July, 28 2021, 10:06am EDT
U.S. Border Expulsion Policy Results in Family Separations, PTSD, Human Rights Violations: PHR Report
Interviews with asylum seekers and medical professionals in Mexico reveal abuses perpetrated by U.S. government officials during title 42 expulsions, severe physical and mental health harms.
WASHINGTON
A new investigation by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) documents the severe health and human rights tolls of the Title 42 border expulsion order, under which the United States government has expelled children and adults seeking refuge at the U.S. border nearly one million times since March 2020.
"Neither Safety nor Health: How Title 42 Expulsions Harm Health and Violate Rights" exposes some of the consequences of the expulsion policy, including family separations, abusive actions by U.S. and Mexico government officials, and acute medical and psychological impacts on asylum-seeking children and adults. Based on in-depth interviews conducted in Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana, Mexico in May 2021 with 28 expelled asylum seekers and six health professionals who provide medical care to migrants, the report underscores the dire consequences of the Title 42 ban and the urgency for the Biden administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to revoke the order.
Despite the order being implemented under the guise of a COVID-19 pandemic safety measure, public health experts have long objected to Title 42 expulsions and called out the lack of epidemiological evidence to justify banning only asylum seekers to the United States while keeping the borders largely open to other travelers. Although the ban was conceived by Trump administration officials, the Biden administration continues to expel hundreds of thousands of families and adults to countries where they face severe harm and persecution, violating their rights, threatening already traumatized people, and failing to protect public health.
In a first-of-its-kind approach to documenting the psychological effects of these expulsions and family separations, PHR researchers used validated Spanish-language screening tools to screen participants for mental health symptoms, including the PCL-5 Civilian scale for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL25) for anxiety and depression symptoms. Of the 26 participants who were administered validated screening tools, 96 percent screened positive for at least two disorders, and 88 percent screened positive for PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Parents interviewed by PHR reported that the family separations produced by Title 42 expulsions caused severe psychological harms to their children, resulting in excessive crying, disturbed sleep, and developmental setbacks such as resuming bed wetting. Eleven interviewees stated that their children were not eating and had lost significant weight due to the trauma of family separation.
The PHR report also sheds new light on abusive and dangerous actions by U.S. officials during the expulsion process. All 28 asylum seekers interviewed described gratuitously cruel and inhumane treatment at the hands of the U.S. government, including physical and verbal abuse by border agents, inhumane detention conditions, active deception about their expulsion and the whereabouts of their family members, and unsafe returns that put people at great risk of harm. Of those interviewed by PHR, 11 people were forcibly separated from family members by U.S. officials and eight people were separated from family members they traveled with who were not their biological children, but for whom they were the primary guardian (such as younger minor siblings or nieces and nephews). Asylum seekers reported that U.S. border officials also deceived and actively provided false information to them, such as telling people they were being reunited with family members while actually separating them.
These accounts reflect how the Title 42 order both directly and indirectly separated families without considering the best interests of the child during the separation process, increasing the trauma and vulnerability of family members. Family support is a critical resilience factor for children and separations have been associated with long-term adverse mental health outcomes.
After being expelled across the U.S.-Mexico border, asylum seekers interviewed by PHR reported that they had been assaulted, kidnapped, extorted, and subjected to physical and sexual violence in Mexico. Interviewees reported that they did not have access to state protection from Mexican authorities, and several were even robbed or extorted by Mexican authorities after they were expelled from the United States.
"U.S. policy is ensnaring people in a deadly dilemma, where they are unsafe in their home country, unsafe in Mexico, and yet unable to seek safety at the U.S. border," said Michele Heisler, MD, MPA, report co-author, medical director at PHR, and professor of internal medicine and public health at the University of Michigan. "From a public health perspective, the Title 42 order was junk science from the moment it began. Rather than protect anyone's health, these expulsions accelerate a health and human rights emergency in Mexican border cities.
"Since the beginning of the pandemic and with the rise of new COVID-19 variants, the best way to protect public health remains vaccines, masking, and social distancing - not a targeted and unscientific ban on asylum seekers," said Dr. Heisler.
