Benny Johnson’s Border Claims: Real Data, False Conclusions

The Post

On September 26, 2026 at 9:25 AM ET (13:25 UTC), conservative commentator Benny Johnson posted on X to his millions of followers alongside a chart of monthly southwestern border encounters compiled from U.S. Customs and Border Protection data. The text of the post, in full:

“This chart is the only reason you need to vote Republican in the midterms. The second Democrats regain control, they will open the border and continue the replacement of the U.S. population with foreigners who hate our way of life.

If they retake power, we will lose our country.”

Johnson hosts The Benny Show podcast and has built a large following across social media. His X and YouTube accounts collectively reach tens of millions of followers.^[8] The post bundles three distinct claims that need to be evaluated separately: whether the chart data is accurate, whether Democrats would “open the border,” and whether there is any basis for the “replacement” framing.

Claim 1: Does the Chart Data Hold Up?

Mostly True

The underlying CBP encounter statistics are real and publicly available. Monthly southwestern border apprehensions averaged around 155,485 per month during the Biden administration (February 2021 through January 2025).^[3] Since February 2025, the first full month under Trump’s second term, monthly encounters at the southwest border have stayed below 10,000, the lowest levels in more than 25 years of available monthly data.^[4]

94% Drop in monthly southwestern border apprehensions: from the Biden-era monthly average of 155,485 to approximately 8,900 in recent months under Trump.
Sources: DHS, CBP, Pew Research

Fiscal Year 2025 total encounters came to 237,538, the lowest since at least 1970, when the comparable figure was 201,780.^[4] The chart data, in other words, is not fabricated.

What the chart omits

The data chart is accurate, but the accompanying claim that it “proves” the cause is partly overstated, for three reasons.

First, Biden himself imposed stricter enforcement measures in the final phase of his presidency — including a June 2024 executive order restricting asylum at the border, which contributed to a decline in encounters before Trump took office. The drop did not begin on January 20, 2025.^[4]

Second, encounter rates are shaped by conditions on the Mexican side of the border as well. Increased Mexican enforcement cooperation played a documented role in reducing crossings during both the late Biden and Trump periods. Attributing the full decline to U.S. party control alone overstates domestic policy’s effect.

Third, and most critically, a chart of past outcomes cannot “prove” what any administration will do in the future. It can document what happened. It cannot predict future policy by a diverse, multi-faction political party.

The data merits a Mostly True rating: the encounter statistics Johnson references are accurate, and the contrast between the Biden-era peak and the current Trump-era low is real. But the framing that this chart proves a specific causal and predictive claim about Democratic intent overstates what the data actually shows.

Claim 2: Will Democrats “Open the Border”?

Misleading

No mainstream Democratic leader has proposed “open borders” as a policy position. The phrase is a political strawman: it describes a position almost no one actually holds in order to make Democratic immigration policy sound more radical than it is.

In August 2025, the New Democrat Coalition, representing 115 moderate House Democrats, released a comprehensive immigration and border security framework that explicitly calls for more resources for CBP, expanded deportations targeting criminals, and stricter processing standards, alongside a path to legal status for long-term residents.^[5] This framework is not a description of open borders; it is an attempt to move the Democratic caucus toward stronger enforcement language.

Polling consistently shows that Democratic voters and elected officials have moved toward more enforcement-oriented positions since the Biden-era border surge. A Harvard CAPS/HarrisX survey in April 2026 found that 58% of Americans believe Democrats “want open borders,” a perception gap that Democratic strategists acknowledge and are actively working to close, precisely because the policy reality and the public perception diverge.^[9]

The substantive underlying concern is real: Biden-era policies did coincide with record-high encounters, and meaningful policy differences exist between the parties on enforcement discretion, asylum processing, and deportation priorities. But “open the border” is not a description of any formal Democratic platform position. Stating it as a certainty (“they will open the border”) presents a prediction as a proven fact and attributes to an entire party a position its mainstream representatives explicitly reject. That is the definition of a Misleading rating.

Claim 3: The “Replacement” Theory

False

The phrase “replacement of the U.S. population with foreigners who hate our way of life” is a formulation of the Great Replacement theory — an ethno-nationalist conspiracy theory that claims Western governments are deliberately facilitating mass immigration to replace native-born (implicitly white) populations with non-white immigrants for political advantage.

Where this theory comes from

The modern version was coined by French author Renaud Camus in his 2011 book Le Grand Remplacement, which claimed that European elites were deliberately importing Muslim immigrants to displace France’s Christian population.^[6] The theory was quickly adopted by white nationalist movements globally, merged with older “white genocide” rhetoric, and migrated into U.S. political discourse in the late 2010s.

It has inspired mass violence. The perpetrators of the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, the 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting (23 killed), the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks (51 killed), and the 2022 Buffalo supermarket shooting (10 killed) all referenced replacement theory explicitly in their manifestos or online posts.^[6]^[7]

Its adoption in mainstream political media

In the years since, the replacement framing migrated from fringe forums into mainstream conservative media. Tucker Carlson repeated versions of the theory hundreds of times on his Fox News program before his departure in 2023, according to a New York Times analysis. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik ran ads in 2021 alleging a Democratic plot to “replace” existing voters through immigration. JD Vance invoked it during his 2022 Senate campaign.^[7]

Johnson’s formulation follows that pattern, adding the specificity that the incoming immigrants “hate our way of life” — a characterization with no factual basis.

What the evidence actually shows

No credible evidence supports the claim that any mainstream American political party has a policy goal of replacing the native-born population for ethnic or political reasons. Immigration policy is debated as a matter of economics, labor force growth, humanitarian obligation, and enforcement capacity. None of these debates involves a plan to demographically replace existing Americans.

