Overview
A Trump-era rule takes effect December 31, 2025, allowing immigration officials to deny asylum to anyone deemed a security threat because of communicable diseases during public health emergencies. Originally published in December 2020 and scheduled to go live three weeks later, the rule was delayed five times by Biden's DHS but never killed. Now it becomes law under Trump's second term, despite no active pandemic.
The rule redefines 'danger to the security of the United States' to include public health risks, creating a permanent framework for future pandemic-related asylum restrictions. It's a ghost from the first Trump administration finally materializing—a sleeper policy that outlasted one presidency and returned with the next. Immigration advocates are preparing legal challenges, calling it an unprecedented expansion of executive power to bypass congressional asylum protections.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
Federal agency responsible for immigration enforcement, border security, and asylum adjudication.
EOIR administers immigration courts that hear defensive asylum cases and other removal proceedings.
Civil liberties organization litigating against Trump immigration policies.
Center-left think tank focused on public policy analysis.
Timeline
-
Pandemic Asylum Bar Takes Effect
ImplementationFive years after initial publication, rule allowing public health-based asylum denials becomes law despite no active pandemic.
-
DHS Confirms Security Bars Effective Date
RegulatoryAgencies publish confirmation that December 31, 2025 effective date will proceed, withdrawing only outdated procedural amendments.
-
DHS Freezes All Asylum Decisions
PolicyUSCIS places indefinite hold on all pending asylum applications for comprehensive review.
-
Court Strikes Down Biden CBP One Rule
LegalFederal court rules Biden's restrictive CBP One app requirement violated Immigration and Nationality Act.
-
Federal Court Blocks Asylum Shutdown
LegalCourt sides with ACLU, blocking Trump's proclamation completely shutting down border asylum.
-
ACLU Sues Over Asylum Ban
LegalImmigration advocates sue Trump administration over proclamation aimed at completely shutting down asylum.
-
Kristi Noem Confirmed as DHS Secretary
AppointmentSenate confirms former South Dakota governor 59-34 to lead Trump's immigration crackdown.
-
Trump Takes Office, Declares Border 'Invasion'
PolicyTrump begins second term with proclamation blocking asylum seekers, eliminating CBP One app, imposing $100 asylum fees.
-
Fifth and Final Delay
RegulatoryBiden administration delays effective date one last time but doesn't revoke rule, setting stage for Trump implementation.
-
Biden Issues Restrictive Asylum Executive Action
PolicyBiden makes it easier to block asylum seekers during high encounter periods, moving away from early liberalization efforts.
-
Title 42 Ends After 3 Million Expulsions
PolicyCOVID-19 national emergency ends, terminating related Title 42 expulsion authority that removed nearly 3 million migrants.
-
Mayorkas Confirmed as DHS Secretary
AppointmentSenate confirms Alejandro Mayorkas as first Latino and immigrant DHS Secretary under Biden.
-
First Delay Under Biden
RegulatoryBiden administration postpones effective date three days after scheduled implementation, citing related litigation and conflicts with other rules.
-
Security Bars Final Rule Published
RegulatoryTrump DHS publishes final rule allowing asylum denials based on communicable disease public health emergencies. Scheduled for January 22, 2021 effective date.
-
DHS and DOJ Propose Security Bars Rule
RegulatoryAgencies publish notice proposing to treat emergency public health concerns as national security threats for asylum purposes.
-
CDC Activates Title 42 for COVID-19
PolicyCDC allows rapid expulsion of border crossers citing pandemic, setting precedent for public health immigration restrictions.
Scenarios
Rule Applied Selectively During Next Pandemic, Courts Uphold
Discussed by: Immigration law firms including Cohen Tucker & Ades and Erickson Immigration Group
When the next pandemic emerges—bird flu, a novel coronavirus variant, or other outbreak—the Trump administration designates affected countries or regions as public health threats. Asylum seekers from those areas face automatic bars regardless of individual health status. Legal challenges argue the rule violates asylum law and treaty obligations, but courts defer to executive authority during public health emergencies. The framework becomes normalized, used selectively based on which countries align with broader immigration priorities. No major outbreak materializes during Trump's term, leaving the rule dormant but primed.
Advocacy Groups Win, Rule Struck Down for Overreach
Discussed by: ACLU and immigration advocates signaling court challenges
The ACLU and allied organizations sue, arguing the rule stretches 'danger to the security of the United States' beyond recognition. A federal court finds that redefining national security threats to include public health risks violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and bypasses congressional asylum protections. The ruling cites the absence of any actual pandemic when the rule took effect, exposing it as pretext for broader asylum restrictions. The decision follows the pattern of courts blocking Trump's complete asylum shutdown in April 2025 and striking down Biden's CBP One rule in May 2025.
