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.
What policy changes under Trump and Biden most affected asylum claims and encounters?
Executive summary
Both administrations used major policy tools that reshaped asylum access: the Trump administration relied heavily on Title 42 expulsions, the Migrant Protection Protocols (“Remain in Mexico”), and broad asylum bans that limited who could apply at the southern border (see reporting on Title 42 and MPP under Trump) [1] [2]. The Biden administration both reversed and repackaged some Trump-era measures—ending and later reintroducing elements of MPP, using Title 42 initially, and then issuing a 2023–2024 “asylum ban” / suspension tied to encounter levels and app‑based appointment systems that critics say echo Trump-era restrictions [1] [3] [2] [4].
1. Trump’s blunt instruments: Title 42, Remain in Mexico, and asylum bans
The Trump administration’s most consequential moves for asylum were the use of Title 42 public‑health expulsions to rapidly remove people at the border and the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) that forced asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their U.S. claims were processed; these policies dramatically curtailed practical access to asylum at ports of entry [1] [2]. Trump also pursued regulatory and proclamatory restrictions that made people who transited other countries or crossed between ports of entry effectively ineligible under certain rules, a stance courts often challenged [5] [6].
2. Biden’s early reversals—and later convergence on deterrence measures
Upon taking office, the Biden administration sought to end MPP and roll back some Trump restrictions, but it initially continued Title 42 expulsions and later adopted new limits that critics describe as a “recycling” of Trump tactics. Human Rights Watch and other advocates argue Biden’s 2023 asylum rule replaced Title 42 with a restriction that bars many from applying for asylum and revives elements of expedited removals and transit bans [1] [2]. Migration Policy Institute reporting characterizes Biden’s legacy as mixed: efforts to dismantle Trump policies coexist with border measures that some say double down on deterrence [7].
3. The CBP One app, appointments and the new “gatekeeping” model
A central administrative change under Biden was tying asylum access to “lawful, safe and orderly” pathways and appointment systems (notably the CBP One app), effectively requiring scarce appointments to present claims; critics and at least one federal court found a Biden-era rule barred people from seeking asylum unless they obtained such an appointment [6] [4]. Advocates say the app‑based approach recreates MPP‑style waiting and limits real access for people without reliable digital access [8] [4].
4. The encounter‑triggered asylum suspension: policy by arithmetic
In mid‑2024 the Biden administration used a Presidential Proclamation and an interim DHS‑DOJ rule to suspend and limit asylum eligibility when encounters exceed pre‑set thresholds, framing this as a temporary tool to manage “high encounters” and preserve expedited removal capacity [3]. Human Rights Watch reported the administration later extended the criteria (e.g., lengthening the period encounters must stay below a threshold before lifting suspensions), a move it called contrary to U.S. and international law and likely to increase harm to asylum seekers [9].
5. Courts, advocates, and the legal tug‑of‑war
Both administrations’ gatekeeping measures faced litigation. The ACLU and other groups challenged Biden’s rules in federal court, and at least one district court struck down parts of the Biden-era restrictions for departing from longstanding obligations to ask people about fear of persecution before removal [4]. Advocates emphasize that similar Trump initiatives were also widely litigated and sometimes enjoined, showing legal checks have repeatedly constrained executive asylum restrictions [5] [10].
6. Outcomes and numbers—what the sources say (and don’t)
Reporting links these policy shifts to changes in the character of migration—more turnaways, waits in Mexico, reliance on smugglers, and increased deaths at the border—while also noting the measures did not reliably reduce crossings over time [1] [2] [8]. Sources report spikes in border deaths and record encounters under Biden when deterrence measures were in place; they also report that MPP and Title 42 were used heavily during the Trump era and reappeared or were emulated under Biden [2] [1] [7]. Precise causal attribution of monthly encounter counts to any single policy is not detailed in these pieces—available sources do not provide a single unified quantitative model tying specific policy changes to specific encounter totals.
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Human Rights Watch, ACLU, immigrant‑rights groups and legal advocates frame both administrations’ deterrence policies as unlawful and harmful, warning of deaths and increased cartel profits [2] [9] [4]. Proponents in DHS framed encounter‑triggered limits as necessary to restore “order” and preserve capacity to process legitimate claims [3]. Advocacy groups such as Fwd.us and Immigrant Justice Project argue the Biden rule mirrors Trump designs and warn of restrictive legal reasoning; the Biden administration presents its measures as temporary, targeted tools with lawful pathways alongside them [8] [5] [6] [3].
8. Bottom line for asylum access
Both presidencies used executive authorities to shape who could practically seek asylum at the southern border: Trump via broad expulsions and MPP, Biden via a mix of reversals, reintroductions, app‑based appointment requirements, and encounter‑triggered suspensions. Sources agree these policies materially limited asylum access and prompted litigation and broad controversy; they disagree sharply on legal justification and humanitarian consequences [1] [2] [4] [3].