JANUARY 2025 BORDER UPDATE: TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICIES TRIGGER MIGRATION SHIFT
Following the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20th, a series of swift policy changes have dramatically reshaped the landscape of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border. This week’s update deviates from our usual format to address the immediate and widespread effects of these actions, offering a point-by-point analysis under key headings.
MIGRATION DECLINE IN JANUARY: ANTICIPATING ASYLUM RESTRICTIONS
January 2025 witnessed a significant decrease in migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border, as reported by Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This drop occurred during a month split between the outgoing Biden administration (first 19.5 days) and the incoming Trump administration (final 11.5 days).
Key Figures
In January, CBP reported 61,465 migrant encounters, a 36 percent decrease from December 2024, a 65 percent decrease from January 2024, and the lowest monthly figure since September 2020.
Image alt text: Chart showing CBP migrant encounters at the US-Mexico border by month, highlighting the sharp decrease in January 2025, relevant to mexico s panama migration discussions.
Mexican citizens constituted 32 percent of migrants encountered in January, aligning with the trend since October 2023. Nationalities experiencing the most significant declines in encounters from December to January included Guatemala (-51%), Brazil (-51%), Honduras (-46%), Colombia (-45%), Nicaragua (-44%), and Haiti (-44%).
While migration had been gradually decreasing for 13 months due to Mexico’s enhanced migration control and the Biden administration’s June 2024 rule limiting asylum access between ports of entry, the December-to-January drop is directly attributed to the Trump administration’s January 20th actions effectively closing the border to undocumented migrants and halting asylum processes. This policy shift is crucial when analyzing the broader context of migration patterns involving Mexico S Panama and beyond.
Between official ports of entry in January, Border Patrol apprehensions totaled 29,116, marking a 38 percent decrease from December 2024, a 77 percent decrease from January 2024, and the lowest monthly figure since May 2020.
Image alt text: Line graph illustrating Border Patrol apprehensions at the US-Mexico border, showing a significant drop in January 2025, impacting migration routes from Mexico s Panama region.
Border Patrol released 2,572 migrants from custody in January (9 percent of apprehensions), a 63 percent decrease from December 2024, a 96 percent decrease from January 2024, and the fewest interior releases since January 2021. Border Patrol Chief Mike Banks stated that only two migrants have been released since January 20th, specifically “to assist with criminal prosecutions as witnesses.”
Image alt text: Bar chart comparing Border Patrol migrant releases from custody, demonstrating a drastic reduction in January 2025, affecting migration dynamics between Mexico s Panama and the US.
At ports of entry, the Trump administration abruptly ended the Biden-era CBP One app appointment system for asylum seekers. CBP encounters at ports of entry from January 20-31 plummeted by 93 percent compared to the preceding 11-day average due to the CBP One cancellation. This policy change significantly contributed to the overall drop in migrant encounters in January 2025, reversing a trend of relative stability since the CBP One program’s implementation in July 2023, which had been processing approximately 1,450 daily appointments.
Image alt text: Graph depicting CBP port of entry encounters, showing a sharp decline in January 2025 after the CBP One app changes, impacting asylum seekers from regions like Mexico s Panama.
CBP Field Operations encountered 32,349 individuals at ports of entry in January. For the third consecutive month, port-of-entry encounters surpassed Border Patrol apprehensions, marking a likely historic trend. January port-of-entry encounters were 34 percent lower than in December 2024, 38 percent lower than in January 2024, and the lowest since April 2023.
In January, single adults comprised 61 percent of encountered migrants, family unit members 34 percent, and unaccompanied children 5 percent. These proportions are consistent with overall trends since October 2023 (57 percent single adults, 37 percent family unit members, 5 percent unaccompanied children).
Image alt text: Chart illustrating migrant apprehensions at the US-Mexico border from October 2011 to April 2020, providing historical context to current migration trends related to Mexico s Panama.
San Diego, California, became the leading Border Patrol sector for migrant apprehensions with 6,397 (22 percent of the total), a position held since June 2024, except for December 2024 when the Rio Grande Valley sector in south Texas saw more apprehensions.
Image alt text: Map showing US-Mexico Border Patrol sectors and migrant apprehensions, highlighting San Diego as the leading sector in January 2025, relevant to understanding migration patterns from Mexico s Panama.
While comprehensive data post-January 20 inauguration is pending, preliminary information reveals the immediate impact of restrictive policies.
