How does Joe Biden's deportation policy compare to Donald Trump's?
Executive summary
Migration-policy researchers and data trackers report that Biden-era deportations were roughly comparable in scale to those under Trump in earlier years, while independent counts find Trump’s second-term enforcement ramped up sharply and sought faster, broader removal tools (e.g., expedited “fast‑track” removals), though courts and data transparency questions complicate direct comparisons [1] [2] [3]. Analyses differ on who is being targeted (criminal histories vs. broader interior enforcement) and on the reliability of administration claims because DHS reporting practices changed under Trump 2.0 [2] [4] [5].
1. The headline numbers: similar totals, contested daily rates
Migration Policy Institute reporting finds that the Biden administration “is on track to carry out as many removals and returns as the Trump administration did,” emphasizing comparable overall volumes while noting policy differences [1]. TRAC’s analysis argues that, on an apples‑to‑apples basis, Trump’s average daily removals in early 2025 were only slightly below Biden’s—sometimes about 1–10% lower depending on period and method—casting doubt on claims that one president has clearly “won” the deportation totals race [2] [6]. These conflicting reads highlight that totals depend heavily on the time window, fiscal‑year boundaries, and whether “removals,” “repatriations,” or voluntary departures are counted [2] [6].
2. Policy approach: rescind, restore, and expand enforcement tools
Both administrations used aggressive tools, but their emphases differ. Biden tightened asylum and border rules in 2024–25 with proclamations and regulatory restrictions intended to reduce arrivals and speed case processing [1]. Trump’s second term has sought to reinstate and expand policies from his first term—such as “Remain in Mexico”—and to add new measures for expedited interior removals and broad interior enforcement, aiming for much larger deportation goals [7] [5]. Courts have already checked at least one significant Trump expansion: a D.C. Circuit panel refused to greenlight extending a 2019‑style fast‑track deportation process nationwide because of due‑process risks [3].
3. Fast‑track removals and due‑process debates
The Trump administration attempted to expand “fast‑track” expedited removals beyond border areas to the U.S. interior; the appeals court decision cited risks of “erroneous summary removal” and left in place a lower-court ruling blocking that expansion [3]. Migration Policy and civil‑liberties groups warn that such expansions—if fully implemented—would materially change who faces quick removal and reduce legal safeguards, while proponents argue swift removals deter irregular migration and speed enforcement [3] [5].
4. Who is being deported: criminality, detention, and selection
Right‑leaning and administration statements emphasize that a large share of recent arrests and removals involve people with criminal histories (White House claims and CIS analysis), while migration researchers and advocates note that broader interior enforcement and changes to prosecutorial discretion under Trump 2.0 mean many more non‑criminal or administrative immigration cases can be prioritized for removal [7] [4] [5]. MPI’s FY2025 snapshot found enforcement shifts: a much higher share of those held in ICE detention were removed directly from detention under Trump’s second term than at the end of Biden’s—suggesting tougher detention‑to‑removal practices [5].
5. Transparency and data disputes shape the narrative
Multiple analysts warn that changes in DHS reporting practices under the Trump administration make independent verification difficult. News outlets and MPI note that DHS stopped publishing some detailed ICE/CBP tables after late‑2024, so outside analysts rely on intermittent releases and FOIA requests to assess claims [8] [5]. TRAC explicitly critiques administration announcements that “surpassed” prior years as inconsistent with public data, urging scrutiny of claims about arrests and removals [6] [2].
6. Legal and geopolitical consequences: third‑country removals and litigation
Reporting indicates new tactics—like negotiating third‑country acceptances for deportees—have raised diplomatic and human‑rights concerns, with The Washington Post documenting removals to countries not of origin [9]. At the same time, litigation is a constant check: courts enjoined portions of both administrations’ restrictive asylum rules at different times, and judges have blocked fast‑track expansions that threatened due process [3] [10].
Conclusion — what readers should take away
Available sources show that both administrations pursued robust deportation agendas but differed in tactics: Biden used regulatory asylum restrictions and contingency funding proposals to manage flows, while Trump has pursued larger-scale interior enforcement, detention‑to‑removal practices, and attempts to institutionalize expedited removals—efforts partly constrained by courts and hampered for independent assessment by reduced DHS data transparency [1] [5] [3] [2]. Readers should treat headline claims from any administration with caution and look to independent trackers like TRAC and Migration Policy for methodological context [2] [1].