Were violent criminals not deported under Biden
Executive summary
The claim that "violent criminals were not deported under Biden" is a simplification that conflicts with competing facts: congressional Republican reports and hearings argue the administration’s policies led to many criminal noncitizens remaining free [1] [2], while independent analyses and agency reporting show the Biden years included large numbers of removals and a stated enforcement priority on violent and national-security threats [3] [4]. Available public sources document policy changes that narrowed interior enforcement priorities and a contested political narrative about whether those changes reduced deportations of violent offenders [5] [6].
1. The accusation from Republican oversight: large numbers of criminal aliens allegedly left in the community
House Republican hearings and staff reports presented by oversight and judiciary committees argue the Biden administration’s border and enforcement policies have resulted in “criminal illegal aliens” remaining in U.S. communities and described catch-and-release, parole programs, and training materials that they say constrained ICE operations [1] [7] [2] [8]. Those GOP reports use anecdotal county testimony and internal materials to assert both operational impacts—such as local sheriffs describing persons with detainers and violent offenses—and program-level critiques of parole and alternatives to detention [1] [2] [8].
2. The administration’s rules and stated priorities: targeting serious criminals, narrowing of focus
The Biden administration implemented new DHS/ICE guidance early in the presidency to focus enforcement on national-security threats and serious violent felonies while deprioritizing many lower-level offenses, a shift summarized in government guidance and secondary sources noting restrictions on pursuing removals for certain nonviolent offenses [5] [6]. Biden-era memoranda also proposed a temporary moratorium and a focus on those entering after a set date and on certain felonies—though the 100-day moratorium was legally blocked and never fully implemented [6].
3. Data complicates the narrative: removals, expulsions and records showing significant numbers deported
Independent migration analysts and reporting show the Biden years included large numbers of removals, returns and expulsions—Migration Policy Center reported billions of combined removals/returns approaching or exceeding recent administrations’ totals and described deportation plus expulsion activity that made Biden-era repatriations among the highest in recent decades [3]. El País and ICE data cited by press accounts also indicate hundreds of thousands of deportations in FY2024, with a substantial share having criminal records including violent offenses, which contradicts blanket claims that violent criminals were simply not removed [4].
4. Conflicting fact-checks and partisan framing: metrics and motives matter
Several advocacy and policy outlets have sharply contested headline claims on both sides: some conservative analysts argue arrests and deportations of criminal aliens fell dramatically under Biden [9], while analyses from think tanks and media have found more nuanced or opposite outcomes—e.g., Cato and Newsweek highlighting that release of noncitizens with criminal records occurred under prior administrations as well and that counts depend on definitions and time frames [10]. Oversight reports from House Republicans have clear political aims to press the administration on border policy, while DHS and migration policy researchers emphasize legal constraints, court rulings, and diplomatic repatriation arrangements that affect removal numbers [1] [6] [3].
5. Bottom line and limits of reporting
The best-supported conclusion in public reporting is that the Biden administration both narrowed interior enforcement priorities to emphasize serious violent and national-security threats and presided over very large numbers of removals, expulsions, and returns—so the blanket statement that violent criminals were not deported is false as an absolute claim, but concerns raised by congressional Republican reports reflect real operational debates about catch-and-release, parole, alternatives to detention, and capacity constraints that affected who was detained and removed [5] [3] [2] [4]. Public sources do not produce a single uncontested tally that proves either the maximal GOP contention (that violent criminals broadly roamed free by design) or the maximal defense (that enforcement always prioritized violent offenders); available evidence instead shows mixed outcomes shaped by policy choices, legal challenges, and logistical limits [6] [3].