A letter from public health experts, including Dr. Heisler, to the Biden administration in July 2021 reiterated that the latest scientific knowledge regarding transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19 did not support expulsion as a public health measure, and that the order undermined trust in the CDC itself as a scientific body.
"The United States has the means and the know-how to process asylum seekers safely at the border and to welcome them with dignity, but every day the Biden administration instead chooses to condemn people to kidnappings, extortion, and violence in northern Mexico," said Cynthia Pompa, report co-author and asylum program officer at PHR. "Asylum seekers told us searing accounts of being separated from family members, brutalized by U.S. officials, and abused by Mexican authorities. Title 42 expulsions are nothing short of a human rights catastrophe and, by continuing them, the Biden administration is responsible for devastating harms to children and adults who are fleeing persecution."
"U.S. officials actively deceived people about their expulsion and family separation, while denying them access to basic information, such as where they were being transported, where their family members were, and what was happening to them," said Kathryn Hampton, report co-author and senior asylum officer at PHR. "Title 42 expulsions are a flagrant violation of people's rights under both the U.S. Constitution and multiple international treaties. With each passing day, the Biden administration is trampling on its professed commitment to science-based policymaking and a humane immigration system. The administration must stop playing politics and start saving lives: Revoke the Title 42 order now."
"Our findings make it clear that the Biden administration's recent announcement that it will expedite removal of some asylum-seeking families from the United States without a hearing in front of a judge will only increase the vulnerability and risks of harm for children and adults. This change will result in wrongful removals and undermines efforts to create a humane, safe, rights-respecting asylum system," said Hampton.
PHR is calling on the Biden administration and the CDC to immediately nullify the Title 42 expulsion order and restore access to asylum at the border by working with public health experts to ensure that border COVID-19 screening guidelines are implemented in line with scientific evidence and U.S. asylum laws and treaties. The PHR report provides detailed recommendations for the CDC, Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Congress, and government of Mexico to safeguard the health and human rights of people who seek asylum in the United States.
Read the full report here.
PHR was founded in 1986 on the idea that health professionals, with their specialized skills, ethical duties, and credible voices, are uniquely positioned to investigate the health consequences of human rights violations and work to stop them. PHR mobilizes health professionals to advance health, dignity, and justice and promotes the right to health for all.
LATEST NEWS
Insulted by Trump's Threats, Iranian Negotiators Walk Out of Peace Talks
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" said Iran's chief negotiator.
Jun 21, 2026
US President Donald Trump’s threats to destroy Iran and send US forces to occupy the country on Sunday appear to have derailed peace negotiations in Switzerland, with the Iranian delegation reportedly walking out and demanding an apology.
Following Iran’s announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz again after Israel intensified its assault on Lebanon, Trump went on a tirade Sunday in which he threatened to assassinate negotiators and said Iran “won’t have a country” if access to the critical waterway was shut off, while also threatening to “take over” Iran with a full US invasion.
But after Trump’s threats—which broke the first clause of the memorandum of understanding—Iran’s negotiators filed a complaint with the Pakistani and Qatari mediators and stormed out of the mountain resort where talks were being held, according to several outlets.
While Trump clearly sought to project strength, Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said his team “do not take American threats seriously.”
In previous months, as Trump sought to squeeze concessions from the Iranians, he issued escalatory threats to wipe out their “whole civilization” and “blow up” the whole country. However, he did not act on those threats, even as Iran refused to budge from its negotiating posture.
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" Ghalibaf said.
Ghalibaf said the US had “better be more careful with their statements,” adding that “our armed forces are ready to respond in a different way." He said, “No matter what they say, we are the ones who act.
While the Iranian delegation left the venue, talks are reportedly continuing via mediators. However, according to the Lebanese outlet Al Mayadeen, the delegation said it will not return until Trump apologizes for his threats and Israel fully withdraws from Lebanon.
According to senior Israeli officials cited by Channel 12, Israel is reportedly considering “limited withdrawals” from Lebanon, including in areas within its so-called “buffer zone.” Despite Iranian claims, the officials said the US has not requested Israel’s withdrawal from the country.
