To restart “Remain in Mexico,” Trump would need to overcome one critical obstacle that didn’t exist during his first term: Mexico has withdrawn its consent to accept asylum seekers under the program. On January 20-21, 2025, Trump announced the reinstatement of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) as one of his first actions in office, but by April 2025, a federal court granted an emergency stay blocking the reimplementation while a federal class action lawsuit challenging its legality proceeds. Without Mexico’s agreement, the entire policy cannot function, regardless of what executive orders Trump signs.
The policy itself is straightforward in design: asylum seekers who arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border are sent back to Mexico to wait for their U.S. immigration court hearings rather than being released into the United States. The Trump administration claims this approach has contributed to the lowest migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border since the 1970s and argues it achieved negative net migration in 2025—the first time in over 50 years. But the legal authority to carry out this policy, the cooperation of another nation, and the outcome of pending federal litigation all remain in question.
Table of Contents
- How Does the “Remain in Mexico” Program Actually Work?
- What Legal Challenges Is the Policy Facing?
- Why Mexico’s Withdrawal of Consent Is the Biggest Problem
- What Happens to Asylum Seekers While “Waiting in Mexico”?
- What Do Border Numbers Really Show About the Policy’s Effectiveness?
- What Would Restarting Require in Practice?
- What Comes Next for Asylum Seekers and Immigration Policy?
- Conclusion
How Does the “Remain in Mexico” Program Actually Work?
The Remain in Mexico program, formally called the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), forces asylum seekers to wait outside U.S. territory while their cases are processed. Rather than releasing migrants into the United States with a court date, immigration officials return them to Mexico immediately after they request asylum. These individuals then wait for their U.S. immigration court hearing—a process that can take months or years—while living in Mexico without the full protections or resources available to those inside the U.S.
immigration system. The program relies on a specific legal authority: Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the Department of Homeland Security the power to return asylum seekers to a “contiguous country” (meaning Mexico or Canada) if they traveled through that country first. This statutory provision is the legal foundation trump is relying on, but it doesn’t eliminate the need for cooperation. If Mexico refuses to accept the migrants, the statute becomes moot—DHS cannot simply dump asylum seekers across the border without the receiving country’s agreement. During Trump’s first term, Mexico agreed to participate. Today, that agreement no longer exists.
What Legal Challenges Is the Policy Facing?
Even before Mexico withdrew its consent, federal courts had already intervened. In April 2025, a federal court granted an emergency stay blocking the reimplementation of Remain in Mexico while a federal class action lawsuit challenging the policy’s constitutionality and legality proceeds. This isn’t a minor procedural hiccup—it’s an active court order preventing the program from operating. The lawsuit raises questions about whether the program violates asylum seekers’ due process rights, their ability to access legal counsel, and whether the government is properly following administrative procedure requirements.
The irony is significant: Trump can announce the policy, DHS can publish new rules, and the White House can claim it’s being implemented—but the courts have already said no. This type of emergency stay typically indicates that a judge believes the plaintiffs have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits. The distinction between announcing a policy and actually being allowed to carry it out matters enormously for asylum seekers and immigration attorneys preparing for what may come next. A policy cannot function if federal courts have blocked it, regardless of the administration’s intentions.
Why Mexico’s Withdrawal of Consent Is the Biggest Problem
Mexico’s withdrawal of consent to accept migrants under the MPP program represents the most intractable obstacle to restarting Remain in Mexico. Unlike legal challenges, which can potentially be overcome through different arguments or appeals, you cannot force another sovereign nation to accept migrants it doesn’t want. Mexico made it clear it would not continue participating in the program, and that decision upends the entire strategy. During Trump’s first term, Mexico cooperated, and the policy operated (despite legal challenges and humanitarian concerns).
That cooperation was never guaranteed to continue, and it has not. The Trump administration would need to negotiate a new agreement with Mexico, a process that involves political capital, diplomatic leverage, and offers Mexico might find acceptable. There’s no indication such negotiations are underway or that Mexico has any motivation to reverse its position. Without Mexico’s agreement, the legal authority in Section 235(b)(2)(C) is useless—it authorizes returning asylum seekers to a contiguous country only if that country will accept them.
What Happens to Asylum Seekers While “Waiting in Mexico”?
