Skip to main content

Immigration Policy Tracking Project

Open main menu

An Overview of Trump 2.0 Policies: Border Restrictions and Court Orders 2017-2025

Since 2017, the Trump and Biden administrations have adopted a series of successive, overlapping, and superseding rules and restrictions governing asylum and protection eligibility, principally related to the southern border. Most restrictions are or have been subject to litigation. Court decisions have partially or wholly limited some provisions, and key provisions remain in flux.

This outline first identifies the legal regime that currently actually governs at the border (as of November 10, 2025). It then summarizes in chronological sequence the successive policies of both administrations and clarifies the current status. This overview is designed to clarify which provisions are currently in effect, which requirements or restrictions apply, and the evolution of the policies and court rulings that have led to the current status.

Each policy listed below is hyperlinked to specific entries on the IPTP website, all of which are continually updated and annotated. For fuller information on any item listed in the outline, click the link to jump to the Tracking Project entry or search by entry ID# (or keyword) in the IPTP search bar. Feedback is welcome via IPTP.feedback@gmail.com.

November 11, 2025

Current Governing Rules (as of November 11, 2025)

At present, the following provisions govern:
  • CAT and Withholding of Removal, but No Asylum. The 2025 Trump Presidential Invasion Proclamation 10888 governs but is partially enjoined. Under the district court injunction and D.C. Circuit’s August 1, 2025, partial stay pending appeal, migrants have the right to seek protection under Convention Against Torture ("CAT") and withholding of removal but not asylum.
  • Application of Certain Mandatory Bars in Fear Screenings. The Biden administration December 2024 rule applies the asylum and withholding public safety (i.e., criminal) and national security bars at the fear-screening stage.
    • Additional public health-related bars are scheduled to go into effect on December 31, 2025.
  • MPP. The Trump administration reinstituted the “Remain in Mexico” Migrant Protection Protocols ("MPP"), but few if any persons are being enrolled, and MPP’s application is preliminarily enjoined as to clients of the plaintiff organization, Immigrant Defenders Law Center.
  • CLP. The May 2023 Biden administration Circumvention of Lawful Pathways ("CLP") barred asylum eligibility for those who entered in violation of the rule between May 2023 and May 2025. It no longer applies to new entrants, but it continues to apply those in the U.S. who entered in violation of the rule during the two-year period it was in effect.
  • Asylum Processing. The Biden administration’s Asylum Processing rule authorizes asylum officers to grant asylum at the border to those who qualify after passing a credible fear screening. It remains formally in place, but DHS is not required to use it, and it is not operational. Its effect is also negated by the Trump Invasion EO 10888 suspending asylum eligibility.
  • Other restrictions may remain in place formally but do not currently govern because of court orders.

=========================================================================================================

Chronology of Rules and Court Decisions (2017-2025)

Entry Bar (Trump 1.0) [Vacated/Rescinded]

See ID #57.

November 2018. The Trump administration introduced a policy known as the “Entry Bar,” which made individuals who entered the United States between POEs categorically ineligible for asylum. The prohibition was effectuated by:

  • An interim final rule under INA § 208(b)(2)(C) providing that migrants would be ineligible for asylum if they entered the United States in violation of “a presidential proclamation or other presidential order suspending or limiting the entry of aliens along the southern border with Mexico” and
  • Presidential Proclamation 9822 invoking INA § 212(f) barring entry between ports of entry.

Effect: Migrants who crossed between POEs were barred from asylum but remained eligible for withholding of removal ("withholding") and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). These forms of relief are mandatory and require a higher probability of persecution or torture than asylum. Migrants subject to the bar received a negative credible fear determination. They remained eligible for withholding or CAT by satisfying the higher reasonable possibility standard.

Litigation:

Rulemaking: The later Biden Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule (see below) formally removed the enjoined regulatory language establishing the Trump 1.0 Entry Bar.

Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”) (Trump 1.0) [Partially Preliminarily Enjoined]

See ID# 63.

December 2018. The Trump administration announced the Migrant Protection Protocols program, often referred to as “Remain in Mexico.” MPP went into effect in January 2019.

