Which counties reported the largest increases in ICE arrests during 2025 and what drove those spikes?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Data releases and reporting show the biggest county-level spikes in ICE arrests during 2025 concentrated in large urban counties and in jurisdictions that cooperate closely with federal immigration authorities — for example San Diego/Imperial area (more than half of arrests had no criminal history) and Charleston County in South Carolina (the county with the most county arrests in that state) — while statewide hotspots include Texas, Florida and California which together accounted for over 41% of arrests between Jan. 20 and June 26, 2025 [1] [2] [3]. Researchers and reporters attribute these county spikes to federal policy shifts (new administration priorities and internal arrest quotas), expanded use of jail‑based arrests and “at‑large” community operations, and deployments of other federal forces — all amplified where local booking and cooperation practices expose people to ICE [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Counties with the largest reported jumps: big cities and cooperating counties
Local reporting and data compilations point to counties with major urban jails and high cooperation rates as the sites of the largest percentage and absolute increases: San Diego and Imperial counties together saw a surge in arrests where 58% of those arrested had no criminal history [1]; Charleston County led South Carolina with more than 900 arrests amid the state’s jump from under 1,300 to over 3,000 total arrests in 2025 [2]. Nationally, state-level concentrations in Texas, Florida and California accounted for more than 41% of arrests in the first five months of 2025, indicating many county spikes sit inside those large states [3].
2. What drove the spikes: administration priorities and internal quotas
Multiple analyses and watchdog groups link the rises to a deliberate federal push after President Trump’s return to office: ICE leadership set aggressive targets and a reported internal quota to attempt 3,000 arrests per day in late May 2025, which raised arrest activity across the country [4] [6]. Journalists and researchers show arrest averages climbing from a few hundred per day early in the year to more than 500 per day by August, reflecting policy-driven operational tempo rather than a single local cause [5] [6].
3. Operational methods: jail transfers, ‘at‑large’ sweeps and community raids
The character of arrests changed as ICE ramped up. The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) remained a primary source of arrests, but ICE increasingly used non‑custodial, “located” approaches and at‑large community operations and also leaned heavily on transfers from local jails and lockups — practices that produce large, concentrated arrest totals in counties with active jails or cooperative booking policies [4] [5] [7]. Researchers warn that increased jail‑based arresting can inflate counts in certain counties because local booking practices expose more people to ICE [8] [5].
4. Who was being arrested: a rising share with no criminal convictions
Reporting across regions finds that a large share of those arrested in the 2025 surge had no criminal convictions. San Diego/Imperial reporting found 58% without criminal records; national analyses show non‑criminals made up a rapidly growing share — with nearly 75,000 people without criminal records arrested in 2025 in later data analyses — undermining the federal narrative that the surge targeted only the “worst of the worst” [1] [9] [5].
5. Political messaging, DHS releases and competing narratives
The Department of Homeland Security and ICE framed many local operations as targeting violent offenders and public‑safety threats, issuing press releases highlighting individual arrests [10] [11]. Independent reporters and researchers counter that the data show broad sweeps and a declining share of arrestees with criminal convictions, and they emphasize policy choices — including staffing, budget boosts, and directives — as the main drivers of numerical spikes [12] [5] [4].
6. Data limits and where reporting diverges
Available sources note important limitations: ICE’s published arrest counts cover people who enter ICE detention and may undercount other encounters; multiple outlets relied on data compiled by the Deportation Data Project and FOIA releases, and some local trackers (hotlines, NGOs) report higher arrest tallies than federal announcements [9] [7] [5]. Local advocates in Minneapolis and elsewhere say official press releases understate local totals and that eyewitness accounts produce different totals [13] [14]. Researchers caution that arrests can be counted multiple times if the same person is booked repeatedly [6].
7. What this means for counties going forward
Counties with large jails, strong law‑enforcement cooperation with ICE, or high immigrant populations are most likely to show future spikes if federal priorities remain unchanged; conversely, state and local limits on collaboration have a measurable dampening effect, according to independent analyses [5] [15]. Policymakers and advocates are now focused on how local booking practices, court rulings on warrantless arrests, and public messaging will shape the pace and location of future enforcement [6] [5].
Limitations: available sources do not provide a single, comprehensive list ranking every county by arrest increase; my synthesis uses the cited reporting, datasets and analyses above to identify the most frequently reported counties and the proximate drivers of spikes [3] [1] [4].