What incidents of lethal violence involving ICE agents (agents killing civilians) occurred since 2015 and how were they investigated?
Executive summary
From 2015 through 2021, federal records and investigative reporting identified dozens of shootings involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers — a tally investigators later expanded into the mid‑2020s as new incidents occurred — that resulted in at least dozens of deaths and many more injuries, and that were frequently investigated by outside agencies or cleared without criminal charges amid limited transparency from ICE [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows recurring patterns — vehicle encounters, jurisdictional handoffs, scarce indictments, and FOIA disputes — that shaped how those deaths were examined and how families and watchdogs sought accountability [2] [1].
1. The scale and scope: what the record shows
A multi‑outlet analysis found 59 shootings by ICE officers from 2015 to 2021 across 26 states and two U.S. territories, with 23 people killed and at least 24 injured, and subsequent reporting through 2025–26 documents additional deadly encounters including high‑profile deaths in Minneapolis and elsewhere, bringing longstanding totals reported by journalists into the mid‑20s for fatalities since 2015 [1] [2] [3]. Journalists and databases covering the second Trump administration documented an especially concentrated wave of incidents after January 2025, noting at least 25 shootings by immigration agents since then with multiple deaths and injuries reported [3] [4].
2. Common facts across incidents: moving vehicles and off‑duty encounters
Investigations and visual reconstructions repeatedly flagged two recurring circumstances: agents firing at or into moving vehicles and shootings involving officers not on traditional deportation duty, including off‑duty officers, which complicated narratives about threat and justification; outlets documented at least 19 vehicle‑related encounters tied to multiple deaths in the 2015–2021 period and noted a similar pattern in 2025–26 reporting [2] [3] [5]. These tactical patterns shaped both public scrutiny and prosecutorial questions about whether agents reasonably perceived imminent threats and whether policy on use of force was followed [1] [2].
3. Who investigates: handoffs, local probes, the FBI and federal review
ICE often assigned jurisdiction to state or local law enforcement — nearly half of the shootings in the 2015–2021 review were handled by outside agencies — and in many high‑profile cases federal investigators (including the FBI) also opened inquiries, creating overlapping or sequential probes by local, state and federal authorities [1] [6]. That patchwork has provoked criticism: outside investigations can be seen as independent oversight or, critics argue, as a mechanism that distances ICE from scrutiny and produces inconsistent outcomes depending on which agency leads [1] [2].
4. Outcomes: scant criminal indictments, civil suits and opaque internal records
Despite the number of deadly encounters, longform investigations found no apparent criminal indictments against ICE agents for shootings across the 2015–2021 period, and journalists documented repeated clearances by state and local authorities even when investigations were criticized as incomplete; at the same time families pursued civil litigation while encountering FOIA refusals and redactions that limited access to internal use‑of‑force reports [2] [1]. For example, a plaintiff in one lawsuit said ICE withheld the use‑of‑force incident report under state law exemptions, and a judge later dismissed federal claims for lack of proof — illustrating legal and evidentiary hurdles facing survivors and advocates [1].
5. The politics and accountability dilemmas
Patterns of increased deployments and political messaging around enforcement coincided with spikes in shootings, prompting lawmakers and local prosecutors to weigh state‑level inquiries and evidence collection drives, as seen after the Minneapolis fatality that mobilized local prosecutors to solicit videos and eyewitnesses while federal authorities defended an agent’s actions [7] [8] [9]. Alternative interpretations exist: federal officials portray many shootings as self‑defense in dangerous enforcement operations, while critics and community members argue that aggressive tactics, deployment choices and investigative handoffs have eroded accountability and public trust [6] [10].
Conclusion: documented deaths, uneven scrutiny
Reporting since 2015 establishes a consistent record of lethal force by ICE agents, a pattern of investigations split among ICE, local and federal agencies, limited criminal prosecutions, and frequent disputes over records and transparency; those procedural and political choices — jurisdictional assignments, FOIA denials, and the reluctance of prosecutors to charge — are as central to the story as the shootings themselves [1] [2] [8]. Where the sources leave gaps — for example, internal ICE deliberations not released in records obtained by journalists — the public record cannot definitively explain every prosecutorial decision or policy choice [1].