Immigration Claims during Post-Presidency (2021-2023) | Lie Library

Introduction

Between 2021 and 2023, the politics of immigration shifted from governing to messaging. Out of office but ever present in national media, Donald Trump used rallies, interviews, and Truth Social posts to claim the border had collapsed, that drug cartels and criminals were flooding into the United States, and that policy reversals had erased past enforcement. At Lie Library, we frame this period as a distinct phase in which the megaphone mattered more than the levers of federal power, producing a dense record of repeat narratives, evolving talking points, and new misinterpretations of complex data.

This era overlapped with pandemic rules, courtroom battles over asylum policy, and high migration levels across the Western Hemisphere. Title 42 expulsions remained in force for most of the period, the Migrant Protection Protocols faced a series of rulings, and border construction funding became a proxy fight. The result was a fertile environment for false and misleading statements, often anchored to real events but stripped of essential context.

How This Topic Evolved During This Era

Three policy and legal developments shaped immigration rhetoric after January 2021:

Title 42 public health expulsions: Initiated during the pandemic, Title 42 remained in effect through May 2023. Public discussion often conflated Title 42 expulsions with traditional immigration enforcement. Fact-checks noted that Title 42 increased repeat crossing attempts, which inflated the raw count of border encounters. Many claims ignored that the policy stayed active under the Biden administration until its formal end.
Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico): The Biden administration moved to terminate MPP. After a district court ordered its reinstatement, the case reached the Supreme Court, which in 2022 affirmed the administration's discretion to end it. Throughout, public statements frequently cast the litigation as proof that MPP had been working or that courts had forced a permanent reversal, while reporters documented a more nuanced, shifting legal landscape.
Border wall construction and contracts: The new administration paused new construction, assessed contracts, and redirected some funds. Public claims often equated miles of barrier with border security outcomes, or asserted that the wall had been fully completed and then dismantled. Journalists documented the distinction between primary and secondary barriers, replacement vs. new segments, and the lack of evidence that dismantling was widespread.

Migration levels, measured by CBP encounters, reached record highs in 2021-2023. Coverage emphasized that encounters are not the same as unique individuals, that expulsions affect repeat attempts, and that hemispheric conditions drove irregular migration beyond any single policy lever. Amid these pressures, state-level actions emerged as storylines in their own right, including high-profile transports of migrants to northern cities in 2022. Each development spawned new claims that often ignored statutory limits, court orders, or the administrative constraints facing federal agencies.

Documented Claim Patterns

Without relying on direct quotes, analysts can group the period's immigration assertions into recurring patterns that were repeatedly examined by fact-checkers and reporters:

Open borders frame: Statements depicted the border as functionally open, despite continued removals under Title 42 for most of the timeframe and ongoing Title 8 processing. Coverage noted the need to distinguish policy changes from enforcement capacity and to separate anecdotal imagery from system-wide metrics.
Wall completion claims: Assertions that the border wall had been completed or was near completion at the end of the first term, along with claims that it was torn down afterward. Reporters contrasted these claims with documented miles of new vs. replacement barrier and on-the-ground evidence that most existing segments remained intact.
Fentanyl and drug smuggling narratives: Claims linked irregular migration between ports of entry to fentanyl trafficking. Fact-checks repeatedly cited federal seizure data showing most fentanyl is interdicted at official ports of entry and that a majority of traffickers identified in federal cases are U.S. citizens, while noting that seizures at the border surged and the overdose crisis is severe.
Crime and terrorism assertions: Rhetoric suggested large numbers of criminals or terrorists were entering. Journalists explained the difference between watchlist matches and confirmed terror suspects, the small scale of such matches relative to total encounters, and the absence of evidence for a surge in migrant-driven crime nationally.
Social benefits and voting claims: Statements alleged widespread access to federal benefits for undocumented immigrants or significant noncitizen voting. Reporters pointed to longstanding legal restrictions on federal benefits and the rarity of improper voting cases, while acknowledging limited local programs and discrete incidents.
Asylum and parole simplifications: Comments described asylum screening as a rubber stamp or parole as a blanket amnesty. Coverage highlighted specific program criteria, case-by-case determinations, and the gap between application and approval outcomes.

These patterns tended to treat complex, multi-agency systems as binary on-off switches. They also leaned on statistics without context, such as raw encounter counts, the catch-all category of "gotaways," or aggregated watchlist references that include non-border settings like airports. The result was a steady stream of claims that were often anchored to a real data point but made false or misleading leaps.

How Journalists and Fact-Checkers Covered It at the Time

Reporters and fact-checkers approached these narratives with a mix of live-event coverage and data-driven explainers. Common practices included:

Primary-source grounding: Using CBP monthly statistics, DHS operational updates, and court filings to build timelines that put specific claims in context. For example, they tracked Title 42 usage alongside traditional removals and returns and explained how these categories interact with unique individual counts.
Methodology transparency: Explicitly defining terms like "encounters," "apprehensions," "expulsions," "removals," and "inadmissibles," and distinguishing ports of entry from between-port activity. This helped readers avoid apples-to-oranges comparisons that often underpinned misleading statements.
Court ruling synthesis: Summarizing key holdings, including the Supreme Court's 2022 decision allowing the administration to end MPP, and subsequent proceedings that affected implementation timelines. Coverage emphasized what rulings did and did not require.
Supply chain vs. border crossing: Explaining drug trafficking patterns using DOJ and CBP seizure reports, which showed interdictions concentrated at ports of entry and emphasized commercial smuggling methods, even as border stress was real.
Local impact reporting: Documenting state and city responses to migrant arrivals, shelter capacity strains, and emergency policy shifts, while separating the actions of state officials from federal policy and from claims made on national stages.

