How did Title 42 and COVID-era policies change the counting of deportations under Biden?
Executive summary
Title 42 and other COVID-era border measures reshaped not only how and whom the U.S. expelled at the southern border but also the bookkeeping of removals: expulsions under Title 42 were counted differently from traditional “deportations” or removals, inflating the share of border expulsions while reducing formal ICE court removals and prosecutions during the period [1] [2]. When Title 42 ended, shifts back toward conventional removals and renewed interior enforcement produced a visible rise in reported deportations, complicating direct year-to-year comparisons [1] [3].
1. Title 42 created a parallel category — expulsions separate from deportations
The pandemic-era public-health order known as Title 42 allowed immediate expulsions at the border that the Biden administration used extensively between March 2020 and May 2023, producing roughly three million expulsions that were tallied apart from the traditional ICE removals and prosecutions that constitute “deportations” in some datasets [1]. Migration Policy and other analysts emphasize that Title 42 returns were largely administrative expulsions executed at the border and often treated as “repatriations” rather than legal removals with full immigration-court proceedings, which altered the composition and labeling of removal statistics during that window [1] [4].
2. The policy depressed interior prosecutions and ICE removals during its operation
By funneling agents to border processing and enabling near-immediate expulsions, Title 42 reduced the number of migrants processed into the formal removal system and lowered immigration prosecutions in federal court — misdemeanor illegal-entry prosecutions dropped to historic lows — creating the appearance of a decline in deportation activity under Biden even while expulsions continued in large numbers [2] [1]. Reports show prosecutions for illegal entry virtually disappeared during Title 42, and overall prosecution levels rose only after Title 42’s end, underscoring how the public-health policy shifted enforcement from court-centered removals to rapid expulsions [2].
3. Ending Title 42 changed both operations and the reported totals
When Title 42 expired in May 2023, the government resumed more traditional processes that generated more formal removals and prosecutions; ICE and DHS increased removals under standard immigration law and deportation flights, producing higher reported deportation numbers in subsequent fiscal periods — for example, ICE reported a sharp rise in removals in 2024 compared with 2023, which analysts attribute in part to the shift away from Title 42 expulsions [1] [3]. Journalists and agencies note that the post-Title 42 period also saw surges in border encounters and more severe legal consequences for irregular crossers, altering the flow and counting of returns and removals [5].
4. Counting methods, diplomatic deals and voluntary returns complicate comparisons
Different agencies and outlets distinguish expulsions, removals, repatriations and voluntary returns in ways that change headline totals: some tallies include Title 42 expulsions as part of “expulsions” or “repatriations,” while ICE’s reported removals focus on formal deportations or removals from the interior, and other counts add voluntary departures or self-deportation programs to produce larger aggregates [4] [1]. Migration Policy and news analyses warn that diplomatic arrangements — for example, agreements with neighboring countries to accept returnees — also affect the capacity to carry out expulsions or removals and therefore influence year-to-year figures [1].
5. Political narratives, advocacy agendas and data transparency shape interpretations
Pro- and anti-administration outlets have used the statistical ambiguities to advance competing narratives: critics point to drops in ICE arrests and courtroom prosecutions to argue Biden “reduced deportations,” while administration defenders and some analysts highlight millions of Title 42 expulsions and later spikes in ICE removals to argue the opposite — each framing leans on selective counting choices and institutional priorities [6] [3] [1]. Sources also flag operational gaps — for example, failures to deliver court summonses to parolees processed around Title 42’s end — that undermine neat comparisons and reveal limits in government tracking [7].
6. What reporting cannot settle from available sources
Existing reporting establishes that Title 42 shifted many returns into an expulsion category and depressed formal prosecutions and interior removals while in force, and that its end prompted more conventional removals and a rise in ICE-reported deportations; however, precise reconciliations across every dataset, the full magnitude of “missed” court summonses, and the long-term causal share of diplomatic negotiations versus operational capacity in driving 2024’s removal totals are not fully resolvable from the provided sources [2] [7] [3] [1].