Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework To Address the Causes of Migration, To Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and To Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border

Background

Policy Initiatives and Impact on Law

President Biden's 2021 order initiated a broad reformation in regional migration management, primarily focusing on addressing the root causes of migration from the Northern Triangle—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. It compelled agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State to coordinate a multi-faceted strategy that included combatting corruption, strengthening democratic governance, and advancing economic security. Prior initiatives under the Trump administration had emphasized deterrence at the U.S. border, but this order sought to pivot focus toward regional stabilization and comprehensive management practices. Although not all measures required legislative rulemaking, they set forth significant internal directives for operational adjustments, such as enhancing the processing infrastructure for asylum seekers.

Agency Directives and Operational Adjustments

The executive order led to substantial shifts within federal agencies responsible for immigration and asylum. The DHS, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was required to develop health-conscious protocols to resume the orderly processing of asylum seekers at land borders, prioritizing public safety measures. Furthermore, Biden's directive necessitated rescinding or modifying previous policies like the Migrant Protection Protocols, better known as "Remain in Mexico," which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed. As a result, agencies had to reallocate resources, change operational procedures, and adopt new training modules to support the incoming measures.

Societal Implications and Reception

The order had wide-ranging societal implications, receiving mixed reactions from various stakeholders. Proponents, including many immigration advocacy groups, lauded it as a necessary humanitarian shift that restored the United States’ commitment to providing sanctuary to those fleeing violence and poverty. Conversely, some critics argued that the comprehensive regional framework could potentially incentivize migration, sparking concerns about a surge at the Southern border. Nonetheless, the policy pursued collaborations with international organizations and regional governments to create safer pathways for migrants, thus aiming to mitigate the feared influx while reinforcing America's traditional role as a refuge for the oppressed.

Reason for Revocation

Ideological Shift

The revocation of the 2021 executive order by Donald Trump in January 2025 marked a definitive return to hardline immigration policies reminiscent of his previous administration. The rollback fits into a broader ideological shift emphasizing stringent border enforcement and reduced immigration. Trump's policies historically focused on deterrence, emphasizing border security and minimizing incentives for immigration through strict enforcement measures. The rescission of Biden's framework represented a pivot back to prioritizing immediate border control measures over longer-term regional strategies.

Contextual Motivations

Several circumstances likely catalyzed Trump's decision to rescind the policy. Rising domestic pressure for tighter border security due to reported increases in migration might have served as a pretext for the policy turnaround. Economic and security narratives propagated during Trump's electoral campaign could have sparked demands to revisit the comprehensive approach. Moreover, revoking the order could have been seen as fulfilling political promises to reinstate his previous administration's border security measures, reinforcing his commitment to an America-first agenda.

Criticism of Regional Objectives

Critics of the original order viewed its objectives as too ambitious and diffuse, arguing that the focus on regional cooperation diluted the immediate efforts needed to manage crises at the U.S.-Mexico border effectively. Trump's administration heralded more unilateral measures that directly addressed border security issues, likely perceiving the regional strategy as an over-extension of U.S. diplomatic commitments that diverted resources from direct enforcement tasks at the border.

Political and Public Response

The revocation resonated with a significant segment of the American electorate concerned with national sovereignty and border security. Trump's decision may have been fueled by these domestic sentiments, leveraging public opinion that demanded tangible results in immigration enforcement. It underscored a populist approach that prioritized visible and immediate border control over international collaborative efforts, appealing to constituents who favored a reduction in immigration.

Winners

Border Security and Enforcement Agencies

Federal agencies involved in border security, such as the DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), stand to benefit from the revocation. The shift back to stringent enforcement measures could mean increased funding and resources allocated directly to border security operations. The centralization of efforts around immediate deterrence allows these agencies to reaffirm their enforcement priorities without expanding their scope into the complex realm of international cooperation and regional development efforts.

Private Detention Industry

The private sector, particularly companies involved in constructing and maintaining detention facilities, such as GEO Group and CoreCivic, may experience a resurgence in demand for their services. Under Trump's stricter policies, the expanded use of detention centers for processing and holding migrants became a pivot point in managing immigration flows. Thus, the order's revocation could herald a return to increased contracts and financial gains for these companies.

Conservative Political Base

The revocation appeals to conservative political factions, including various advocacy groups aligned with reduced immigration and stringent border control. Organizations focused on limiting immigration, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), may find the policy reversal aligned with their advocacy, garnering greater political validity and support. Reinforcing a law-and-order narrative fits well within the ideological framework preferred by these groups, potentially increasing their influence in shaping public and policy discourse on immigration.

Losers

Migrant Populations from Central America

Central American migrants, particularly those from the Northern Triangle, are likely to be adversely affected by the revocation. With diminished pathways for asylum and weakened regional support structures, these migrants may face increased difficulty in obtaining protection and legal entry into the United States. The focus on border enforcement over regional development risks exacerbating the conditions that drive emigration, leaving vulnerable populations with fewer options and increased risks in their migration journeys.

Human Rights Oriented Organizations

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international bodies that advocated for the protections and comprehensive strategies outlined in the original order are likely to experience setbacks. These organizations may face challenges in coordinating and implementing humanitarian relief and development programs without the backing of U.S. policies that emphasized regional stabilization and cooperative reforms. These obstacles might impede their efforts to improve socio-economic conditions and human rights protections in migrant-origin countries.

Regional Partner Governments

Governments in the Northern Triangle, which had cooperated with the U.S. under the broader strategic framework, may find themselves at a disadvantage following the revocation. The reduced focus on collaborative regional efforts could result in diminished U.S. support for addressing root causes of migration. Consequently, these countries might struggle to cope with socio-economic challenges that prompt emigration, hindering their development goals and stability while possibly straining diplomatic relations with the U.S.