Effect: Under MPP, certain non-Mexican migrants who sought asylum at the southern border received notices to appear ("NTAs") for INA § 240 immigration-court removal proceedings, but DHS returned them to Mexico during their proceedings under the asserted authority of INA § 235(b)(2)(C). Specified immigration courts, including some erected near the border, were designated for MPP cases. Individuals were allowed to attend court hearings in the U.S. and then immediately returned to Mexico between hearings. Individuals in Mexico awaiting their hearings faced dangerous conditions and great difficulties accessing counsel.

Litigation:

Transit Bar (Trump 1.0) [Enjoined/Rescinded]

See ID# 83.

July 2019. The Trump administration issued the “Transit Bar” interim final rule, which rendered most noncitizens ineligible for asylum if they entered across the southern border and had transited through at least one (other) country (not of their nationality, citizenship, or last lawful residence) and had not applied for and been denied protection in the transit country. In practical effect, the rule barred asylum to most non-Mexican nationals.

  • Not applicable. The Transit Bar did not apply to any migrant who (1) applied for—and was denied—protection from persecution or torture in at least one transit country; (2) established that they were a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons; or (3) had transited only through countries that were not parties (at the time) to the Refugee Convention, Protocol, or CAT.

Litigation: The district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit limited the injunction to apply only within the Ninth Circuit, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, 934 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2019).

September 2019. The Supreme Court (7-2) stayed the preliminary injunction in full and allowed the Transit Bar IFR to go into effect nationwide. Litigation continued, but the rule was soon superseded by the March 2020 COVID public health expulsions (see below). Eventually, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction in full (in a decision issued after Biden entered office), East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Garland, 994 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2020). See also CAIR Coalition v. Trump, 471 F. Supp. 3d 25 (D.D.C. 2020) (vacating rule on notice-and-comment grounds).

December 2020. The Trump administration issued a substantively identical final rule after notice and comment. 85 Fed. Reg. 82,260 (Dec. 17, 2020). A district court preliminarily enjoined that final rule early in the Biden administration, and the government did not appeal. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, 519 F. Supp. 3d 663, 666 (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Rulemaking: The later Biden Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule (see below) formally removed the enjoined regulatory language establishing the Trump 1.0 Transit Bar.

COVID Title 42 Public Health Expulsion (Trump 1.0 and Biden) [Expired]

See ID# 839.

March 2020. On March 20, 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an emergency regulation relying on 42 U.S.C. § 265 (known as “Title 42”), a specific provision in the public-health statute that permits the CDC Director to “prohibit … the introduction” into the United States of goods and individuals when the Director believes that “there is serious danger of the introduction of [a communicable] disease into the United States.” On the same day as the regulation, the CDC Director issued an order banning certain “covered aliens” (i.e., those arriving without documents) from Canada or Mexico.

Functionally, the Title 42 Public Health regulation and order allowed CBP officers and Border Patrol agents to summarily expel a covered migrant without relying on the INA and hence without a process to apply for asylum or protection under withholding or CAT. Expelled migrants were returned to Mexico under Title 42 and were not issued a formal order of removal.

Litigation: The Biden administration continued Title 42 expulsions until May 2023.

  • In March 2022, the D.C. Circuit affirmed in part a preliminary injunction, finding the government likely may expel noncitizens under Title 42 without providing access to asylum, which is discretionary, but held that the mandatory protections of withholding and CAT apply. Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, 27 F.4th 718 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
  • In April 2022, the Biden administration CDC terminated the Title 42 policy, citing improved public-health conditions. A group of states challenged the Title 42 termination. The district court preliminarily enjoined the termination order in May 2022, causing the policy to remain in effect. Louisiana v. CDC, 603 F. Supp. 3d 406 (W.D. La. 2022).
  • In November 2022, a district court in D.C. vacated and set aside the Title 42 expulsion policy. Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, 642 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2022). A coalition of states sought to intervene in that litigation to defend the Title 42 policy, but the D.C. Circuit declined to allow intervention. Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, 2022 WL 19653946 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The states sought an emergency stay in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court (5-4) granted a stay and agreed to hear the dispute over intervention on an expedited basis. Arizona v. Mayorkas, 598 U.S. ___ (2022). As a result, the Title 42 expulsion policy remained in effect.
    • Days before oral argument, the Court took the case off calendar, likely because the COVID-19 public health emergency (and therefore Title 42) was set to expire on May 11, 2023. The Court then remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the states’ motion to intervene as moot. Arizona v. Mayorkas, 143 S. Ct. 1312 (2023).