Under Remain in Mexico, asylum seekers are supposed to wait in Mexico for their U.S. immigration court hearings. In practice, this creates a perilous situation. Asylum seekers—often fleeing violence, persecution, or extreme poverty—are placed in Mexican border towns with limited access to legal aid, resources, or protection. They are in a legal limbo, no longer in their home countries but not admitted to the United States either. Access to legal representation becomes a critical problem. While in Mexico waiting for hearings, asylum seekers face enormous barriers to finding and affording attorneys to represent them in U.S.
immigration court. Democracy 2025 Response Center notes that legal aid is limited while waiting outside U.S. territory. Compare this to asylum seekers released into the United States: they can access legal aid organizations, community resources, and have more freedom to prepare their cases. The difference in outcomes is stark. Many asylum seekers waiting in Mexico abandon their cases entirely because the conditions are intolerable, not because their claims lack merit. From the government’s perspective, this may be the point—deterrence through hardship.
What Do Border Numbers Really Show About the Policy’s Effectiveness?
The Trump administration points to impressive statistics: migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border reached their lowest level since the 1970s, and the U.S. achieved negative net migration in 2025 for the first time in over 50 years. These numbers are presented as proof that Remain in Mexico and other border enforcement policies work. But causation is more complicated than the statistics suggest. Multiple factors influence border crossings: economic conditions in Central America, political instability, climate disasters, changing migration routes, the effectiveness of enforcement in other countries, and yes, U.S. policies.
During the same period when border encounters dropped, the Trump administration also increased deportations, expanded detention, and pursued aggressive rhetoric. Isolating the impact of Remain in Mexico specifically is nearly impossible. The low numbers could reflect the combined effect of all these measures, or they could reflect changes in conditions elsewhere. Additionally, negative net migration—more people leaving the U.S. than entering—is driven partly by employment conditions, immigration enforcement making life harder for undocumented immigrants, and economic factors unrelated to border policy. The White House’s claims about what caused the numbers are assertions, not proven cause-and-effect relationships.
What Would Restarting Require in Practice?
To actually restart Remain in Mexico, Trump would need to accomplish several concrete tasks. First, the administration would need to reach an agreement with Mexico—the fundamental blocker. Second, it would need to navigate the federal court stay and the ongoing litigation. The government could ask the appeals court to overturn the emergency stay, or it could wait for a final ruling on the merits of the case, but neither path is guaranteed.
Third, the administration would need to establish the administrative infrastructure: coordination between DHS, the Department of State, and Mexican authorities; processing centers in Mexican border towns; court hearing schedules; and procedures for managing thousands of cases. The timeframe matters. During Trump’s first term, these systems took months to build. If the administration is serious about restarting the program quickly, it would need to move fast against legal resistance and without Mexico’s cooperation. The White House announcement in February 2026 about border enforcement expansion suggests intentions, but intentions alone don’t restart a program that requires the consent of two nations and the approval of federal courts.
What Comes Next for Asylum Seekers and Immigration Policy?
The future of Remain in Mexico hinges on three things: Mexico’s decision, the federal court’s ruling on the pending class action lawsuit, and the Trump administration’s priorities. If Mexico continues refusing to cooperate, the policy is dead regardless of legal wins. If courts rule against the government, the policy is blocked regardless of Mexico. Only if all three align—Mexico agrees, courts permit it, and the administration pursues it—will Remain in Mexico restart.
In the meantime, asylum seekers and immigration attorneys are preparing for multiple scenarios. Some are trying to lodge claims quickly before any new policies take effect. Others are preparing litigation strategies. Legal aid organizations are bracing for an increase in cases of asylum seekers stuck in limbo. Immigration policy remains in flux, and the real-world consequences play out in the lives of people trying to seek safety in the United States.
Conclusion
Trump’s claim that he will bring back Remain in Mexico confronts a reality his first administration did not face: Mexico no longer consents to the program. Without that consent, no legal authority, executive order, or political will can make the policy function. The federal court stay blocking reimplementation adds another layer of legal uncertainty.
Even if Trump wins in the courts, he still needs Mexico at the negotiating table. The broader question isn’t whether Remain in Mexico can be restarted—it’s whether the conditions that made it possible before still exist. Those conditions have shifted, and shifting them back would require political negotiations, legal victories, and time. For now, the policy remains blocked, Mexico remains unwilling, and asylum seekers remain in legal uncertainty about what asylum in America will look like.