Us mexico border info. Is Biden worse than trump
Executive summary
The short answer: not simply—neither president is unequivocally “worse”; outcomes depend on which metric is used. Administratively, Biden reversed some Trump-era moves (pausing the wall, promising humane changes) yet kept or reintroduced powerful enforcement tools (Title 42 expulsions, a version of “Remain in Mexico”) and presided over far higher encounter and removal volumes because of record migration flows [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Border outcomes: encounters, expulsions and removals
Under Biden the Border Patrol and CBP encountered migrants at far higher rates—authorities recorded roughly 9.4 million unauthorized migrant encounters from FY2021 through February 2024, more than three times comparable counts under Trump—creating operational strain and higher recorded removals and returns [4]. During the pandemic-era expulsions policy, DHS expelled migrants 2.9 million times overall, with more than 2.5 million of those expulsions occurring under Biden’s watch, a figure that critics use to argue Biden enforced removals as aggressively as his predecessor [3]. Migration scholars and data-driven outlets therefore conclude that on raw enforcement numbers—encounters, expulsions and cumulative deportations—Biden’s years saw larger totals, though much of that growth tracked record migration pressures rather than a single policy decision [4] [3].
2. Policy style and instruments: continuity and divergence
Substantively, Biden did roll back visible Trump-era measures—pausing wall construction and ending certain Trump proclamations—and campaigned on a more “humane” approach; yet his administration retained and at times reintroduced Trump-like tools: the administration suspended and later reinstated elements of the Migrant Protection Protocols (“Remain in Mexico”) and continued to use Title 42 expulsions until the end of the public-health emergency, while expanding some expedited removals and parole programs [1] [2] [5]. Trump’s record emphasized deterrence—zero-tolerance prosecutions, family separations, broad use of Remain in Mexico and a push for mass deportations—measures Biden promised to reverse and sometimes did, but practical pressures and litigation often compelled policy overlap [6] [7] [5].
3. Political narratives and who says what
Assessments of “worse” are highly politicized: conservative policy shops and activists portray Biden as having “opened” the border by expanding parole and failing to reinstate strict deterrents, arguing the surge in crossings proves laxity [8]. Conversely, many immigrant-rights groups and some Democratic critics argue Biden maintained too much of Trump’s enforcement machinery and did not deliver on humane reform, noting reinstatements and high deportation figures under his tenure [9] [3]. Broad polling and media analyses show huge bipartisan dissatisfaction with border management, and fact-based trackers (PIIE, BBC, Washington Post) emphasize nuanced differences in approach rather than categorical superiority of one administration over the other [10] [5] [11].
4. Verdict by metric: cruelty, control, and outcomes
If “worse” means harsher, rights-violating tactics—family separation, zero-tolerance prosecutions, DNA tests and an aggressive interior-raid posture—Trump’s record contains distinctive actions critics labeled cruel [7] [6]. If “worse” is judged by scale of expulsions and aggregate removals during a term, Biden’s numbers are larger in part because more people attempted to cross, and his use of emergency authorities led to millions of expulsions and deportations [3] [12]. If “worse” means policy consistency with humane commitments, many observers conclude Biden fell short by preserving powerful deterrent tools and at times echoing Trump-like asylum limits when politically pressured [9] [5].
5. Bottom line
The data and reporting show no simple binary: Trump pursued blunt deterrence and punitive measures that were harsh in design; Biden sought moderation but in practice retained and at times expanded enforcement tools while facing far larger migration flows, producing higher totals of encounters and removals—metrics that fuel the argument he was “as bad” or worse on outcomes [6] [3] [4]. Determining who is “worse” depends on which definition—scale, cruelty, legality, or rhetoric—matters most to the evaluator; the available reporting supports both critiques and defenses of each administration without a single conclusive moral ranking [5] [9].