Previous peace talks have been derailed by Trump’s threats to commit indiscriminate war crimes in Iran. But this past week has seen perhaps the most violent swing yet in his approach toward Iran.
Where earlier this week, Trump acknowledged Iran's right to enrich uranium and maintain a nuclear energy program like that of other nations, his outburst Sunday appeared to have been prompted by a statement by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said the US would be "forced to accept" its right to enrichment.
And while Trump has raged against Israel’s actions in Lebanon while privately claiming that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to sabotage peace, he has not taken concrete action to force Israel to comply with the memorandum’s terms.
"The mixed messages coming out of the White House," remarked Jeet Heer, a writer at The Nation, "are going to make it much harder to end the war, and could in fact spark further conflict."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Won't Have a Country': Trump Threatens Full Ground Invasion and Destruction of Iran Amid Hormuz Closure
One expert said Israel's continued assault on Lebanon, which led Iran to announce its closure of the strait, posed an "existential threat" to the ceasefire.
Jun 21, 2026
Rather than force Israel to halt its occupation in Lebanon in accordance with the memorandum of understanding, President Donald Trump on Sunday responded to Iran's announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz with a new litany of psychotic threats—claiming that if the waterway were closed, he would blow up the country, launch a full ground invasion to take it over, and assassinate Iranian negotiators.
According to Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, Trump told the Iranian negotiators overnight that if they close the strait, which Iran claimed to have shuttered once again on Saturday, “you won’t have a country,” adding that they “won’t even make it back to their f***ing country,” in what appeared to be a threat to assassinate the negotiators, as happened during the initial phase of the war.
Responding to statements by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said Iran would not give up its “right to enrich uranium” and that the US “will be forced to accept it,” Trump reportedly said Pezeshkian had better “watch his mouth” and “shape up,” or the US “will take over the rest of the country.”
It’s yet another sharp reversal from Trump, who—after months of claiming Iran must agree to “zero enrichment”—suddenly acknowledged this week that it was “common sense” for the nation to be allowed to have a nuclear energy program as other countries do.
Trump’s renewed threats against Iran, which mirror his genocidal threats earlier in the war to wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization” and “blow up” the entire country, also appear to violate the first clause of the memorandum of understanding, which calls on signatories to “refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.”
The threat to fully occupy Iran, which Trump made publicly for the first time on Sunday, stands in sharp contrast to his comments that continuing the war for much longer would cause “economic catastrophe” and that even limited ground operations, such as one he had proposed to seize Iran’s uranium, would be too big an effort to be worth it.
The war with Iran is already deeply unpopular among the American public, even without US boots on the ground. Polls have shown that even a majority of Republicans would be opposed to Trump escalating the war by deploying ground troops, and military officials have shelved planned operations to occupy certain strategic locations, including Kharg Island, fearing a large number of American casualties.
Nevertheless, Trump also told Yingst that the US could become the “guardian angel” of the Strait of Hormuz, collecting tolls and taking oil from countries using the waterway for exports. He did not make clear how the US would gain control of the strait under such a scenario.
Iran announced that it would close the strait again on Saturday after Israel deepened its occupation and escalated its bombing of southern Lebanon, despite the MOU’s ceasefire agreement covering all fronts.
Iranian negotiators have described an end to Israel’s Lebanon occupation, which has killed more than 4,000 people and forced more than 1.2 million Lebanese civilians from their homes in the south, as a red line for negotiating peace.
Behind the scenes, Trump has acknowledged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is using Lebanon to sabotage the ceasefire and drag the US back into a full-scale war.
In the phone call with Yingst, Trump once again said he was “disappointed Israel can’t put Hezbollah away,” adding that Israel “can’t do anything without knocking buildings down.” He also said he was close to allowing Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa—the former leader of al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate—to take over the operation against Hezbollah.
While this is yet another instance of Trump using harsher rhetoric toward Israel—which Vice President JD Vance has also done in recent days—there is no indication yet that he is willing to take the next step of forcing Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire agreement by imposing material consequences, such as suspending military aid.
