How many people were paroled into the U.S. under Biden parole programs and what happened to those programs?
Executive summary
Public estimates vary, but reporting and government analyses indicate that the Biden administration used parole on an unprecedented scale—ranging from program-authorized caps of roughly 30,000 admissions per month for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans (CHNV) to cumulative tallies that researchers and watchdogs place between roughly 1 million and multiple millions of parole admissions during the Biden years; those programs have produced hundreds of thousands of work-authorized entrants while several newer parole initiatives were curtailed by litigation and policy rollbacks [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. How many people were paroled — the headline numbers and why they differ
Counting parole under Biden is contested: a conservative researcher cited DHS-based calculations finding about 2.86 million individuals granted parole beginning February 2021 [4], while Associated Press reporting summarized administration claims that Biden “granted at least 1 million temporary visits” including parole-eligible entries [2]. Program design yields different counts: some figures refer only to CHNV entrants (monthly caps of up to 30,000), others aggregate Uniting for Ukraine, Afghans, CHNV, and ad hoc parole uses, producing the gap between “about 1 million” and multi‑million estimates [1] [2] [5].
2. The major Biden parole programs and their scale
Key initiatives included Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) and earlier humanitarian parole for Afghan and Ukrainian nationals, and the October 2022–2023 CHNV humanitarian parole apparatus that set a framework to admit up to 30,000 people per month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and mirrored U4U’s sponsor‑based model [1] [2] [5]. Separately, the administration announced broader “parole in place” measures—most notably the Keeping Families Together (KFT) Parole in Place and other parole‑in‑place proposals meant to regularize spouses and children of U.S. citizens—estimated to cover hundreds of thousands of potential beneficiaries (roughly 480,000–500,000 by advocacy and polling estimates) [6] [7] [8].
3. What happened to people admitted under these programs (work authorization and status outcomes)
A large share of CHNV parolees and related parole arrivals received employment authorization; committee reporting cited roughly 405,000 CHNV parolees who had been issued work permits as of summer 2024 and DHS provided internal tallies to Congress on CHNV admissions, with totals over 500,000 reported in some Republican committee material [3]. Advocates note parole can create a path to apply for green cards under certain conditions (e.g., some parole in place beneficiaries could adjust status), but outcomes depend on program rules and court rulings [8] [1].
4. Legal and political pushback that changed program operation
Several parole initiatives were immediately litigated or politically contested: KFT Parole in Place went into effect August 19, 2024 with rapid initial approvals but was halted within days by lawsuits from Texas and other states and later declared invalid for processing, effectively stopping new adjudications and leaving applicants in legal limbo [9] [10]. Texas and other states also challenged CHNV and broader parole authority as an unlawful creation of a mass‑admissions program, and congressional and think‑tank reports criticized costs and oversight [3] [11]. By 2025, federal actions and notices signaled reviews and non‑extensions of protections for hundreds of thousands who had arrived under some parole frameworks, with DHS and federal documents acknowledging complex transition and reliance issues for roughly half a million parole beneficiaries [12].
5. Why the numbers and narratives are polarized — what the sources reveal
Disagreements stem from definitional choices (what counts as parole vs. other temporary admissions), partisan framing, and program-specific caps versus cumulative tallies: pro‑administration analyses and think tanks argue parole channeled migration into safer, sponsor‑vetted pathways, citing program caps and employment outcomes [5] [1], while congressional Republicans and immigration‑restriction advocates emphasize large cumulative tallies and fiscal impacts, producing higher headline counts and sharp criticism [3] [4]. Publicly available DHS summaries underpin many estimates but differ from independent calculations and politically driven reports; reporting limits mean a definitive single-number consensus is not available in the supplied sources [4] [3] [2].