Despite the EU's general tendency towards increased integration, recent events like Brexit, the introduction of temporary border controls during the so-called migration crisis and pandemic-related border closures indicate a parallel pattern of moments of disintegration. But how to justify such measures that go against one of the core values of the EU (that of free movement) and what are the effects thereof? To unveil the complex interplay between crisis communication and public opinion, this research probes the justification strategies employed by political leaders when communicating restrictive border policies to the public. Anchored in the concept of democratic accountability, the study contends that the justification of such policies is vital for their perceived legitimacy and public endorsement. The paper investigates whether justifications enhance policy support, legitimacy, and trust in political figures and whether the nature of the justification influences these outcomes. Implementing a pre-registered multi-factorial survey experiment in four European countries, the study examines the impacts of economic, protectionist, and solidarity-based justifications across different crisis scenarios and policy types. The results will have important implications for policy makers as well as scholars on border policies and crisis communication.