Even as Israel’s attacks continued unabated and threatened to derail the deal entirely, Vance did not indicate that he thought the US needed to exert more pressure.
“I think Trump and the US have done more to stop the conflict in Lebanon than any government anywhere in the world,” he said at a press conference in Switzerland on Sunday.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, described Israel’s continued escalations as “an existential threat” to the peace process between the US and Iran.
He told ABC News on Saturday that Iran’s threat to close the strait just before a meeting in Geneva this weekend was meant to be “part of a background of how serious they are” about ensuring that the US understands the stakes if Israel refuses to withdraw.
“Israel would prefer for this war to continue until you have a complete defeat of the Iranians, which, of course, is not in the cards,” Parsi said. “The Israelis sold this war to Trump as a quick, easy fix to the region’s problems that would take no more than four days, and they were dead wrong.”
“Now, Trump is recognizing that US interests necessitate that he pull out of this war and strikes this deal, but the Israelis are trying to sabotage it because they are afraid they’re going to be left out, that the balance in the region is going to shift against their interests,” he added. “They’re willing to essentially jeopardize their relationship with the United States over this.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Starmer Expected to Resign as PM, But UK Left Warns of 'More of the Same' From His Replacement
Jeremy Corbyn said Andy Burnham would be "accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us" and "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally."
Jun 20, 2026
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to announce as soon as Monday that he will resign, according to new reports, as Labour supporters abandon the party.
But many on the left remain skeptical that his likely replacement, Andy Burnham, will truly bring the "change" he promises.
Britain's Observer newspaper reported on Saturday that the prime minister appeared "resigned" to stepping down, well aware that "support isn't there" for his continued leadership amid the party's dismal unpopularity.
Though Starmer swept away nearly a decade and a half of Conservative rule in 2024, his honeymoon has been short-lived. His embrace of austerity in the face of a cost-of-living crisis and his government's ferocious crackdowns on pro-Palestinian speech have left progressive supporters seeking alternatives like the ascendant Green Party.
Meanwhile, his hard-right pivot on immigration has done little to siphon votes from Brexiteer Nigel Farage's far-right Reform UK party, which currently leads in national polls.
The immediate trigger for Starmer's reported resignation was Burnham's victory in Thursday's Makerfield by-election, which marked the former mayor of Greater Manchester's return to Westminster. Burnham comfortably defeated a Reform UK candidate, and The Guardian reported that he was expected to have support from about 200 Labour MPs in a leadership challenge against Starmer.
Burnham emphasized during a victory rally that it was "a last chance to change" Labour as it heads for electoral oblivion.
Responding to what he said were requests from constituents to "do something to make life more affordable," Burnham called for an end to "trickle down economics," with government interventions to bring down utility bills and rail fares, public procurement of businesses, pushes for reindustrialization, and job guarantees for people ages 16 to 18.
But some leaders on the British left have warned that Burnham will do little to deviate from Starmer's failures.
While he has pledged to reverse Starmer's welfare cuts and privatizations of public services, Burnham has also committed to maintaining the party's spending limits, which may make significant changes impossible.
Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn, who led the Labour Party from 2015-20, said that while he personally likes Burnham, "his basic economic strategy and views... seem to me to be accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us."
The ex-leader also said Burnham "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally," noting that he has not given a straight answer on whether Britain should conduct an inquiry into the UK government's policy on Gaza and its supply of weapons to Israel.
Burnham has also drawn criticism for saying he would maintain Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has spearheaded hard-line changes to UK asylum policies and has enforced the repressive ban on Palestine Action, which has led to the arrest of thousands of nonviolent protesters, many of whom have been charged with terrorism.
"The architect of Labour’s cruel plans on settled status and persecution of free speech and protest stays in place," said Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who said it was a sign of "more of the same."
Remarking on Burnham's team of economic advisers, who include former chief economists for the Bank of England and Goldman Sachs, Polanski said it "isn’t a team of advisers which looks like challenging wealth and power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