Title 42 expulsions ended on May 11, 2023, after nearly 3 million expulsions (including multiple expulsions of the same persons).

Security Bars and Processing Rule (Trump 1.0 and Biden) [Effective December 31, 2025]

See ID# 983.

December 2020. In December 2020, the Trump administration issued a final rule providing that certain emergency public-health concerns related to communicable diseases can justify a statutory bar to asylum and withholding of removal as a “danger to the security of the United States.” Security Bars and Processing, 85 Fed. Reg. 84160 (2020). The Biden administration repeatedly delayed the effective date of the rule but did not rescind it. The rule is now scheduled to go into effect on December 31, 2025. Security Bars and Processing; Delay of Effective Date, 89 Fed. Reg. 105386 (2025).

Asylum Processing Rule (Biden) [Formally in Effect but Not In Use]

See ID #982 (Subsequent Action).

March 2022. While Title 42 remained in effect, the Biden administration published an interim final rule titled Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers. The rule:

  • Allows USCIS asylum grants following credible fear interviews. The rule authorizes USCIS asylum officers to consider and grant asylum following a positive credible fear determination in expedited removal proceedings, without placing individuals into formal INA § 240 immigration-court proceedings. Migrants at the border who receive a positive credible-fear determination can be referred to a non-adversarial Asylum Merits Interview ("AMI") by another asylum officer, at which they may be granted asylum (but cannot be granted withholding or CAT). Migrants who receive a negative CFI decision remain eligible for IJ review of that determination.
  • Streamlined removal proceedings. If the USCIS asylum officer denies asylum (including where the asylum officer recommends CAT or withholding), the applicant may seek asylum and withholding/CAT before an IJ in a “streamlined” removal proceeding under INA § 240.

The rule was designed for USCIS asylum officers to conduct complete asylum adjudications, to grant qualifying claims quickly, and to streamline IJ removal proceedings for all others.

Litigation: The rule was challenged in two separate cases but remains in effect. Texas v. Mayorkas, No. 22-cv-00094 (N.D. Tex.) and Arizona v. Garland, 22-cv-01130 (W.D. La.), appealed to the 5th Cir, Louisiana v. Bondi, 24-30359 (5th Cir), with proceedings stayed in that court. It is not currently clear how either case will proceed.

Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule (Biden) [Expired as to New Entrants; Applicable to Earlier Entrants]

See ID #57 (Subsequent Action).

May 2023. The Biden administration published a final rule titled Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (“CLP”), which became effective on May 11, 2023, the day Title 42 was lifted. The rule was written as a time-limited emergency measure for the two-year period, May 11, 2023, through May 11, 2025 (subject to further rulemaking if warranted). CLP established a rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility for most noncitizens who entered the United States at the U.S.-Mexico border or adjacent coastal borders without documents.

Exceptions. The rule provided for certain exceptions to the presumption, i.e., it did not apply to:

  • Unaccompanied minors;
  • Migrants who applied for and were denied asylum in a transit country;
  • Migrants at a port of entry with CBP One appointments, or migrants at a port of entry without an appointment who were unable to access or use the CBP One app due to language, illiteracy, or significant technical issues; and
  • Migrants with authorization to travel to the U.S. on parole pursuant to DHS-approved parole process (e.g., Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, Venezuelan parole; family reunification parole; Uniting for Ukraine).

Rebuttal of Presumption. A migrant could rebut the presumption by demonstrating exceptionally compelling circumstances, such as the individual or family member with whom they were traveling:

  • Faced an acute medical emergency;
  • Faced an extreme and imminent threat to their life or safety, such as an imminent threat of rape, kidnapping, torture, or murder; or
  • Was a victim of a severe form of trafficking, as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 214.11.

