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: How does the Biden administration's border policy compare to Trump's?
Executive Summary
The Biden and Trump administrations pursued distinctly different approaches to border policy, with Biden emphasizing processing, legal pathways, and selective enforcement while Trump prioritized physical barriers, expansive removals, and operational restrictions like "Remain in Mexico." Contemporary claims about which administration produced lower unlawful crossings or the "most secure" border are contested and rely on differing metrics and timeframes; both administrations report achievements framed to support their policy agendas [1] [2] [3] [4]. A careful comparison requires attention to definitions—apprehensions, encounters, returns versus formal removals—and to political framing in each source [5] [6].
1. How each administration framed success: walls, removals and processing
The Trump administration framed success largely through infrastructure and enforcement outputs: rapid construction of wall segments, expanded interior enforcement, and claims of record deportations or secure borders [1] [7] [4]. The Biden administration framed success around processing and legal pathways, emphasizing asylum processing, reducing encounters through policy changes, and targeted removals focused on recent arrivals and public-safety risks [1] [2] [5]. These framing choices shape the metrics each side highlights—physical barriers and removal counts for Trump versus encounter rates and programmatic changes for Biden—producing differing public narratives about which approach “works.”
2. Deportation and removal counts: numbers that tell different stories
Deportation tallies are a central point of contrast: analyses indicate the Biden administration’s deportation record has approached or matched Trump-era levels in raw totals, with over 1.1 million removals since FY2021 and emphasis on returns versus formal removal orders [2]. The Trump-era analyses emphasize increases in arrests and removals as well, and note program changes like ending certain parole apps or reinstating "Remain in Mexico" that affected asylum flows [7]. These figures mix formal removals with voluntary returns and operational expulsions, so comparing totals without harmonized definitions can mislead [2] [7].
3. Border crossings and encounters: contested metrics and timelines
Recent reporting shows competing claims: one dataset attributes a plummet to the lowest annual unlawful crossings since 1970 under the post-Trump period with 238,000 apprehensions in FY2025, presented in support of Trump-era enforcement narratives; other sources cite Biden administration claims of significant declines in between-port encounters and unprecedented DHS actions to secure the border [3] [5]. These statements conflict because they use different metrics, reference different fiscal years, and reflect political timing—underscoring that a headline number (apprehensions, encounters, or lowest level) depends on the period and metric selected [3] [5].
4. Policy changes that reshape migration flows: Remain in Mexico, app-based entry, and returns
Operational policies such as "Remain in Mexico" reinstatement, termination of speculative parole apps, and expanded use of returns materially altered where and how asylum seekers seek entry and processing, with Trump-era moves increasing out-of-country processing and waits, while Biden emphasized processing capacity and selective enforcement [7] [1] [2]. The practical effect on flows is complicated: policy shifts can reduce reported encounters in one segment while displacing crossings or changing legal outcomes elsewhere, so reductions in some measures may reflect procedural changes rather than absolute migration declines [7] [5].
5. Political messaging versus operational outcomes: who benefits from which claim?
Both administrations have incentives to present data that validates their chosen tools: Trump-era statements tout “most secure border in history” and record-setting CBP months to legitimize hardline measures, while Biden’s DHS emphasizes declines in encounters and expanded legal pathways to justify a rules-and-processing approach [4] [5]. Independent analyses note that economic and policy projections—such as modeled impacts of Trump's immigration proposals on the workforce and GDP—are invoked by opponents to argue long-term costs, showing how data and forecasts feed partisan narratives [6] [1].
6. What’s missing from the public debate: harmonized metrics and human outcomes
Public claims often omit unified definitions and downstream impacts: few comparisons reconcile formal removals versus voluntary returns, encounters versus apprehensions, or short-term operational wins versus longer-term economic and humanitarian outcomes. The sources highlight removals, apprehensions, or policy shifts, but provide limited integrated analysis of labor-market effects, court backlogs, or asylum adjudication outcomes, meaning policymakers and observers lack a single apples-to-apples accounting to determine which approach yields better security, legality, or economic results [2] [6].
7. Bottom line for readers: interpret claims cautiously and look for method details
When comparing the Biden and Trump border approaches, the essential fact is that both administrations achieved measures they could tout while producing contested numbers that depend on definitions and timing. Assessments that assert definitive superiority of one approach over the other without clarifying metrics, timeframes, and whether counts are returns versus formal removals are incomplete [3] [5] [2]. Readers should prioritize sources that disclose methods, reconcile categories, and report both short-term enforcement metrics and longer-term legal and economic consequences to reach a balanced judgment [1] [6].