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.
Fact check: With the government shutdown will the border see more illegal entries
Executive Summary
The claim that a government shutdown will automatically produce more illegal entries at the U.S. border is not supported as a categorical truth; federal agencies report that core border enforcement and ports of entry operations remain active and most frontline personnel are exempt from furloughs, though peripheral impacts and staffing shifts create plausible pathways for localized increases or operational friction. Recent agency statements and reporting from October 2025 emphasize continued CBP and ICE operations, but other reporting highlights budget cuts, reassignment of DHS personnel, and possible secondary effects — offering a mixed picture in which immediate large-scale collapse of border security is unlikely, yet indirect risks and delayed processing could materialize in some areas [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why agencies insist “business as usual” — and what that really means
Federal statements and contemporaneous reporting repeatedly underline that ICE, CBP and most frontline border staff are designated essential and continue to work during a shutdown, with ICE saying over 93% of its workforce is exempt from furloughs and CBP noting that ports of entry remain staffed and operational [1] [3]. Those assertions are backed by operational advisories and trade-focused analyses that stress tariff collection, inspections, and primary security functions will continue, limiting the immediate ability of smugglers to exploit an obvious gap [5] [6]. This does not imply zero impact: agencies flag that some nonessential support functions, administrative processing, and Participating Government Agency roles tied to customs clearances may slow, producing procedural delays even if frontline deterrence remains intact [6].
2. Where the risk of increased entries could arise — staffing shifts and capability gaps
Reporting shows DHS is reassigning hundreds of employees to border-focused roles and warning some staff face termination if they refuse reassignment, reflecting internal strain and trade-offs as the department concentrates resources on immigration and border tasks [4] [7]. Those reassignments can erode capacity elsewhere — for example, cyber and regulatory monitoring — and union warnings about cuts to other national agencies, like Canada’s CBSA, point to a broader pattern where resource redirection and budget retrenchment increase vulnerability despite frontline staffing claims [8]. The net effect can be uneven: localized stretches of the border or certain functions (e.g., asylum processing, interagency vetting) could experience reduced effectiveness, making targeted exploitation by smugglers or higher volumes harder to manage.
3. Historical precedents offer only limited guidance
The history of shutdowns — including the 35-day 2018–2019 closure — shows shutdowns disrupt many federal activities and force difficult personnel decisions, but they do not uniformly translate into rampant border breaches [9] [10]. Past shutdowns produced operational stress, unpaid essential workers, and slower administrative processing, lessons that are relevant now: the presence of essential-worker exemptions reduces the likelihood of a sudden surge in illegal crossings driven solely by a shutdown. However, the duration and political context matter: a protracted shutdown compounded by budget cuts or policy shifts could magnify indirect effects on migration flows and processing capacity over time [11].
4. Asylum rules, fees, and legal pathways shape behavior beyond enforcement posture
Recent reporting about new asylum fees and confusion over implementation illustrates that policy changes and access to legal pathways influence migration decisions independently of enforcement staffing levels [12]. If migrants perceive legal routes are blocked, delayed, or financially burdensome — particularly during a politically visible shutdown — some may opt for irregular entry despite sustained enforcement on the ground. That interaction means the relationship between a shutdown and illegal entries is mediated by policy clarity, humanitarian processing, and perceptions of access, not simply by the number of agents present.
5. The bottom line: shutdowns complicate the picture but don’t automatically open the floodgates
The available reporting from October 2025 creates a nuanced conclusion: frontline border enforcement continues and major immediate gaps are unlikely, per ICE and CBP statements and trade advisories, yet reassignment of DHS staff, budget cuts in related agencies, and policy changes to asylum processes create realistic scenarios for localized increases or procedural bottlenecks [1] [3] [4] [12]. Observers with different agendas emphasize different risks — agencies stress continuity to minimize panic, unions and watchdogs highlight cuts and capability loss to press for funding — so the most accurate assessment is conditional: a shutdown raises risks via indirect channels and administrative slowdown, but does not by itself guarantee a broad surge in illegal entries.