What role did Title 42 expulsions play in U.S. repatriations during 2020–2023 and which administrations implemented it?
Executive summary
Title 42 expulsions were a COVID-era public‑health instrument first deployed in March 2020 that allowed U.S. border authorities to expel migrants immediately rather than process them under standard immigration law, and they accounted for a very large share of U.S. “repatriations” between 2020 and May 11, 2023 when the policy ended [1] [2]. Instituted under the Trump administration and continued—and numerically expanded—under the Biden administration, expulsions under Title 42 materially inflated aggregate repatriation totals while remaining legally and politically contentious [3] [4] [5].
1. Origins and legal basis: a public‑health order repurposed at the border
The authority invoked as “Title 42” derives from section 362 of the Public Health Service Act and was operationalized by a CDC order in March 2020 to prevent contagion spread at land borders, enabling immediate expulsions that foreclosed asylum claims in many cases [3] [6]. The public‑health emergency created the legal vehicle for expulsions but did not align with traditional immigration statutes; that tension produced much of the subsequent legal and political debate [7] [6].
2. How large was its contribution to repatriations from 2020–2023?
Data collected by DHS and summarized by researchers show Title 42 expulsions formed a substantial portion of repatriations: CBP averaged more than 75,900 Title 42 expulsions per month over the policy’s life, and aggregate Southwest border expulsions approached roughly 3 million between 2020 and May 2023 according to multiple analyses [4] [8]. DHS defines repatriations to include removals, returns, and expulsions, meaning the inclusion of Title 42 expulsions materially raised reported repatriation totals during this period [2] [9].
3. Which administrations implemented and operated Title 42, and how did usage change?
The Trump administration implemented the CDC order in March 2020; the Biden administration continued the policy and, by many measures, carried out the majority of expulsions—researchers report the Biden era accounted for the vast majority of the roughly 3 million expulsions and that the administration conducted millions of repatriations when expulsions are combined with removals and returns [3] [5] [10]. Usage peaked at times—CBP data show May 2021 as a high point when expulsions made up 57 percent of all encounters—and remained a core enforcement tool until the public‑health emergency was terminated on May 11, 2023 [4] [1].
4. Operational mechanics, partners, and what the numbers actually represent
Operationally, many expulsions involved rapid returns to Mexico when that country agreed to accept certain nationalities, while third‑country nationals were often flown home—an expensive process that limited expulsions for some nationalities [11]. DHS and CBP datasets count expulsions as encounters rather than unique persons, and repeated attempts by the same individuals mean totals overstate the number of distinct people affected; analysts caution the count of expulsions therefore exceeds the count of unique individuals expelled [9] [8].
5. Effectiveness and controversies: deterrence, human cost, and legal challenges
Scholars and advocates are sharply divided: Migration Policy and other analysts conclude Title 42 was largely ineffective as a durable deterrent—many expelled migrants made repeated crossings—and critics argue the policy inflicted severe humanitarian harm by denying asylum without individualized review [4] [6] [10]. Legal challenges produced mixed outcomes: courts blocked family expulsions at times and enjoined aspects of the policy, while litigation and political pressure shaped the Biden administration’s timeline for ending the public‑health order [7] [4].
6. Endgame and the policy’s imprint on repatriation metrics
The policy formally ended when the HHS public‑health emergency expired on May 11, 2023, but its legacy persists in repatriation statistics and border practices: combining Title 42 expulsions with removals and returns produced record‑high repatriation figures during the Biden term, a fact used by both supporters and opponents of the policy to frame border enforcement performance [5] [2]. Reporting and policy debates must therefore distinguish expulsions—which bypass asylum processing—from Title 8 removals and returns when assessing what repatriation totals reveal about enforcement and humanitarian outcomes [2] [4].