The Trump Administration’s Plan to Revive Title 42 and its Implications for Migrant Expulsions

Introduction to the Trump Administration’s Plan

The Trump administration has unveiled plans to reinstate a controversial border policy known as Title 42, which would allow U.S. immigration officials to quickly expel migrants on the grounds of preventing the spread of diseases such as tuberculosis. This move is part of a broader effort to tighten control over the U.S.-Mexico border and limit the ability of migrants to seek asylum in the United States. The policy, which was first implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, has been a key tool for the Trump administration to restrict immigration and bypass traditional legal processes for asylum seekers. The revival of Title 42 comes amid claims that it is necessary to protect public health, but critics argue that the policy is beingused as a pretext to further restrict access to the U.S. asylum system.

The History and Background of Title 42

Title 42 is a provision of the U.S. Public Health Service Act that allows the government to expel individuals from the United States if they are deemed to pose a public health risk. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked Title 42 to justify the swift expulsion of migrants at the southern border, citing the need to prevent the spread of the virus. The policy was widely criticized by human rights groups and public health experts, who argued that it was not based on scientific evidence and was instead a political tool to advance the administration’s immigration agenda. The Biden administration initially continued the policy but eventually allowed it to expire in 2023.

The Trump administration’s decision to revive Title 42 is part of a larger strategy to dismantle the U.S. asylum system. This includes the use of other policies, such as the 212(f) authority, which allows the president to bar the entry of foreigners deemed "detrimental" to the United States. These policies have been used to deny migrants the opportunity to request asylum, a right protected under both U.S. and international law. The revival of Title 42 would further solidify this approach, enabling border officials to expel migrants without any formal processing or consideration of their asylum claims.

The Role of the CDC and CBP in Enforcing Title 42

Internal government documents obtained by CBS News reveal that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is preparing to issue an order that would classify unauthorized migrants as public health risks, citing concerns about the spread of communicable diseases such as tuberculosis. Under this order, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials would be authorized to expel migrants to Mexico, their home countries, or other nations willing to accept them. This would allow border agents to bypass federal immigration law, which guarantees migrants the right to seek asylum, even if they enter the country illegally.

The decision to invoke Title 42 has been met with skepticism from public health experts, who argue that the policy is not grounded in scientific evidence. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration faced criticism for pressuring the CDC to implement Title 42 despite opposition from agency experts, who believed that the policy was not necessary for public health and was instead a political maneuver to restrict immigration. Similar concerns are being raised about the current plan to revive Title 42, with critics arguing that it is being used as a tool for immigration control rather than a genuine public health measure.

Current Border Statistics and Expert Opinions

Despite the administration’s claims that Title 42 is necessary to address public health concerns, recent data suggests that the number of illegal border crossings has dropped significantly since President Trump took office. Border Patrol chief Mike Banks reported that the average number of daily illegal crossings has fallen to fewer than 300, a more than 90% decrease from February 2024. This sharp decline raises questions about the rationale behind the revival of Title 42, as the policy is being reintroduced at a time when border crossings are already at historically low levels.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration during President Trump’s first term, has also expressed doubts about the justification for invoking Title 42. In an interview on "Face the Nation," Gottlieb noted that while tuberculosis incidence rates are higher in some countries from which migrants originate, they are not disproportionately high compared to other parts of the world. He suggested that the focus on migrants as a public health risk may be misplaced, pointing to other regions, such as India and South Africa, where tuberculosis rates are significantly higher. Gottlieb’s comments highlight the growing skepticism among public health experts about the administration’s use of Title 42 as a public health measure.

Legal Challenges and the Future of Title 42

The Trump administration’s plan to revive Title 42 is likely to face legal challenges, as it raises concerns about the violation of U.S. asylum law and international refugee protections. During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal judges ruled that the Title 42 order could not override U.S. asylum law or legal protections for unaccompanied children, whom the Trump administration had sought to expel under the measure. Similarly, the new order may face legal hurdles, particularly if it is deemed to violate the rights of migrants to seek asylum.

The interaction between Title 42 and other border policies, such as the 212(f) proclamation, also remains unclear. The 212(f) order, which has been used to justify the quick deportation of migrants without allowing them to request asylum, is currently at risk of being halted by the courts due to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Should the courts rule against the 212(f) order, it could have significant implications for the administration’s immigration policies, potentially limiting its ability to bypass traditional asylum processes.

The Broader Implications of Title 42 for Immigration and Human Rights

The revival of Title 42 is part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to close down the U.S. asylum system and restrict access to the country for migrants. Critics argue that the policy is designed to prevent migrants from asserting their legal right to seek asylum, rather than addressing genuine public health concerns. The use of Title 42 has been particularly controversial, as it allows border officials to expel migrants without any formal processing or consideration of their individual circumstances.

Theresa Cardinal Brown, a former U.S. immigration official, has described the administration’s approach as a "stopgap" measure aimed at stopping people from entering the United States, rather than a genuine effort to process migrants under federal immigration law. She and other critics argue that the revival of Title 42 is part of a broader pattern of policies that violate the rights of asylum seekers and undermine the principles of U.S. immigration law.

As the administration moves forward with its plan to revive Title 42, the policy is likely to remain a source of contention, both legally and morally. While the administration claims that the policy is necessary to protect public health and maintain order at the border, critics argue that it is being used as a tool to further restrict access to the U.S. asylum system and deny migrants their legal rights. The revival of Title 42 raises important questions about the balance between public health, immigration control, and human rights in the United States.