Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How many Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have died in the line of duty since 2003?
Executive Summary: The available analyses disagree about the precise number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who have died in the line of duty since ICE was created in 2003, with published counts ranging from about 10 (through 2019) to at least the low‑40s by 2025. The variation reflects different inclusion rules and updates: some tallies count only deaths from injuries sustained after 2003, others include 9/11‑related illnesses and COVID‑19 fatalities, and some lists are more recently updated than others [1] [2].
1. Conflicting tallies — small official count versus growing casualty lists
A 2019 analysis reported a total of ten ICE agent deaths overall with only six attributed to injuries sustained after ICE’s 2003 creation, explicitly separating four deaths tied to 9/11 exposure; that report also provided a calculated annual death risk for ICE agents based on that small sample [1]. By contrast, several later compilations and memorial lists capture more recent fatalities — including deaths from COVID‑19, gunfire, vehicular assault, and duty‑related illnesses — pushing the tally substantially higher in the 2020–2025 period [2] [3]. The most striking difference is period and cause definitions, not only raw counting errors.
2. Recent lists push totals into the dozens — divergent recent figures
More recent memorial compilations and departmental lists compiled through 2024–2025 show substantially larger totals: one analysis counts at least 45 names through October 19, 2024, another derives a total of 43 when counting individual entries through April 2025, while intermediate summaries assert at least 24 or at least 15 depending on their source cutoffs [2] [4]. These higher figures incorporate COVID‑19 deaths and long‑term illnesses linked to 9/11 site work, categories that earlier summaries excluded or treated separately. Updates in 2020–2024 materially changed the running count.
3. Why the counts differ — scope, cause, and recordkeeping choices
The divergent numbers arise from three concrete choices: whether to count only line‑of‑duty traumatic deaths (shootings, crashes, assaults) versus including illnesses contracted on duty (9/11‑related cancers, COVID‑19); whether to include personnel who served in predecessor agencies or only those serving under the ICE banner after 2003; and how up‑to‑date a list is when compiled (some lists were updated through 2024–2025) [1] [2]. Different institutions and memorial projects explicitly apply different inclusion rules, so higher recent totals reflect broader criteria and newer entries rather than a single revised official adjudication.
4. The most defensible interpretation from the available material
Given the provided analyses, the most defensible statement is that the count depends on definition: using narrow criteria (post‑2003 traumatic line‑of‑duty deaths through 2019) yields about 6–10, while using broader criteria (post‑2003 deaths including 9/11‑related illnesses and COVID‑19 through 2024–2025) yields a figure in the low‑to‑mid 40s according to recently compiled lists [1] [2]. No single unified public number appears in the supplied materials; the latest memorial compilations present the largest totals.
5. What’s missing and how to get a definitive answer
The supplied analyses point to the exact problem: no single authoritative, consistently scoped public tally is included here. To produce a definitive count one must decide scope (include 9/11 illnesses? include COVID‑19 classified as line‑of‑duty?) and then query the most current official rolls: ICE/DHS fallen officer lists, the Officer Down Memorial Page, and memorial pages updated through 2025. The supplied materials indicate those sources exist and have been updated at different times; reconciling them requires a row‑by‑row vetting of names, dates, and cause classifications [3] [2] [5]. Only that reconciliation will resolve the present discrepancies.