How do ICE raids and arrest operations typically get planned and executed?
Executive summary
ICE conducts intelligence-driven operations that can range from targeted workplace and fugitive operations to large multi-office raids; agency dashboards describe arrests/detentions trends through 2024 [1], community groups track tactics and train residents to prepare emergency plans [2]. Recent high-profile operations in 2025 — Los Angeles, Chicago, New Orleans and attempted actions in New York City — show a mix of planned, multi-agency deployments and local resistance that has sometimes thwarted or disrupted operations [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What “planning” looks like: intelligence-driven and multi-agency
ICE characterizes many operations as “intelligence-driven,” often led by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) or Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and supported by other DHS components such as CBP or local federal task forces; ICE’s public newsroom and statistics dashboards underscore that arrests, detentions and removals are tracked centrally and that operations vary in scope [8] [1]. Reporting from Truthout and U.S. outlets indicates federal planning documents and official statements have described major operations with specific arrest goals and large numbers of deployed agents — for example, planning memos cited in reporting discussed multi-hundred-agent operations and named goals for thousands of arrests in some initiatives [9].
2. Typical targets and tactics: workplaces, residences and “sensitive” sites
Analyses and watchdogs show ICE has historically focused on workplaces, residences and known addresses tied to enforcement priorities; 2025 reporting says the agency widened its scope into various settings and continues workplace raids in industries thought to employ large numbers of undocumented workers [10]. Community-defense groups such as the Immigrant Defense Project document common ICE tactics, publish “raids tactics” maps and offer toolkits so at-risk people can prepare emergency plans and understand their rights [2] [11].
3. Execution on the ground: staging, vehicles and visible force
News coverage of recent incidents conveys a pattern: federal agents often stage from vehicles or parking facilities, use marked and unmarked vans, and coordinate movements across neighborhoods — which can create highly visible, confrontational moments when activists or residents encounter them. In New York, reporters described agents assembling near a garage and being blocked by protesters as vehicles attempted to leave, an incident that federal and local accounts disagreed about whether it was a planned raid or a movement of agents [5] [6] [4]. Local policing and federal officials sometimes dispute tactics and communication, as reflected in NYPD criticism of federal shows of force reported in The New York Times [4].
4. Scale and aims: targeted arrests versus broad sweeps
ICE and DHS sometimes present operations as focused on specific criminal fugitives or employers who violated immigration rules, while watchdogs and local reporting show some crackdowns aim for high arrest totals and broader sweeps. Truthout cited planning that described an operation with hundreds of agents aiming for thousands of arrests, while ICE press releases frame many actions as targeting particular companies or individuals in “intelligence-driven” probes [9] [8]. Local journalists and analysts note this contrast in official framing versus apparent operational scale [10].
5. Community responses: preparation, disruption and legal defense
Activist networks and legal aid groups have built playbooks for “ICEwatch” and community defense — providing instructions on emergency planning, courthouse pushes, and tactics to mobilize protests or obstruct staging points [2] [11]. Those playbooks have been put into practice: New Yorkers and other cities organized rapid counter-protests that in at least one case appear to have prevented agents from executing a planned operation, according to multiple outlets [6] [4].
6. Local politics and friction: police, city officials and federal agents collide
High-profile operations provoke local political backlash. In New York, The New York Times reported NYPD leadership rebuked federal agents for perceived shows of force and potential risk to public safety, while elected officials and community leaders criticized the raids; other cities have passed measures like complaint portals or sought to restrict federal staging on municipal property [4] [7]. That political friction affects both planning and the public narrative around operations [7].
7. Data and transparency: what ICE publishes — and what remains contested
ICE provides statistics and dashboards covering arrests, detentions and removals up to 2024, which the agency uses to describe trends and outcomes [1]. Independent trackers and advocacy groups compile incident-level tactics reports and maps to fill gaps; journalists and researchers rely on both official releases and leaked or proposed planning documents reported in the press to assess scale and intent [11] [9].
Limitations and open questions: available sources document methods, local resistance and public-facing “intelligence-driven” claims, but they do not provide a full, public accounting of internal operational planning memos for every operation. Current reporting shows a persistent contrast between ICE’s stated narrow targeting and outside accounts that describe broader sweeps — readers should treat official descriptions and independent reporting as competing perspectives and follow both ICE’s dashboards and watchdog reports for the most complete picture [1] [9] [2].