The characterization of immigrants as people who “hate our way of life” is similarly unsupported. Large-scale survey research and behavioral data consistently show immigrant populations assimilate, participate civically, and start businesses at higher rates than native-born populations across multiple economic measures. The Kauffman Foundation finds that immigrants launch new firms at roughly 580 per 100,000 adults versus 320 per 100,000 for native-born Americans — about 80 percent higher on a per-capita basis.^[11]

A May 2022 Associated Press poll found that 32% of American adults agreed with the statement that immigrants were being brought to the U.S. to “replace” American voters — a share that rose to 45% among regular Newsmax and OANN viewers.^[10] The prevalence of this belief reflects how effectively the theory has been amplified; it does not reflect whether the underlying claim is true.

This claim rates False. There is no factual basis for the assertion, it originates in white nationalist ideology, and it has been directly linked to mass violence.

The Legitimate Underlying Concern

Strongest version of the other side

The post contains a kernel of a real policy argument buried under the conspiracy framing. Biden-era policies did coincide with historically high border encounters. Many Democratic legislators did oppose some of the stricter enforcement tools — family separation, Remain in Mexico, expedited removal expansions — that had reduced encounters during Trump’s first term. There is a real policy difference between the parties on how aggressively to deter and process border crossings.

A fair observer could reasonably argue that a Democratic House majority would roll back some of the current administration’s enforcement posture, which would likely increase encounters relative to today’s historic lows. That is a legitimate political concern, and it is the kind of argument that would hold up to scrutiny.

That argument does not require the “open borders” framing, and it does not require or justify the replacement conspiracy theory. The legitimate concern and the false claims are bundled together in Johnson’s post — which is what makes the post misleading rather than simply wrong.

What to Watch — 37 Days to Midterms

Forward look — November 3, 2026

House control math: Republicans hold 220 seats to Democrats’ 215; a majority requires 218, meaning Democrats need a net gain of three seats.^[12] The Cook Political Report on September 25 moved fifteen Republican-held races toward Democrats, projecting a net Democratic gain of five to fifteen seats. Whether immigration messaging helps or hurts in swing districts will be tested November 3.
Encounter numbers: August 2026 recorded approximately 8,900 southwestern border encounters, up roughly 40 percent from the same month a year earlier.^[2] If that modest uptick continues, Republicans will accelerate this type of messaging. If numbers stay flat or fall, Democrats may argue the crisis has passed.
New Dem Coalition framework: Watch whether the NDC’s enforcement-forward immigration framework becomes mainstream Democratic messaging before November, or whether candidates distance themselves from it in primaries.
Replacement rhetoric escalation: The deployment of conspiracy-adjacent language by major media figures signals how willing parts of the Republican coalition are to run on ethnic grievance framing in the final weeks. Expect fact-checkers, civil rights groups, and Democratic campaigns to spotlight each instance — especially if any incident of politically motivated violence occurs in the run-up to the election.

The Claim

On September 26, 2026, conservative commentator Benny Johnson posted on X alongside a chart of U.S. border crossing numbers. He wrote it was “the only reason you need to vote Republican in the midterms.” He said Democrats would “open the border” if they win and would “continue the replacement of the U.S. population with foreigners who hate our way of life.” He added: “If they retake power, we will lose our country.”

◆ Mostly True — The chart data is real. ◆ Misleading — No Democrat proposes “open borders.” ◆ False — The “replacement” claim is a debunked conspiracy theory.

The Border Crossing Numbers — Mostly True

The numbers on the chart come from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency and are real. Under President Biden, border agents recorded about 155,000 crossings per month on average. Since February 2025, the first full month under Trump, monthly crossings have been below 10,000. That is a drop of more than 94%.

But the chart cannot prove what Democrats will do in the future. It only shows what happened in the past. Also, the drop partly began while Biden was still president, after he signed a stricter border executive order in June 2024. Crossing numbers also depend on how much Mexico enforces its own side of the border. The data is real, but saying it “proves” anything about future Democratic plans is too strong.

Will Democrats “Open the Border”? — Misleading

No major Democratic leader has ever proposed “open borders.” In August 2025, a group of over 100 House Democrats called the New Democrat Coalition released an immigration plan that actually calls for more border enforcement, more deportations, and stricter rules for asylum seekers. That is not open borders.

Biden-era policies did result in more crossings than Trump’s. That is a real policy difference. But calling it “open the border” is much stronger than what any Democratic leader actually says or proposes. Presenting this prediction as a certainty about an entire political party is misleading.

The “Replacement” Claim — False

The claim that Democrats are replacing the U.S. population with hostile foreigners is called the Great Replacement theory. It is a conspiracy theory that started with a French author named Renaud Camus in 2011. White nationalist groups adopted it. People who believed it carried out deadly shootings — in El Paso, Texas (2019), in Buffalo, New York (2022), and in Christchurch, New Zealand (2019).

There is no evidence that any American political party plans to replace the population. There is also no evidence that immigrants “hate our way of life.” The Kauffman Foundation finds that immigrants start new businesses at a rate about 80 percent higher than people born in the United States.

The Fair Concern Under the False Framing

There is a real debate underneath this post. Biden’s policies did result in far more border crossings than Trump’s. If Democrats gain power, they might ease some current restrictions. That is a fair concern to raise. But “open the border” and “replacement” go well past that fair concern. They distort and exaggerate what the actual policy debate is about.

What to Watch

The midterm elections are November 3, 2026 — 37 days away. Republicans hold 220 seats; Democrats hold 215. A majority requires 218, so Democrats need a net gain of three seats. The Cook Political Report projects a Democratic gain of five to fifteen seats. Watch whether Democrats run on the New Democrat Coalition’s border enforcement framework. Also watch whether the “replacement” framing spreads or fades as Election Day gets closer.