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: How did Attorney General Jeff Sessions influence the 2018 zero tolerance policy under President Donald Trump?
Executive Summary
Jeff Sessions directly authored and announced the Justice Department’s April 6, 2018 memorandum that created the so-called “zero-tolerance” approach to misdemeanor illegal entry, mandating prosecution of all 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) referrals along the Southwest Border and acknowledging that separations of children from parents would occur [1] [2] [3]. Independent review later confirmed Sessions and DOJ leadership knew the policy would separate families even as officials warned they lacked capacity to care for children, a fact that intensified legal and human-rights criticism and prompted policy reversal steps by the White House [4] [3] [5].
1. How the memo reshaped prosecution — The policy that changed practice immediately
The April 6, 2018 memorandum signed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered every U.S. Attorney’s Office on the Southwest Border to adopt a zero-tolerance posture toward illegal entry, instructing prosecutors to pursue criminal charges under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) for all DHS referrals and to coordinate with DHS on prosecution guidelines [1] [2]. The memorandum framed the move as a response to a 203 percent surge in illegal border crossings, presenting prosecution as necessary to uphold the rule of law and national security [6]. This shift effectively superseded prior, more discretion-based practices and required increased resources, thereby producing an immediate operational change within the Department of Justice and local U.S. Attorney offices along the border [1]. The instruction to prosecute broadly turned civil migration encounters into criminal matters, a structural change with predictable downstream effects on families and facilities.
2. The causal link to family separation — What DOJ reviews have since confirmed
A subsequent Department of Justice Inspector General review in January 2021 confirmed that then-Attorney General Sessions knew the zero-tolerance policy would lead to family separations at the Southwest Border despite warnings that the government did not have adequate systems to care for separated children [4]. The policy’s criminal prosecutions meant parents were detained in criminal custody, and children were classified as unaccompanied or placed in separate care, leading to nearly 3,000 separations documented after the policy’s announcement, which drew sharp national and international outrage [3]. That foreknowledge is central to accountability discussions, because it reframes the separations not as incidental outcomes but as foreseeable consequences of a prosecutorial directive.
3. Human-rights and public reaction — Why critics called it cruel and coercive
Human-rights groups and many commentators described the separations as deliberate deterrence and inflicted severe harm: Amnesty International labeled the practice “nothing short of torture,” arguing it aimed to produce intense mental suffering to deter asylum seekers [7]. Domestic reporting highlighted scenes of children in temporary facilities and the political backlash that followed, including a presidential executive order to limit separations after widespread condemnation [5] [3]. The criticism emphasized both the humanitarian costs and the moral-legal implications of using family separation as border policy leverage, juxtaposing Sessions’ criminal-justice framing against child welfare and international human-rights standards.
4. The administration’s rationale and legal framing — Rule of law versus humanitarian trade-offs
Sessions and DOJ framed zero tolerance as a legal and enforcement necessity: citing a dramatic increase in illegal crossings, the Attorney General argued that prosecuting unlawful entry was essential to preserving the rule of law and national security [6]. The memorandum explicitly directed offices to develop prosecutorial guidelines and allocate resources accordingly, signaling an institutional commitment to criminal enforcement over discretionary civil responses [2]. This legal framing reveals a policy choice to prioritize deterrence and prosecution, accepting known collateral consequences—family separations and child welfare strain—rather than adjusting enforcement to mitigate those consequences.
5. What the record leaves open — Accountability, alternatives, and institutional lessons
The assembled record shows clear lines of responsibility: Sessions issued the directive, DOJ implemented prosecutions, and separations followed as a predictable outcome acknowledged within government reviews [1] [4]. The debate now centers on whether alternative implementation—resource scaling, custody arrangements, or prosecutorial discretion—could have upheld immigration law without producing the same human costs. The record demands examination of institutional preparedness and policy trade-offs, especially whether enforcement objectives were pursued without adequate planning for foreseeable harms. The contrast between official legal rationale and human-rights critiques underscores competing agendas: a punitive enforcement posture versus protections for vulnerable migrants [7] [6].