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.
What role does the Department of Homeland Security play in enforcing Biden's border policies?
Executive summary
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implements and enforces core elements of President Biden’s border strategy — notably the June 2024 “Securing the Border” proclamation (212(f)) and accompanying DHS–DOJ rules that restrict asylum eligibility and temporarily limit entry at the southern border [1]. DHS also frames its own data and fact sheets to say those actions produced large declines in encounters (claims of >60% drop May–Dec 2024) and faster removals, while outside groups contest legal and humanitarian impacts [2] [3].
1. DHS is the executive arm that operationalizes the proclamation and asylum rules
When President Biden signed the June 3, 2024, proclamation “Securing the Border,” DHS was the agency charged with putting it into effect alongside a DHS–DOJ interim final rule that restricts asylum eligibility at the southern border; the proclamation and IFR took effect June 5, 2024, and explicitly limit entry with enumerated exceptions [1]. DHS components such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) carry out the on-the-ground work — screening, detention, processing, and removals — to enforce those legal instruments [1].
2. DHS claims the policy reduced unlawful crossings and sped removals — evidence it cites
DHS’s public materials assert measurable operational outcomes tied to these actions: the department’s fact sheet reports a more-than-60% decrease in encounters between ports of entry on the southwest border from May 2024 to December 2024 and says Border Patrol encounters in early January 2025 were nearly 50% lower than at the same point in January 2021; DHS also says removal times for individuals with final orders have been cut by more than half from historical averages [2]. Those are DHS’s self-reported metrics used to argue the proclamation and rule produced meaningful declines in irregular migration [2].
3. DHS enforces exceptions and processing rules that reshape asylum access
The proclamation and DHS–DOJ rule do not categorically bar all noncitizens; they suspend and limit entry with carve-outs for U.S. persons, visa holders, and people who meet certain criteria. The earlier May 2023 “Asylum Ban” and related policies create presumptions of asylum ineligibility for those who transited through other countries without seeking protection unless narrow exceptions apply — rules that DHS enforces through screening and the CBP One and related processes [1] [3]. These operational gates — appointments, expedited screenings, and presumptive ineligibility mechanics — are how DHS translates policy into who is permitted to remain, be processed, or be expelled [1] [3].
4. Humanitarian and legal critics say DHS actions restrict asylum and raise rights concerns
Advocacy groups such as the International Rescue Committee argue the administration’s June 2024 measures and the earlier “Asylum Ban” run contrary to U.S. and international asylum obligations and leave asylum-seekers “in limbo,” asserting the policies curtail legal access to protection [3]. Congressional critics and some House hearings likewise framed DHS enforcement under Biden as creating backlogs and humanitarian strain; a Republican-led subcommittee described “open border” policies as driving court and DHS backlogs in oversight materials [4] [5]. Available sources document these criticisms but do not settle the larger legal debates; legal challenges and Congressional oversight are part of the context [3] [4].
5. DHS messaging and partisan oversight shape public interpretation of outcomes
DHS’s own archived web pages and fact sheets present strong positive claims about results and reductions in encounters, framing executive authority as necessary after perceived congressional inaction [2]. By contrast, House Republicans and allied outlets framed the situation as a crisis of enforcement and sought hearings and impeachment [5] [4]. Both sets of actors use DHS data and selective time slices to support competing narratives; readers should note the department’s materials are advocacy-oriented summaries of outcomes and that oversight materials are politically framed critiques [2] [5].
6. Data availability and independent analysis remain uneven
Public reporting shows DHS posts encounter statistics monthly, but analysts note DHS has at times inconsistently released detailed enforcement tables, complicating independent verification of every assertion about removals and “gotaways” [6]. The Library of Congress summaries and DHS fact sheets document the legal mechanisms and the department’s claimed effects, but independent evaluations (e.g., academic or NGO longitudinal studies) are not included in the set of sources provided here — available sources do not mention independent, peer-reviewed evaluations in this dataset [1] [2] [6].
7. Bottom line: DHS enforces the proclamation and asylum rule while outcomes and legality are contested
DHS is the operational enforcer of the administration’s border proclamation and DHS–DOJ asylum rule — implementing screenings, expulsions, and removals under those authorities and reporting steep drops in some encounter metrics as a result [1] [2]. Civil-society groups and Congressional critics dispute the humanitarian and legal effects, and gaps in publicly released detailed enforcement data mean independent assessments are essential but not present in these sources [3] [6].