How did Title 42 and the 'Remain in Mexico' policy change asylum processing under both administrations?
Executive summary
Title 42, a CDC public‑health order invoked during the COVID‑19 pandemic, and the Migrant Protection Protocols (known as “Remain in Mexico” or MPP) reshaped asylum processing by turning expedited expulsions and mandatory waits in Mexico into primary tools for controlling access to U.S. asylum hearings rather than adjudicating claims on U.S. soil . The Trump administration implemented both to sharply limit in‑country processing; the Biden administration retained, modified, litigated over, and ultimately sought to end or limit them amid competing legal rulings, humanitarian critiques, and political pressures .
1. Trump’s toolkit: emergency expulsions and externalized hearings
The Trump administration used Title 42 to rapidly expel migrants at the southern border by treating encounters as public‑health “expulsions” rather than immigration removals, allowing authorities to turn people back to Mexico or their home countries without immigration court processing . Separately, the administration launched MPP in early 2019 to return many asylum seekers to Mexico to await U.S. immigration court hearings, effectively making waiting outside U.S. territory the default method for many claimants .
2. Immediate operational effects on asylum processing
Together, Title 42 and MPP reduced in‑person access to U.S. adjudicators: Title 42 resulted in summary expulsions that bypassed asylum interviews and immigration court referrals, while MPP kept cases pending across the border, complicating counsel access and timely hearings . Agencies reported that MPP deterred some crossings by denying immediate entry and by creating logistical and safety barriers for claimants waiting in Mexican border cities .
3. How Biden’s administration changed, but also continued, policies
On taking office, the Biden administration moved to terminate MPP and later sought to rescind Title 42, exempted certain vulnerable groups (such as unaccompanied children) from Title 42 expulsions at times, and attempted to shift to Title 8 immigration processing — yet it also continued large‑scale use of Title 42 for periods and reimplemented MPP under court order before ultimately prevailing in the Supreme Court to end MPP . Reporting and advocacy groups document that the Biden administration used Title 42 at a larger scale than MPP and faced criticism from the left for continuing expulsions while pledging to restore asylum pathways .
4. Humanitarian and procedural consequences documented by advocates
Humanitarian organizations and legal advocates have documented violent attacks, kidnappings, rapes and other abuses suffered by people blocked or expelled under Title 42 and stranded by MPP in Mexico, arguing that both policies denied access to fair asylum adjudication and exposed migrants to severe harm . Estimates and reports vary, but organizations like Human Rights First and Médecins Sans Frontières have reported thousands of violent incidents and described Title 42 as causing “dire humanitarian consequences” and effectively shutting down asylum access .
5. Courts, politics and competing narratives
Both policies became the subject of intense litigation and partisan debate: federal judges issued injunctions forcing temporary reinstatements or continuations of programs, states filed suits seeking to keep MPP or Title 42 in place, and the Supreme Court eventually ruled that the Biden administration had authority to end MPP while Title 42 remained the focus of other legal challenges and injunctions . Political actors and some conservative outlets framed MPP and Title 42 as necessary deterrents to a “border crisis,” while advocates and many human‑rights groups framed them as illegal or inhumane barriers to asylum [1].
6. Bottom line: process changed, access constrained, debates unresolved
Operationally, Title 42 converted many asylum encounters into expedited expulsions and MPP externalized hearings to Mexico, meaning fewer claimants received timely in‑country asylum processing and greater exposure to danger . The Trump administration created and expanded these mechanisms as central border‑control tools; the Biden administration modified, litigated over, and sought to dismantle them but also continued using Title 42 at scale for significant periods, leaving asylum processing altered by a mix of public‑health authority, immigration law, court orders, and political imperatives . Available reporting documents the procedural shifts and humanitarian consequences, but further investigation is required to quantify long‑term case outcomes and the precise causal effects of each policy on migration flows beyond the cited sources .