What specific cases did the GAO identify as wrongful removals of U.S. citizens between 2015 and 2020?
Executive summary
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that ICE removed 70 “potential U.S. citizens” from fiscal year 2015 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2020, and that ICE’s recordkeeping and procedures made it impossible to determine the full scope or identify all individual wrongful removals [1] [2]. The GAO report focuses on aggregate counts, process weaknesses, and data gaps rather than documenting a roster of specific, named wrongful-removal cases [1].
1. What the GAO actually reported: counts and process failures
GAO’s review analyzed ICE administrative records and concluded that, from fiscal year 2015 through March 2020, ICE arrested 674 people identified as potential U.S. citizens, detained 121, and removed 70—figures GAO frames as “potential” citizens because ICE’s own data do not reliably confirm citizenship status before certain enforcement actions [1] [2]. The report spotlighted systemic issues—such as inconsistent guidance, incomplete training, and inadequate tracking of citizenship investigations—that help explain how U.S. citizens could be subject to detainers, arrests, or removal proceedings [1].
2. GAO did not publish a list of named wrongful-removal cases
The agency’s product is statistical and diagnostic, not a case file: GAO presents counts and examples of procedural weaknesses but does not furnish a public catalog of individual wrongful removals or specific names tied to the 70 removals it identified [1] [2]. Where media and advocacy organizations have reported “dozens” or “up to 70” deported citizens, they are citing GAO’s aggregate finding rather than a GAO-provided case-by-case accounting [3] [4].
3. How GAO framed uncertainty and limits to the data
GAO repeatedly emphasizes the incompleteness of ICE and CBP data, noting that ICE “does not know the extent to which its officers are taking enforcement actions against individuals who could be U.S. citizens,” and documenting that ICE issued at least 895 detainers for potential citizens in that timeframe—but canceled roughly 74% of those detainers—underscoring both over-identification risks and data gaps [5] [1]. GAO’s core finding is therefore about organizational blind spots and risk, not definitive adjudication of citizenship status for each removed individual [1].
4. Where other sources go beyond GAO—and what they add
Advocacy research and media reporting sometimes amplify GAO’s aggregate numbers or present additional counts from separate datasets—for example, Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) data cited by others show thousands of instances where ICE flagged people as potentially removable over longer time spans—but those are distinct analyses and not a substitute for GAO’s audit [5]. Local and national outlets citing GAO correctly repeat the 70-figure but similarly do not produce GAO-supplied, named-case lists [3] [4].
5. Competing interpretations and implicit agendas
Advocates use GAO’s numbers to argue for urgent reform and compensation for wrongly targeted citizens, while enforcement defenders may emphasize the cancellations (about 74% of detainers) and ICE’s claim of data integrity to frame the issue as smaller or controllable; GAO itself stayed neutral, recommending better tracking and clearer guidance rather than assigning individual culpability [1]. Readers should note that advocacy groups and media outlets can have incentives—policy pressure or readership—to spotlight individual horror stories, but GAO’s remit was to audit systems and data, not litigate or litigiously verify individual citizenship claims [1] [2].
6. Bottom line and reporting limitation
The precise, direct answer: GAO identified an aggregate of 70 removals of people ICE’s records had flagged as potential U.S. citizens between FY2015 and Q2 FY2020, but GAO did not publish a list of specific wrongful-removal cases or provide case-level adjudications in its report; its contribution was to document the count, the procedural shortcomings, and the need for better data and oversight [1] [2]. If named cases or adjudicated determinations of wrongful removal are required, that information is not included in the GAO audit and further investigative work—by courts, ICE case reviews, or independent reporters—would be necessary to produce a verified roster [1].