How do Border Patrol apprehension numbers differ from actual crossings under the Biden administration?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Border Patrol “apprehensions” count people Border Patrol detains between ports of entry; that number rose into the millions during the Biden years but is not the same as “actual crossings,” which also include gotaways, encounters at ports, expulsions and parole outcomes (FactCheck, AP, DHS) [1] [2] [3]. Public and political claims about large gaps — e.g., 1.5 million “gotaways” or an “85% release” rate — are drawn from different slices of CBP data and time periods and often conflate monthly, fiscal‑year or short‑term snapshots with cumulative totals [4] [1] [5].
1. What the official “apprehension” number actually measures
Apprehensions are the count of individuals Border Patrol detains between ports of entry; CBP’s monthly reports and DHS fact sheets repeatedly use that metric to describe enforcement workload and trends [3] [6]. FactCheck notes that reports of encounters include both Border Patrol apprehensions between ports and additional encounters at ports of entry, which creates differences in headline totals depending on the metric chosen [1].
2. Why “apprehensions” undercount total crossings
Border officials and some lawmakers distinguish “apprehensions” from other outcomes — notably “gotaways” (people detected by sensors or agents but not detained) and encounters at ports where different processes apply — so apprehensions do not equal all entries. Senator Cornyn’s office cites more than 1.5 million gotaways since 2021 to underline this gap; that figure is separate from Border Patrol arrest counts [4]. DHS also reports estimates of gotaways and describes them as a distinct measure from apprehensions [3].
3. How policy changes change the relationship between counts and reality
Policies such as Title 42, parole programs and temporary asylum limitations changed incentives and operational practices, which in turn changed how many repeat crossings, expulsions or releases showed up in apprehension statistics. A policy brief explains that Title 42 and other rules led to repeat crossing attempts that “inflated apprehension data” during its tenure; the Bipartisan Policy Center frames these effects as an expected outcome of shifting policy [7]. DHS and AP also attribute sharp month‑to‑month swings to proclamations and rules that affected asylum processing and removals [3] [2].
4. The politics of cherry‑picked snapshots: the 85% and the “millions”
Republican briefings and some fact sheets cite large percentages and dramatic monthly drops — for example, a House Homeland Security release highlighting an “85% decrease” in Border Patrol apprehensions for a particular month — but FactCheck and PBS caution such figures often represent one month or short windows rather than the full Biden term average [5] [1] [8]. Likewise, claims of “7.8 million illegal crossings” or massive gotaway totals rely on cumulative encounter definitions that mix apprehensions, expulsions and port encounters; the underlying CBP categories matter and are used selectively in partisan messaging [4] [1].
5. What the lifecycle numbers leave out and why that matters
Initial CBP dispositions (apprehend/release/expel) do not reveal long‑term outcomes — asylum adjudications or final removals can take years — and DHS lifecycle reports are infrequent. FactCheck highlights that while DHS reported a high share of Border Patrol releases for certain months after Title 42 ended, lifecycle reports that show final legal outcomes are dated and incomplete, so short‑term apprehension release rates do not map cleanly to ultimate immigration outcomes [1].
6. Competing narratives and their agendas
Federal agencies under different administrations frame the same data to support policy claims: DHS and the White House highlight reduced encounters and gotaways as evidence of successful measures [3] [9], while Republican committees and lawmakers emphasize large cumulative totals and “gotways” to argue enforcement failures under Biden [5] [4]. Independent outlets like FactCheck and PBS urge caution, showing both that short‑term drops occurred and that longer trends and differing metrics complicate direct comparisons [1] [8].
7. Bottom line for readers: compare apples to apples
To understand the gap between Border Patrol apprehensions and “actual crossings,” demand clarity on definitions (apprehensions vs. encounters vs. gotaways vs. port encounters), the time window used, and the policy context that may produce repeats or expulsions. Current reporting shows large differences driven by those definitional choices and by policy shifts [1] [7] [3]. Available sources do not mention a single, definitive count that reconciles every metric across every month of the Biden administration; analysts must select the specific CBP category and timeframe they intend to describe [1] [4].