The rule also rescinded the regulations imposing the Trump 1.0 Entry and Transit Bars, see Circumvention of Lawful Pathways, 88 Fed. Reg. 31314, 31319 (May 16, 2023).

Litigation: In East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 683 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2023), the district court vacated the CLP rule, holding that it violated the INA and was arbitrary and capricious. The Ninth Circuit (2-1) (over a vigorous dissent) first stayed the district court’s vacatur pending appeal, East Bay Sanctuary v. Biden, 2023 WL 11662094 (9th Cir. 2023), then ordered (2-1) the appeal be held in abeyance, East Bay Sanctuary v. Biden, 93 F.4th 1130 (9th Cir. 2024), and ultimately vacated the stay and judgment and remanded the case for consideration of organizational standing in light of FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and the termination of CBP One. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 134 F.4th 545 (9th Cir. 2025). Briefing on remand before the district court was completed in August 2025.

Litigation seeking to vacate the CLP rule is also pending in M.A. v. Noem, No. 1:23-cv-1843-TSC (D.D.C.), in which briefing will be completed in December 2025.

No Longer Applying to New Entrants. CLP expired as to new entrants on May 11, 2025 (see Circumvention of Lawful Pathways, 88 Fed. Reg. 31314, 31421 (May 16, 2023)). However, the rule’s restrictions continue to apply to those who entered subject to the rule while it was in effect between May 2023 and May 2025.

Securing the Border Rule (Biden) [Partially Vacated]

See ID# 57 (Subsequent Action).

June 2024. The Biden administration adopted the Securing the Border rule, which restricts asylum access during periods of high border encounters. The policy is triggered when daily encounters along the southern border exceed 2,500 for seven consecutive days and is suspended only after 14 (later changed to 28) consecutive calendar days in which the 7-consecutive-calendar-day average of encounters is less than 1,500 encounters. The policy consists of:

  • A Presidential Proclamation, issued on June 3, 2024, under INA §§ 212(f) and 215(a), suspending entry across the southern border during periods of high encounters;
  • An interim final rule implementing asylum restrictions consistent with the Proclamation;
  • A subsequent Presidential Proclamation, issued on September 27, 2024, amending the thresholds established in the IFR; and
  • A final rule modifying the IFR in accordance with the September 27 Proclamation.

Effects:

  • Bars asylum eligibility for migrants who cross between ports of entry at the southern border during designated periods of high encounters, with narrow exceptions.
  • Raises the screening standard for withholding and CAT to a “reasonable probability” of persecution or torture for cases covered by the rule.
  • Requires migrants to affirmatively manifest fear, rather than being informed of their right to seek protection (the so-called “shout test”).
  • Limits the window for attorney contact before CFI screenings, allowing a minimum 4-hour period between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.

Litigation: In Las Americas v. DHS, 2025 WL 1403811 (D.D.C. 2025), the district court found that the:

  • limitation on asylum eligibility conflicted with the INA;
  • requirement to manifest fear was arbitrary and capricious; and
  • four-hour minimum CFI attorney-consultation window (instituted in a contemporaneous policy change) was arbitrary and capricious.

The court vacated the above provisions but allowed the heightened "reasonable probability" screening standard for withholding and CAT. As a result, that heightened “reasonable probability” standard also applies to those who remain subject to the CLP rule and who may become subject to screening. In that case, the screening would be conducted under the Securing the Border rule (while it is in effect). The government appealed the district court order on August 28, 2025, but has not sought a stay pending appeal.

The Securing the Border rule was effectively superseded by the more restrictive Trump Invasion Proclamation 10888 (see below) on January 20, 2025. The Securing the Border rule would likely have ceased applying under its own terms in early 2025 due to low border numbers, but it could have been re-triggered if border numbers increased.

Application of Certain Mandatory Bars in Fear Screenings Final Rule (Biden) [In Effect]

See ID #982 (Subsequent Action).

