What DHS or ICE reports track threats and assaults on ICE personnel?
Executive summary
The Department of Homeland Security publicly issues statistics on threats and assaults against ICE personnel through press releases and news posts that have recently cited large percentage increases (for example, claims of an 8,000% rise in death threats and a more than 1,300% rise in assaults) [1] [2] [3]. Internally, ICE records threats and assaults using formal reporting systems and a 2018 OIG review identified specific mechanisms—SEN notifications, UFAD entries, and ICE Directive 17012.1—that govern how incidents are reported and investigated [4].
1. Public DHS/ICE reports and press releases: headline statistics and framing
DHS has been publishing headline figures about assaults, vehicular attacks and death threats against ICE officers in public statements and news posts—examples include announcements of a 1,300%+ increase in assaults, a 3,200% rise in vehicular attacks, and an 8,000% increase in death threats—often tied to specific enforcement operations and incidents highlighted by the department [2] [1] [3]. Those public releases also contain narrative framing that attributes the surge to “radical rhetoric by sanctuary politicians” and urges reporting of doxing and harassment through DHS/ICE hotlines and tip forms [2] [1].
2. Internal ICE systems: SEN, UFAD and Directive 17012.1
An Office of Inspector General review from 2018 documents that ICE uses a Significant Event Notification (SEN) as the initial alert mechanism and that SEN entries prompt submission to UFAD (Unified Force and Assault Database or similar internal tracking) for detailed incident records; the same review notes ICE Directive 17012.1 (Reporting and Investigation of Threats and Assaults Against ICE Employees) as the governing policy for what must be reported and how investigations proceed [4]. That OIG report is the clearest public source identifying the internal workflows ICE relies on to track threats and assaults [4].
3. Independent and local reporting that highlights data gaps and contested incidents
Local investigative reporting and independent outlets show limits to DHS/ICE public accounting: FOX 9 investigators report that DHS often declined to provide detailed incident data and that many arrests for “assaulting or impeding” ICE agents in a Chicago operation were never charged or ultimately dismissed, a fact federal judges have used to question some DHS representations [5]. WIRED’s reporting also scrutinizes DHS assertions about doxing and threats, finding complexities in third‑party “ICE lists” and noting that some public databases relied upon in media narratives include entries added by apparent DHS employees themselves, complicating external verification [6].
4. How DHS disseminates and amplifies its figures—and the political context
DHS dissemination has included social posts, press releases and videos tied to high‑profile incidents (for example, footage circulated around the Minneapolis operation), and those public communications serve both informational and political purposes; DHS releases explicitly link the spikes to political rhetoric and call for prosecution of those who allegedly threaten officers [7] [1]. Critics and independent commentators, including national outlets, situate those communications within broader institutional fights over ICE strategy and leadership, suggesting partisanship and internal rivalries may shape which incidents are emphasized [8] [9].
5. What can be relied on, and what remains opaque
The existence of formal reporting requirements (Directive 17012.1) and internal systems (SEN and UFAD) is documented by the DHS OIG, meaning there is an official apparatus to track threats and assaults [4]; however, public DHS/ICE summaries vary in specificity, independent verification is spotty, and local reporting shows cases where DHS characterizations did not lead to sustained prosecutions or where data were withheld from journalists, leaving open questions about completeness and context [5] [6]. Where DHS provides raw incident counts or comparative percentages in press releases, those numbers represent the department’s internal tallies and should be read alongside OIG guidance and independent reporting for fuller scrutiny [1] [10].