Crucially, the strongest coverage coupled quantitative trends with legal and operational constraints. That model is essential when assessing post-presidency assertions that rely on partial data or omit procedural details.

How These Entries Are Cataloged in Lie Library

Entries from 2021-2023 are organized by claim type, policy topic, and medium, with each record tracing the statement to a primary source such as a rally video, television appearance, court filing, or Truth Social post. Each entry includes:

Claim classification: False, misleading, or unsupported, based on available evidence at the time of publication and periodic updates as new documents emerge.
Evidence bundle: Links to official statistics, court opinions, agency memoranda, and hearings. Where possible, we include contemporaneous coverage from nonpartisan fact-checkers alongside original source documents.
Context notes: Explanations that define terms like "encounters" versus "unique individuals," caveats around "gotaway" estimates, and distinctions between ports of entry and between-port apprehensions.
Cross references: Connections to earlier eras for continuity, including first-term narratives and post-election claims that set the stage for 2021-2023.
Receipts with QR code merch: For transparency and reach, select entries offer tees, stickers, mugs, and hats printed with the claim and a QR code that links straight to the primary evidence.

If you are tracking continuity across eras, two helpful reference hubs are:

For developers and researchers, entries support metadata filtering by date range, topic tags, and claim classification. That enables side-by-side comparisons, such as seeing how fentanyl claims evolved before and after Title 42 ended, or how wall-related assertions changed as litigation and contracting decisions unfolded.

Why This Era's Claims Still Matter

Post-presidency statements did not fade into the background. They shaped primary debates, informed state-level actions, and influenced public understanding of policy levers like asylum screening and parole. Many 2024 proposals and talking points trace directly to narratives road tested in 2021-2023. City and state policy responses to new arrivals, often captured in headlines, became raw material for repeated claims about federal failure, which in turn shaped polling and fundraising appeals.

For journalists, researchers, and civic educators, this era underscores a durable lesson. High-salience images, single statistics, and complex court decisions can be combined into potent but misleading stories. Clear definitions, timelines grounded in official documents, and attention to denominators and categories are essential safeguards.

Actionable Guidance for Verifying Post-2021 Immigration Claims

Use this checklist to evaluate statements efficiently and consistently:

Pin the date and medium: Identify when the claim was made and whether it references a specific month or policy announcement. Many statements rely on short windows of data or old footage.
Find the primary document: For policy claims, pull the rule, memo, or opinion. For Title 42, confirm whether the relevant time period predates May 2023. For MPP, note the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling and subsequent agency guidance.
Normalize the metric: If the claim cites encounters, check CBP weekly or monthly data and confirm whether counts refer to attempts or individuals. If it cites "terrorist" matches, determine if the figure includes airports or the northern border.
Check the venue: Fentanyl claims require separating ports of entry from between-port activity. Use seizure data and DOJ cases to identify trafficking patterns and citizenship of defendants.
Assess policy scope: Asylum and parole programs are limited by statute and guidance. Review eligibility criteria, caps, and case-by-case language to test broad claims of amnesty.
Contextualize with timelines: Overlay court orders, agency memos, and implementation dates. Many misleading claims collapse long timelines into a single event.
Document caveats: Note data limitations, such as changes in methodology or incomplete periods. Flag repeat-crossing effects during Title 42.

Conclusion

Immigration claims during 2021-2023 were shaped by complex policy transitions, pandemic-era authorities, and a crowded legal docket. The period produced an archive of statements that often drew on a real data point or event but omitted the rules, constraints, and definitions needed for accuracy. Clear sourcing, careful terminology, and attention to legal timelines remain the fastest way to separate heat from light.

FAQ

What primary sources are most useful for validating post-2021 claims?

Start with CBP and DHS operational updates for encounters and processing categories, DOJ press releases and court filings for trafficking and prosecution patterns, and published court opinions for asylum and MPP rulings. City and state records are essential when claims cite local impacts or budgets.

How should reporters handle "open borders" or "gotaway" assertions?

Define terms up front. Clarify whether the claim refers to processing at ports of entry, between-port apprehensions, or estimates of individuals who evaded apprehension. When discussing "gotaways," include how estimates are derived, what they exclude, and why they are not equivalent to confirmed entries.

What is the best way to cover fentanyl claims tied to border crossings?

Separate overdose trends from interdiction data. Identify where seizures occur, the transportation methods involved, and the citizenship of defendants in federal cases. Avoid implying that overdose deaths map neatly to border crossing modality or location.

How do you prevent cherry-picked timelines from distorting the story?

Align claims with policy dates, court rulings, and reporting periods. Use rolling averages or comparable months year over year. Footnote changes in methodology, such as the effect of Title 42 on repeat attempts, to keep time series comparable.