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.
Did U.S. Customs and Border Protection change its encounter counting methodology in 2025?
Executive Summary
CBP’s official public documentation and datasets reviewed do not explicitly state that the agency changed its encounter counting methodology in 2025. Public CBP pages note that data are subject to corrections, systems changes, or definition changes, and independent reporting documents a sharp decline in 2025 encounters without a confirmed methodology revision [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why the question matters: a steep drop that invited scrutiny
A precipitous fall in reported encounters in mid‑2025—monthly totals described as historic lows—prompted scrutiny over whether the decline reflected real enforcement changes or an accounting shift. CBP reported nationwide encounter totals in May–July 2025 that were far lower than the prior year, including a 93% decrease along the southwest border in May compared with May 2024 and historically low nationwide monthly totals in June and July 2025 [3] [4]. Large swings in headline counts naturally raise questions about data methodology because the same numbers inform policy debates, media narratives, and congressional oversight. The raw reports themselves do not attribute the decline to a deliberate counting rule change, leaving a gap between observed data patterns and explanatory text [3] [4].
2. What CBP’s public documentation actually says about methodology
CBP’s public pages define encounter categories—Title 8 Apprehensions, Title 8 Inadmissibles, and Title 42 Expulsions—and state that the statistics are extracted from live systems and are “subject to change due to corrections, systems changes, change in data definition, additional information, or encounters pending final review.” Those pages include data dictionaries and datasets for fiscal years through 2025 but do not publish a clear, dated announcement of a 2025 methodological change [1] [2]. CBP also notes that final statistics are posted after fiscal‑year closeouts and that filters to withhold law‑enforcement‑sensitive data have been modified; this language signals that reporting format and filters can evolve, but it is not an explicit confirmation of a counting methodology overhaul in 2025 [1] [2].
3. Independent reporting describes declines but stops short of proving a method change
News and nonprofit data summaries document dramatic declines in detected attempted crossings and encounters during mid‑2025—figures such as 4.6K attempts in July 2025 representing a 91.8% decline year‑over‑year—but these sources do not cite a CBP statement changing the counting rules [5]. Press releases and political statements highlighting historic lows emphasize the numbers themselves rather than methodological explanations, which leaves room for two competing interpretations: the decrease could be operational (fewer encounters) or partly administrative (reporting adjustments). No independent source in the provided set produced CBP internal documentation proving a 2025 redefinition of encounter counting, so the empirical claim remains unproven based on available materials [5].
4. Where ambiguity lives: system changes, filters, and pending corrections
CBP explicitly warns that statistics can change because of system updates, data corrections, or changes in definitions; it also acknowledges that modifications to data filters were made to prevent releasing law‑enforcement‑sensitive statistics [1] [2]. These admissions create a plausible mechanism by which published encounter totals might shift without a formal public “methodology change” announcement. That distinction is crucial: a behind‑the‑scenes systems tweak or new filtering protocol can alter reported totals without a labeled methodological revision, and CBP’s public pages leave open that possibility while not documenting any named 2025 policy to change counting rules [1] [2].
5. Political and interpretive lenses: how actors use the ambiguity
Political actors and agency spokespeople often emphasize numbers that support policy arguments; press releases celebrating historic lows may implicitly link the data to policy successes while avoiding technical explanations [4]. Conversely, researchers and journalists raise the possibility of reporting artifacts when numbers shift suddenly. The available materials reflect both tendencies: administrative language that preserves flexibility about data reporting (CBP) sits alongside partisan and public narratives that treat the counts as definitive indicators. That divergence underscores why independent forensic documentation or a formal CBP methodological notice would be required to settle debates [4] [2].
6. Bottom line and what would close the question
Based on the reviewed CBP pages and contemporaneous reporting through October 2025, there is no explicit public statement from CBP confirming a deliberate change in encounter counting methodology in 2025; the agency’s documentation states encounter totals may vary because of system or definition changes but stops short of saying a 2025 methodological revision occurred [1] [2]. To decisively answer the claim would require one of three things: a formal CBP memo or public notice dated in 2025 announcing a definitional or counting change; internal data‑release notes showing retroactive application of a new filter or rule; or an authoritative audit from an independent oversight body. Absent such direct evidence in the reviewed sources, the claim that CBP changed its counting methodology in 2025 is unproven by the public materials available [1] [2] [3].