Future Administration Revokes Rule, Framework Abandoned
Discussed by: Migration policy analysts observing Biden's failure to terminate the rule
The rule survives Trump's second term unused because no qualifying pandemic emerges. When Democrats retake the White House, the new administration doesn't repeat Mayorkas's mistake of endless delays—they outright revoke it. The five-year odyssey of postponements and survivals ends with formal termination. Immigration advocates cite the rule's discriminatory potential and lack of public health justification. Without a crisis to justify it, the framework dissolves. But the precedent lingers: the idea that pandemic fears can bar asylum has been normalized in regulatory language, ready for resurrection.
Rule Becomes Permanent Fixture, Expanded to Other 'Security' Grounds
Discussed by: Sarah Pierce at Third Way, warning about discretionary authority and potential for abuse
The Trump administration uses the rule's logic to justify further expansions: if public health risks count as security threats, why not economic security, social security, or other stretched definitions? Future regulations cite the Security Bars precedent to deny asylum on progressively broader grounds. The massive discretion granted becomes normalized across administrations of both parties, with each finding convenient justifications. Pierce's prediction proves accurate: the rule is overused and abused, becoming a template for executive end-runs around asylum law. What started as pandemic policy becomes permanent infrastructure for restriction.
Historical Context
HIV Immigration Ban (1987-2010)
1987-2010What Happened
In 1987, the U.S. added HIV to the list of diseases barring immigration. President Clinton codified the ban in 1993 despite scientific evidence that HIV wasn't casually transmitted. Haitian asylum seekers who tested positive for HIV were detained at Guantanamo Bay starting in 1991—they couldn't return to Haiti where they'd face persecution, but couldn't enter the U.S. either. Approximately 270 HIV-positive asylum seekers were trapped in legal limbo. The ban wasn't lifted until 2010, after 23 years.
Outcome
Short term: HIV-positive immigrants and asylum seekers were excluded or detained for over two decades.
Long term: The ban was eventually recognized as discriminatory and scientifically baseless, repealed in 2010 when evidence overwhelmed stigma.
Why It's Relevant
Like the current rule, public health was weaponized for immigration restriction despite weak medical justification. Both redefine security threats to include disease, creating frameworks that outlast the crises that supposedly justified them.
Title 42 Expulsions (2020-2023)
March 2020 - May 2023What Happened
The CDC issued a public health order allowing rapid expulsion of migrants at the border without asylum hearings, citing COVID-19. The Trump administration implemented it in March 2020; Biden kept it despite campaign promises. Nearly 3 million migrants were expelled. Public health experts and immigration advocates argued it was immigration policy disguised as pandemic response. Multiple legal challenges attempted to block it. It ended only when the COVID-19 national emergency was formally terminated in May 2023.
Outcome
Short term: Border crossers were expelled en masse without due process for three years across two presidencies.
Long term: Title 42 normalized pandemic justifications for immigration restriction and demonstrated bipartisan willingness to use public health as border control.
Why It's Relevant
The Security Bars rule is Title 42's regulatory cousin: both use communicable disease fears to override asylum protections. This rule creates permanent authority where Title 42 was theoretically temporary. It's the institutionalization of what Title 42 demonstrated was politically viable.
Chinese Exclusion Act and Early Disease Bars (1882-1917)
1882-1924What Happened
The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was the first major law banning an entire nationality, justified partly by racist stereotypes of Chinese immigrants as diseased. That same year, laws excluded those with 'loathsome or contagious' diseases. The 1907 Immigration Act expanded restrictions for infectious diseases and disabilities. The 1917 Immigration Act consolidated exclusions for 'persons afflicted with contagious disease.' Public health became a recurring justification for racial and ethnic immigration restrictions throughout the early 20th century.
Outcome
Short term: Immigrant communities faced exclusion and discrimination based on nationality and health status intertwined with racism.
Long term: These laws established a century-long precedent of using public health as cover for immigration restriction targeting specific populations.
Why It's Relevant
The Security Bars rule follows a 140-year pattern: when governments want to restrict immigration, they reach for public health justifications. Disease-based bars have always allowed selective enforcement targeting disfavored groups. History suggests this rule's neutral language will mask discriminatory application.