Europe’s internal border politics are increasingly politicized, with several member states recently reintroducing Schengen controls and challenging the principle of free movement. Although often framed as temporary responses to external threats - such as surges in migration or public health crises - these policies risk normalizing restrictive border measures, even for EU citizens. This study examines how government justifications for altering border policies (i.e., introducing or lifting controls) shape public support, perceived legitimacy, and trust in political authorities.

We first identify distinct justification strategies employed by the German government from 2013 to 2023, examining how different aims (e.g., security, economy) and processes (e.g., legal compliance, effectiveness, solidarity) are used to justify policy shifts. Building on these insights, we conduct a multi-factorial survey experiment in Germany, the Netherlands, and France. Participants are exposed to hypothetical government communications featuring varied justifications, allowing us to test their causal impact on public opinion and trust.

We expect that certain justifications will bolster support for border restrictions, enhance perceptions of policy legitimacy, and increase trust in political authorities. By experimentally assessing the effectiveness of these strategies, our findings illuminate the mechanisms through which governments shape public perceptions of border control. This has significant implications for the sustainability of open borders, the resilience of European integration, and the future of trust in (EU) institutions.