December 2024. The Biden administration issued DHS and EOIR rules allowing application of the mandatory asylum and withholding bars relating to national security and public safety (as codified at INA § 208(b)(2)(A)(i) through (v) and § 241(b)(3)(B)) at the credible fear and reasonable-fear screening stage. Application of Certain Mandatory Bars in Fear Screenings, 89 Fed. Reg. 103370 (Dec. 18, 2024); Clarification Regarding Bars to Eligibility During Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Review, 89 Fed. Reg. 105392 (Dec. 27, 2024).

Litigation. Application of the bars at the screening stage is subject to legal challenge in E.Q. v. Noem, 2025 WL 1768208 (D.D.C. 2025). Plaintiffs seek vacatur of both rules under the APA, arguing that the rules violate the INA and are arbitrary and capricious. The government’s motion to dismiss is under submission.

Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion Rule (Trump 2.0) [Partially Enjoined; Implementing Guidance Vacated]

See ID #1386.

January 2025. President Trump issued Proclamation 10888, titled Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion. The Proclamation declares that conditions at the southern border constitute an “invasion” under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, and invokes INA authority to restrict access to humanitarian protections and summarily remove migrants apprehended while crossing the border.

Key Provisions:

  • §1: Suspends entry “of aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border;”
  • §2: Further restricts such “invading” noncitizens from invoking any INA provision allowing them to remain in the U.S., including asylum (INA § 208) until the President finds the invasion has ceased;
  • §3: Suspends entry of any noncitizen who, before entering, fails to provide sufficient medical and criminal background information to assess inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(1)– (3). [The U.S. views this provision as applicable to the Northern border.]
  • §4: Invokes Article II and Article IV, Section 4 (Invasion Clause) of the Constitution to suspend the physical entry of any “alien engaged in the invasion.”
  • The Proclamation was accompanied by implementing guidance from DHS that suspends access to asylum and withholding of removal, while establishing new, less protective procedures for CAT relief.
    • The new CAT procedures require applicants to affirmatively manifest a fear of return (“shout test”) and implements a “CAT-only assessment” at which applicants must meet the “more likely than not” standard at their initial screening interview.

Authorities Cited:

  • Constitution’s Guarantee Clause: Requires the United States to provide the States protection from foreign invasion. U.S. Const. Art. IV, §4.
  • INA § 212(f): Authorizes the President to suspend or restrict entry of noncitizens when deemed detrimental to U.S. interests.
  • INA § 215(a): Governs control of departure and entry of noncitizens.

Litigation: In RAICES v. Noem, 2025 WL 1825431 (D.D.C. 2025), the district court vacated (under APA § 706) DHS’s implementing guidance and enjoined the government from implementing the Proclamation to the extent it restricted access to asylum, withholding of removal, or the existing regulatory process for CAT protection. The district court:

  • Certified a class of noncitizens present in the U.S. who were subject to the Proclamation;
  • Deferred ruling on claims brought by individuals already removed;
  • Held on summary judgment that the Proclamation and its guidance were unlawful because they attempted to override the INA, including the right to seek protection regardless of manner of entry.

Partial D.C. Circuit Stay. The government appealed and requested a stay of the district court’s order. On August 1, 2025, the D.C. Circuit in a divided opinion (1) granted a partial stay with respect to asylum, thereby allowing denial of access to asylum; and (2) denied the stay with respect to withholding of removal and CAT, thereby requiring those mandatory protections to remain available under the existing withholding and CAT screening standards. RAICES v. Noem, No. 25-5243 (D.C. Cir. 2025). The government contends that the district court order did not restore the screening standards and that the applicant must “manifest” fear. The D.C. Circuit heard argument on the government’s appeal on November 3, 2025.

Ending CBP One App Border Appointments (Trump 2.0) [In Effect]

See ID# 1370 and ID# 1454.

January 2025. Trump Executive Order 14165, titled Securing Our Borders, terminated CBP One scheduling of border appointments. DHS promptly cancelled all scheduled CBP One appointments.

(c) 2025 Immigration Policy Tracking Project

© 2025 Immigration Policy Tracking Project