Were immigrant children held in cages during Biden administration

1. What “cages” refers to in the reporting and the photographic record

The shorthand “cages” in news coverage and political rhetoric typically refers to chain‑link or fenced enclosures and temporary holding spaces used by Customs and Border Protection and related agencies; photos and descriptions from the period show young children in playpens and fenced intake areas at border facilities, which outlets reported and courts have reviewed ^{[4] [1] [5]}.

2. The Biden administration’s 2021 posture: halt, but not an absolute end

Early in Biden’s term the administration publicly halted family immigrant detention facilities and ordered efforts to reunify and release children, and officials pushed agencies to keep stays brief — yet that halt did not eliminate all forms of custody: children continued to be sheltered in HHS/ORR facilities, some in large influx “tent” or converted sites when numbers surged ^{[6] [3] [7]}.

3. Reopening, expansion and contentious episodes after 2021

Reporting documents periodic moves to re‑open or use large facilities — including Carrizo Springs and others described as rapid‑processing or influx care centers — and in later years some family detention capacity was exercised again, producing renewed accounts of children held in congregate and fenced spaces and prompting critics to call the arrangements tantamount to cages ^{[2] [6] [8]}.

4. Legal limits and oversight: Flores and the 20‑day rule

Federal court orders and the long‑running Flores settlement set standards intended to prevent prolonged detention of children and cap certain holds at about 20 days; the Biden administration has at times moved to revise or terminate aspects of those court agreements, a procedural fight that shapes where and how children can be held ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Numbers, conditions and competing narratives

Investigations and public‑interest reporting show thousands of children flowed through custody systems during Biden’s terms — with analyses finding large numbers processed into family detention in later years and reporting of troubling conditions such as overcrowding, longer average stays in some shelters and use of hotels or military bases in extreme surges — while the administration argued releases and processing were aimed at safety and rapid case resolution ^{[6] [9] [10] [11] [7]}.

6. Political and policy disagreement over language and intent

Advocates and many reporters use “cages” to condemn the practice as inhumane and traumatic; defenders in government sometimes frame the same spaces as temporary intake, play areas or needed surge capacity, arguing measures were aimed at orderly processing and child protection — a dispute that is as much rhetorical and political as it is factual, and which affects public perception ^{[2] [5] [12]}.

7. What reporting does and does not show — limits of the record

Available sources document children held in fenced or temporary custody spaces during the Biden era and show policy shifts, reopening of some sites and legal friction; they do not produce a single authoritative tally of every “cage” instance or uniform definition of the term, so assessments rest on photographic evidence, facility descriptions and agency data rather than one standardized label ^{[4] [6] [1]}.

Conclusion: a direct answer

Reporting and photographic evidence confirm that during the Biden administration immigrant children were held in government custody in settings that reporters and advocates have described as cages — chain‑link enclosures, fenced intake areas and crowded temporary shelters — even as the administration publicly sought to limit family detention, relied on legal frameworks like Flores, and faced persistent operational challenges and political scrutiny ^{[1] [6] [3] [2]}.