Restrictive Policies and the Right to Asylum: Impact Beyond Mexico s Panama
The decline in migration is a direct consequence of the Trump administration’s policies making asylum inaccessible at the border. These policies include summary deportations of undocumented individuals and the termination of CBP One appointments, actions currently facing legal challenges.
Amnesty International stated in a February 20 brief, based on field research in Tijuana, that “The right to seek asylum in the United States is non-existent at the U.S.-Mexico border,” highlighting the vulnerability of thousands stranded in Mexico. This situation underscores the ripple effect of US border policies, extending beyond Mexico s Panama and impacting the entire region.
Border Patrol Chief Banks confirmed in an interview that asylum is no longer an option for those crossing between ports of entry. He stated, “You do not cross the border illegally and then make an asylum claim. You can go to the port of entry, or you can go to one of the embassies in your country and make your claim for asylum.” However, these alternatives are practically unattainable due to tightened security at ports of entry and embassies.
The new administration employs a multi-layered strategy, layering overlapping restrictions on asylum access.
Firstly, a January 20 executive order suspended entry for all undocumented migrants, invoking presidential authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to block entry of specific groups. Citing an “invasion” under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, this order effectively prevents individuals from exercising their right to asylum at the border, authorizing Border Patrol agents and CBP officers to disregard asylum claims.
A Just Security analysis cautioned that Trump’s “invasion” declaration serves to claim “vast presidential powers that don’t exist in peacetime or wartime, launching a direct assault on the constitutional separation of powers and the rule of law.” This legal interpretation has significant implications for asylum seekers and the overall human rights landscape related to migration routes spanning from Mexico s Panama to the US border.
Secondly, CNN reported the impending announcement of a public health order to ban asylum seekers and other undocumented migrants as “risks for spreading diseases,” despite the absence of a pandemic threat. Internal discussions reportedly cite measles and tuberculosis, echoing a long and discredited history of racist narratives associating migrants with disease. This public health rationale adds another layer of complexity to the asylum restrictions, further limiting options for migrants from regions including Mexico s Panama.
Ironically, while citing disease concerns, the administration has also dismissed hundreds of federal health inspectors at ports of entry responsible for detecting communicable diseases in cargo and people, as reported by the New York Times.
Thirdly, another January 20 executive order aims to reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy, forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their U.S. immigration court hearings. While asylum claims are currently being rejected, it remains unclear who would be subjected to this policy. This policy’s revival further complicates the situation for asylum seekers, particularly those originating from or passing through Mexico s Panama.
DARIÉN GAP MIGRATION PLUMMETS: REGIONAL IMPACTS BEYOND MEXICO S PANAMA
Panama’s government data reveals a sharp decline in migration through the Darién Gap, a perilous jungle region on the Colombia-Panama border, during January. Only 2,229 people—72 per day—crossed the Gap last month, a 54 percent decrease from December 2024, a 94 percent decrease from January 2024, and the lowest monthly figure since February 2021.
Image alt text: Chart displaying migration through Panama’s Darién Gap, indicating a significant decrease in January 2025, reflecting broader migration trends linked to Mexico s Panama and US border policies.
Venezuelan citizens remained the top nationality of Darién Gap migrants, but their share (50 percent) was the smallest since December 2023. Other nationalities included Colombia (136), Nepal (122), and Iran (100). Minors constituted 17 percent, and women and girls 34 percent of the total.
Despite Nicolás Maduro’s contested re-election in Venezuela, Darién Gap migration has drastically decreased, partly due to the anticipation of stricter U.S. migration policies. The perceived closure of the U.S. border is impacting migration decisions across the Americas, including routes that involve both Mexico s Panama.
DEPORTATION FLIGHTS TO PANAMA AND COSTA RICA: BRIDGE DEPORTATIONS AND THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS
The Trump administration has initiated “bridge deportations,” compelling countries to accept deported migrants who are third-country nationals, requiring these nations to then repatriate them, reportedly at U.S. expense. These deportations seemingly disregard deportees’ fears of returning to their home countries, raising human rights concerns across migration pathways from Mexico s Panama.
Panama: Confined and Questioned Deportees
Between February 12 and 15, the U.S. government sent three military planes to Panama with migrants from Asian countries. Responding to a U.S. request, Panama agreed to receive 299 individuals from Afghanistan, China, India, Iran, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and potentially other nations.
Panamanian officials could not provide documentation justifying the legal basis for this third-country transfer.
