What did FOIA analyses reveal about differences in ICE enforcement across field offices during the Biden administration?
Executive summary
FOIA-based analyses by immigrant-rights groups found that during the Biden administration roughly one-third of ICE enforcement actions targeted individuals who did not meet the administration’s stated enforcement priorities, and that those actions varied substantially by field office [1] [2]. The FOIA records also fueled litigation and local advocacy efforts exposing detention planning and prompting questions about whether national guidance was being unevenly applied on the ground [3] [4].
1. FOIA snapshots exposed a gap between policy and practice
Two independent FOIA-driven analyses—publicized by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and the American Immigration Council—report that the data obtained through FOIA requests show enforcement actions outside the Biden interim priorities made up about one-third of ICE activity in the period studied, a finding advocates say indicates routine deviation from Washington’s narrower directive [1] [2]. Those organizations emphasize that the FOIA returns permit “looking at patterns of behavior in different ICE field offices,” a phrase repeated in both write-ups to underline that the problem is not only aggregate but geographic [1] [2].
2. Field offices behaved differently; FOIA lets advocates map those differences
The FOIA data allowed analysts to compare field offices and identify that some offices continued aggressive interior enforcement while others aligned more closely with the stated priorities, a pattern highlighted by the ILRC and American Immigration Council FOIA analyses that attribute the divergence to local discretion and varied operational choices [1] [2]. Local advocacy groups have used FOIA as well: the ACLU of Pennsylvania specifically sought records on the Philadelphia field office’s enforcement practices, arguing that the office maintained an unusually aggressive posture and that public records were necessary to hold it accountable [5].
3. FOIA-fueled litigation exposed resistance and delay from ICE
Advocacy groups repeatedly turned to the courts because direct FOIA requests were slow or ignored; the American Immigration Council and partners filed suit after ICE failed to produce internal preapproval authorizations that would show when and why field offices pursued non-priority cases, framing the withheld records as essential to reveal how priorities were implemented in year one [3]. Analysts note that FOIA litigation has been a consistent way to pry loose inspection reports and contract details otherwise undisclosed by ICE, a dynamic the American Immigration Council has documented in its overview of detention oversight [6] [3].
4. The national legal and policy backdrop matters to interpreting FOIA findings
Court rulings altered the enforcement environment while the FOIA-covered actions occurred: a federal court in Texas halted implementation of the Mayorkas priorities in June 2022, and later the Supreme Court concluded states lacked standing to compel the federal government to arrest more people—rulings that both shaped and complicated how enforcement data should be read [1] [2] [7]. FOIA analyses therefore capture conduct that occurred amid shifting legal constraints, not solely a simple defiance of centralized guidance [1] [2] [7].
5. Complementary FOIA datasets show related but distinct patterns (detainers, detention planning)
Separate FOIA-derived datasets tracked other manifestations of enforcement: TRAC’s detainer records show changing detainer volumes and that not all detainers result in custody—during the Biden years the agency assumed custody in roughly 65 percent of detainers, a rate TRAC compares across administrations to illuminate enforcement intensity [8] [9]. Meanwhile FOIA documents obtained by the ACLU and reported by Axios reveal internal ICE planning for detention-capacity expansion in multiple states, suggesting that operational planning on capacity dovetailed with field-level enforcement choices [4].
6. What FOIA cannot yet settle and why that matters
The FOIA materials released so far give clear signals—one-third of actions outside priorities and measurable field-office variation—but they do not provide a complete causal record explaining why specific local decisions were made or how often headquarters approved exceptions, because ICE has resisted or delayed producing full preapproval and authorization logs and some records remain under litigation [1] [3]. This evidentiary gap is why advocates pressed for lawsuits: FOIA reveals patterns and disparities, but the complete chain of command and rationale behind many local enforcement choices is still incompletely documented in available public records [3] [6].