During the Biden administration, were there illegal migrants given free hotel rooms, transportation, and food provided by local, state, or federal governments?

1. What people claimed and what the records show — pulling the claims apart

The original claim asserts that during the Biden administration, illegal migrants received free hotel rooms, transportation, and food provided by governments. The factual record is more specific: FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program reimbursed non-federal entities for costs associated with sheltering noncitizen migrants released by DHS, and those reimbursed activities can include hotel lodging, food, and transportation. Congress appropriated dedicated funds (for FY2024, $650 million) for the program; the program reimburses local/state governments and nonprofits rather than paying individuals directly, and eligibility requires that the people served were released by DHS custody ^{[1] [4] [5]}. The program’s design thus supports the core of the claim — governments did fund temporary sheltering and related services — but it does not match the broad popular shorthand that payments were unconditional “free” benefits handed directly to undocumented migrants without program rules attached ^{[4] [6]}.

2. How the Shelter and Services Program actually operates — the mechanics matter

FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program is a congressionally funded, reimbursement-driven mechanism administered to assist communities that receive migrants after DHS releases them from short-term holding facilities. The program’s Notice of Funding Opportunity and Congressional appropriations language specify eligible activities such as emergency shelter, transportation, food, hygiene supplies, and medical triage; recipients must document that services were provided to individuals released from DHS custody. The program was funded repeatedly since 2019 and received a notable $650 million line item in 2024, with separate allocations labeled SSP-A and SSP-C for different operational purposes ^{[1] [4]}. Thus, government involvement is procedural and programmatic rather than ad hoc gratuity.

3. On-the-ground practice: New York City and hotel sheltering as a concrete example

New York City leased budget hotels to house asylum-seekers and used FEMA grant funds to reimburse some costs for hotel rooms, food, and transportation for migrants released by DHS, according to municipal statements and contemporary reporting. City officials characterized the properties as budget accommodations rather than "luxury" hotels and reported per-night averages near $156 in some reporting; the city also said most shelter costs were borne by city and state funding streams, even when FEMA grants were used for parts of the bill ^{[2] [7] [3]}. This example demonstrates that municipal emergency shelter operations have included paid hotel stays as a temporary shelter modality, consistent with FEMA reimbursement rules, while raising questions about overall cost allocation across jurisdictional budgets ^{[7] [8]}.

4. Who actually paid — federal reimbursements versus local costs and fiscal burdens

The federal role under the Shelter and Services Program is reimbursement, not typically full cost coverage, and many localities carried substantial expenses. Reporting shows New York City estimated billions in shelter and service spending (for example, $3.75 billion in 2024 with a forecast of $4.75 billion in 2025), with FEMA grants covering portions through the SSP but municipal and state budgets ultimately bearing the majority in many cases. Congress appropriated SSP funds in 2024 and DHS/FEMA issued allocations in 2024 (including an announcement of more than $380 million for communities), but critics and some lawmakers argue federal funding was insufficient relative to local costs, prompting legislative proposals to alter or end the program ^{[7] [6] [5]}.

5. Disputes, clawbacks, and the “luxury hotel” framing — facts and competing narratives

Controversies centered on whether funds were misspent and on political characterizations of hotel quality. FEMA clawed back over $80 million tied to alleged “illegal activities” at a specific hotel leased by New York City, prompting litigation and accusations from city officials that the agency overreached; meanwhile, opponents labeled some accommodations "luxury" despite city and comptroller statements that the leases were at non-luxury, budget rates. Political figures and media commentators used the clawback and per-night figures to argue different narratives — either that taxpayers were subsidizing luxury or that cities were performing emergency humanitarian sheltering with constrained federal support — illustrating how the same facts support divergent partisan claims ^{[3] [2] [7]}.

6. Bottom line and remaining questions policymakers and the public face

The record shows that during the Biden administration governments did pay for temporary shelter, food, and transportation for migrants released by DHS through a FEMA reimbursement program; hotel stays were a documented shelter method in places like New York City, but program rules, reimbursement requirements, and local cost-sharing complicate simple portrayals of “free benefits.” Key unresolved policy questions include the appropriate split of federal versus local costs, oversight and documentation practices that led to federal clawbacks, and operational choices about using hotels versus other shelter models — debates that drove legislative proposals and legal disputes in 2024–2025 ^{[1] [3] [9]}.