Upon arrival, deportees were confined to a Panama City hotel, passports and phones confiscated, and barred from leaving. Legal experts noted that Panamanian law prohibits detention beyond 24 hours without a court order. Reports emerged of suicide attempts and escape attempts at the hotel.
A New York Times report detailed migrants communicating their fears of return through hotel windows. An Afghan woman indicated fear of death in Kabul, while an Iranian Christian convert feared execution in Iran. A Chinese Christian man stated he would rather “jump off a plane” than return to China. These testimonies underscore the human cost of deportation policies and the urgent need for asylum considerations, especially for vulnerable individuals potentially impacted by migration controls between Mexico s Panama and the US.
Despite DHS claims that none expressed fear of return during processing, Panamanian officials reported that over 40 percent (128 of 299) indicated fear of return, refusing voluntary repatriation.
On February 19, the IOM facilitated the voluntary repatriation of 12 individuals from Uzbekistan and India, according to the Times.
Those refusing repatriation have been transferred to the San Vicente reception center near the Darién Gap, a facility originally designed for northbound migrants but now repurposed for deportees.
On February 18, 97 individuals were moved to San Vicente, described by one deportee as a “zoo” with “fenced cages” and rudimentary conditions. This center’s conditions, previously documented as primitive by Human Rights Watch in March 2024, raise serious concerns about the treatment of deportees and the humanitarian implications of bridge deportations affecting individuals who may have traversed routes from Mexico s Panama.
Costa Rica: Detention and Uncertain Futures
A February 20 flight from San Diego transported 135 citizens of Uzbekistan, China, Afghanistan, Russia, and other countries to Costa Rica. Approximately half were children, and at least two were pregnant women. Costa Rica is holding them at a facility near the Panama border, previously used for northbound Darién Gap migrants.
They will be detained for “four, five, six weeks,” unable to leave, while IOM arranges U.S.-funded repatriation. The voluntary nature of repatriation and the process for those fearing return remain unclear. This situation highlights the complexities of managing mixed migration flows and the potential for vulnerable individuals to be caught in deportation schemes impacting regions from Mexico s Panama to Central America.
Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves cited pressure from the U.S., stating that refusal could lead to economic retaliation. He indicated that they would “treat them well and they will leave.”
An IOM spokesperson described their role as “providing humanitarian support and facilitating return when it is safe to do so.” The agency’s role when return is unsafe, particularly for those with credible fear of persecution, remains ambiguous. The prospect of prolonged detention in basic conditions in a remote location might compel some to accept risky returns. Costa Rican officials suggested refugee status in Costa Rica as a potential option for some.
Other Countries: Expanding the Deportation Network Beyond Mexico s Panama
El Salvador and Guatemala have also agreed to accept third-country nationals, but no deportation flights have yet arrived. Honduras received Venezuelan citizens from Guantánamo Bay, but they were immediately transferred to Venezuela.
In Chiapas, Mexico, the Mexican government is offering “humanitarian flights” to Caracas for stranded Venezuelan migrants. Some migrants, facing closed U.S. borders and harsh conditions in Mexico, are considering moving south to Costa Rica, illustrating the cascading effects of border policies and the shifting migration patterns across the Americas, including routes potentially linking Mexico s Panama.
The Miami Herald reported that Venezuelans in Mexico without passports cannot obtain safe conduct letters from the Venezuelan embassy in Mexico, hindering their ability to return home even if desired.
GUANTÁNAMO DETAINEES SENT TO VENEZUELA: UNEXPECTED DEPORTATIONS VIA HONDURAS
Breaking Development: On February 20, an ICE flight transported 177 Venezuelan citizens from Guantánamo Bay to Honduras. A Venezuelan government plane then transported them to Caracas.
As of February 20, details are limited. A Justice Department filing indicated 178 detainees at Guantánamo on February 19. All but one, returned to the U.S., are now in Venezuela. The Guantánamo Bay detention facility is currently empty of migrants. This unexpected development reveals a new dimension to deportation policies, impacting individuals who may have initially sought passage through areas like Mexico s Panama.
Original Guantánamo Narrative (preceding the deportation development):
As of February 19, the Trump administration had transported over 175 men to Guantánamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba, according to a New York Times investigation. CNN cited 142 individuals on February 19.
They arrived via 13 military flights. All were described as Venezuelan citizens with final deportation orders, but the rationale for their transfer to Guantánamo remains unclear. This unusual action raises questions about the legal and ethical implications of using Guantánamo for migrant detention, especially for individuals potentially originating from or seeking passage through regions like Mexico s Panama.
