to asylum [2] [6].
2. The data story: arrivals and apprehensions do not show a sustained surge by 2025
Federal statistics published in October 2025 show Southwest Border apprehensions dropped to about 237,565 in fiscal year 2025 — the lowest since 1970, directly challenging the simple claim that borders were opened and overwhelmed [3] [7]. Internal federal numbers mirrored that finding, reporting illegal crossings at the lowest annual level in decades [5]. Those figures indicate that, regardless of early policy changes, the net result by FY2025 was a substantial reduction in border encounters compared with peak years earlier in the Biden presidency and the Trump era.
3. Why policy changes may not directly map to immediate migration flows
Migration flows respond to multiple factors beyond U.S. executive actions: regional economic conditions, violence in origin countries, seasonal patterns, international cooperation, litigation that affected policy rollouts, and border enforcement capacity all influence crossings [4]. The Biden administration’s initial reversals were sometimes constrained by court rulings or implementation hurdles, and later policy adjustments, diplomatic efforts, and operational changes affected deterrence and processing outcomes. This complexity undermines causal simplifications that tie a single set of administrative steps to long-term border trends [4] [6].
4. Political narratives: opponents and proponents use the same facts differently
Conservative critics framed reversals of Trump-era measures as evidence of an “open borders” approach, emphasizing short-term increases in encounters during parts of 2021–2022 and portraying administrative changes as incentives for migration [1]. Progressive advocates countered that rescinding policies like MPP restored access to asylum and lawful processing, noting humanitarian and legal obligations [2] [6]. Independent analysts and reporting in later years pointed to mixed outcomes — policy intent differed from operational reality — creating space for competing political narratives [4].
5. Administrative relief and selective protections complicate the picture
Beyond border enforcement, the administration adopted measures granting relief to specific groups — such as relief for undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens and expanded routes for DACA beneficiaries and other long-standing residents — which critics tied to broader claims about lax immigration policy while proponents labeled them targeted humanitarian or economic measures [8]. These legal relief programs affect internal immigration status and workforce integration more than immediate border control, and they illustrate how policy aimed at long-term legal status can be conflated with border enforcement debates [8].
6. Recent official assessments and why they matter for the “opened borders” claim
The Department of Homeland Security’s October 2025 reporting and corroborating media accounts showing the lowest apprehension totals in over 50 years are pivotal in evaluating the claim [3] [7]. Those data points demonstrate that the raw metric most often cited to indicate an “open” border — volume of unlawful crossings or apprehensions — does not support the idea of an ongoing, large-scale opening by 2025. However, statistical declines do not erase earlier operational stresses or political perceptions that shaped the debate in earlier years [5] [4].
7. Bottom line: the claim is an oversimplification that omits context
Saying Biden “opened” the borders compresses a multi-year sequence of legal decisions, policy reversals, operational constraints, international dynamics, and later declines in apprehensions into a single causal claim. Concrete policy steps relaxed certain Trump-era limits and expanded some lawful pathways, but by FY2025 the empirical measure of Southwest Border apprehensions reached historic lows, contradicting the straightforward narrative of an open, uncontrolled border [2] [3]. The truth requires recognizing policy changes, intermediate pressures, and eventual statistical outcomes together, rather than relying on a binary slogan.