Fact check: Have death threats to ICE employees really increased by 8000% ?

Executive Summary

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) publicly states an 8,000% increase in death threats against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, and multiple news outlets reproduced that figure in late October–early November 2025 ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Public reporting and DHS materials, however, do not provide the baseline numbers, timeframe, or methodology needed to independently verify whether the percentage reflects a meaningful change in raw threat counts or a change from a very small baseline ^{[1] [4]}.

1. Dramatic headline: Where the 8,000% claim came from and how it was circulated

DHS issued a press release on October 30, 2025 that explicitly reported an 8,000% increase in death threats against ICE personnel and included anecdotal examples such as violent social‑media posts, an alleged TikTok bounty, and voicemail threats; Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin attributed the rise in part to rhetoric by “sanctuary politicians” ^[1]. That same figure was quickly amplified by regional and national outlets, including the Highland County Press on November 1, 2025 and Fox News on October 30, 2025, which repeated the DHS statistic and echoed the examples and attribution in the DHS statement ^{[2] [3]}. The reporting cycle shows the percentage originated in DHS messaging and was then widely retransmitted by the press.

2. Missing details: DHS did not publish the underlying data or methods

Publicly available DHS materials cited in reporting do not include the numerical baseline, the absolute counts of threats before and after the alleged increase, nor the timeframe used to calculate the 8,000% figure, making independent confirmation impossible from those documents alone ^[1]. Independent DHS products that report on threat trends—such as the Homeland Threat Assessment and ICE’s Fiscal Year 2024 Annual Report—do not reference an 8,000% increase or provide a comparable death‑threat time series, which leaves a transparency gap between the claim and standard threat‑monitoring publications ^{[5] [6]}. Without methodology, the percentage could reflect an increase from a very small base or a change in reporting practices rather than a large absolute surge.

3. How percentages can mislead: context, baselines, and interpretation

A percentage increase like 8,000% is mathematically consistent with a jump from a very small number—e.g., from 1 to 81 incidents yields an 8,000% increase—so the claim can be factually accurate yet still misleading if the baseline and absolute counts are not provided ^[1]. News accounts that quoted the DHS figure without publishing the raw numbers or defining the period therefore left readers unable to assess whether the rise represented an operational crisis in absolute terms or a larger proportional change from a tiny baseline ^[4]. The absence of raw counts, timeframe, and classification criteria (what qualifies as a “death threat”) is the critical missing information required to judge real-world impact.

4. Corroboration and gaps across reporting outlets: similar language, shared source

Media coverage that repeated the 8,000% number relied on DHS statements and offered similar anecdotal examples; regional outlets and national outlets mirrored DHS framing and Assistant Secretary McLaughlin’s attribution to political rhetoric ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Independent DHS public reports available before this release do not corroborate an identical statistic, and none provide the detailed dataset that would permit independent verification of the magnitude or trend ^{[5] [6]}. The result is a consistent narrative across outlets but a single institutional origin for the quantitative claim, with no publicly shared underlying dataset.

5. What can be verified and what remains unknown

What is verifiable: DHS publicly reported an 8,000% increase in late October 2025 and cited specific examples of threats and statements by senior DHS officials; multiple news outlets reproduced that figure on October 30 and November 1, 2025 ^{[1] [2] [3]}. What remains unknown: the absolute number of threats before and after the claimed rise, the exact time window used for the comparison, whether reporting or classification changes affected counts, and whether independent federal or state datasets corroborate the trend ^{[1] [4]}. These unknowns prevent a definitive conclusion about the real-world scale of the threat increase.

6. Bottom line for readers and further steps for verification

Readers should treat the 8,000% figure as a DHS‑reported percentage that requires supporting data to be interpretable: DHS has not released the baseline counts or methodology in the materials cited by the press, and authoritative DHS threat reports available prior to the release do not include the same statistic ^{[1] [5] [6]}. To verify the claim conclusively, request from DHS the dataset and methodology underpinning the percentage or seek corroborating records—such as contemporaneous incident logs, law enforcement tipline records, or independent threat assessments—that show absolute counts and consistent classification rules over time ^[4].