Reports indicate approximately 700 military and 150 civilian personnel are involved in migrant operations at Guantánamo. Military plans suggest capacity for over 11,000 migrants and 3,500 U.S. forces. Concerns are mounting regarding “mission creep,” militarization of civilian security, legality, and fund misappropriation.
Of the 178 detainees on February 19, 127 were labeled “high threat” and held at Camp 6, previously used for “enemy combatants.” The remainder were in the DHS-run Migrant Operations Center, historically used for migrants intercepted at sea. The use of Guantánamo, a site associated with human rights abuses, for migrant detention raises serious ethical and legal questions, particularly concerning the rights and treatment of individuals who may have been seeking asylum after journeys that could have originated near Mexico s Panama.
Reports continue to surface of Guantánamo detainees without criminal records. One case involves Mayfreed Durán-Arape, a 21-year-old Venezuelan man sent to Guantánamo after 18 months in ICE detention. His mother states he faces charges for intervening in an altercation between an officer and another detainee.
Senators Hirono and Warren have questioned Defense Secretary Hegseth about the Guantánamo operation’s cost and impact on military readiness.
Vox noted Guantánamo’s historical evasion of oversight and past mistreatment of detainees. Yael Schacher of Refugees International described the extreme isolation and lack of access to legal counsel at Guantánamo, raising severe concerns about due process and human rights for migrants detained there, including those potentially linked to migration routes from Mexico s Panama.
CONGRESS CONSIDERS MASSIVE BORDER AND DEPORTATION SPENDING: FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS BEYOND MEXICO S PANAMA
The U.S. Senate convened through the night of February 20-21 to deliberate and approve a budget resolution setting the stage for substantial increases in funding for border security and mass deportations. Despite House-Senate Republican disagreements delaying progress, the bill advances.
The resolution could pave the way for an additional $175 billion for DHS, with further funding for Justice and Defense Departments. This figure dwarfs the current annual DHS budget of just over $100 billion (covering FEMA, Secret Service, Coast Guard, etc.). Such massive spending increases signal a significant shift in resource allocation towards border enforcement, potentially impacting regions beyond the immediate US-Mexico border, including areas like Mexico s Panama that are part of broader migration routes.
A Senate Republican aide indicated the $175 billion would fund ICE agent pay raises, hiring, retention bonuses, immigration judges, support staff, assistant U.S. attorneys, border wall construction, expanded detention capacity, and support for local and state law enforcement aiding ICE.
Senate Republicans utilized the “reconciliation” process, requiring only a simple majority for passage, bypassing the usual 60-vote filibuster rule. Democratic amendments failed along party lines, introduced primarily for symbolic purposes.
The Senate passed the budget resolution at 4:46 AM on February 21. House passage of a different version is expected, requiring eventual resolution of discrepancies between House and Senate versions. The ultimate goal is to enable Republicans to implement Trump’s agenda through a large spending package.
However, House and Senate Republican leaders disagree on whether to separate tax and border-immigration priorities into separate bills. Senate leaders favor two bills, prioritizing border-immigration. House leaders, with a narrow majority, prefer combining them, a strategy endorsed by President Trump.
The Senate-passed bill is “widely seen as a backup plan,” not the definitive framework for the major spending package.
In related budget news, a Washington Post report revealed a Defense Secretary memo instructing the military to prepare for an 8 percent budget cut over five years. Military “operations at the southern U.S. border” are among the few categories exempted from these cuts, highlighting the prioritization of border enforcement even amidst broader budget reductions, with potential long-term consequences for resource allocation and policy focus in regions connected by migration, including Mexico s Panama.
“MASS DEPORTATION” UPDATES
This section would typically include further details on mass deportation efforts, which are relevant to the broader context of migration and border policies, but specific updates were not detailed in the provided text beyond the deportation flights mentioned above.
NOTES ON THE IMPACT IN MEXICO
This section would usually detail the impact of U.S. border policies within Mexico, which is a crucial aspect of understanding the broader migration dynamic, but specific notes were not included in the provided text beyond the mention of stranded Venezuelan migrants and Mexican government actions.
OTHER NEWS
This section is reserved for other relevant border-related news, but no specific items were included in the provided text.
SHARE
This is a prompt to share the update, indicating its intended dissemination to a wider audience interested in border and migration issues.
