Are ICE agents given a quota and paid by the number of people they arrest?
Executive summary
Reporting in 2025 shows multiple outlets and research groups saying ICE was given numerical arrest targets that led to a big increase in interior arrests — examples include reports of instructions for field offices to aim for daily arrest targets (e.g., 75 per office) and broader references to administration goals of thousands per day [1] [2] [3]. Available sources document policy pressure and litigation over tactics used to hit those targets, but they do not show that individual ICE agents are paid per arrest; available sources do not mention pay‑for‑performance for line agents [1] [4].
1. What the reporting says about “quotas” and arrest targets
Multiple investigative and policy sources reported that the administration directed ICE offices to increase arrests and set numerical targets: one aggregation of reporting says each field office was instructed to make about 75 arrests per day (which would raise national daily arrests into the low thousands) and that managers were being “held accountable” for failing to meet those targets [1]. Other research groups and commentators described a shift toward agency-wide goals framed as a 3,000‑arrests‑per‑day target or similar large daily tallies; these accounts tie the targets to a clear spike in arrests starting in spring–summer 2025 [2] [3].
2. How those targets changed enforcement in practice
Reporting and data analyses show arrests increased significantly after the directives were implemented: ICE arrest rates rose from a few hundred per day early in 2025 to around 1,000 per day by May and higher in subsequent months, coinciding with the announced quotas and new enforcement operations [3]. Critics and some ICE agents told outlets that pressure to meet numerical goals changed priorities — with fewer arrests tied to serious criminal convictions and more administrative interior arrests of people without violent criminal records [2] [1].
3. Litigation and court rulings responding to enforcement tactics
Federal judges and civil‑rights groups challenged elements of the enforcement surge. Courts in multiple jurisdictions have ordered releases or limited warrantless arrest practices, finding that some interior arrests and tactics violated consent decrees or statutory protections — for example, judges ordered releases in Chicago and Colorado after plaintiffs argued warrantless or unlawful detention practices were used during the raids [5] [6] [7]. These court actions link back to the increased, aggressive enforcement that accompanied the quota directives [5] [6].
4. Who is being arrested — criminality and demographics
Analysts and advocacy groups report that a substantial share of those arrested under the ramped‑up enforcement had no convictions, and a high share did not have violent criminal records; one study noted 65% had no convictions and 93% had no violent convictions, framing the quotas as producing many non‑criminal administrative arrests [2]. Local reporting gives human examples — arrests at routine green‑card appointments and other non‑traditional enforcement locations — that raise concerns about targeting people undergoing lawful immigration processes [8].
5. Is pay tied to number of arrests? — what the sources say (and don’t say)
None of the provided sources assert that ICE agents are paid per arrest or receive financial bonuses for each person they arrest. ICE’s public description of Enforcement and Removal Operations explains its mission to identify and arrest immigration violators but does not describe pay‑for‑performance for line agents [4]. Investigations and policy trackers describe quotas, pressure on managers, and accountability metrics — not individual commission‑style pay arrangements — so available sources do not mention agents being paid by arrest count [1] [3] [4].
6. Alternative framings and institutional incentives to watch
Advocates and critics treat quotas as political directives intended to boost removal numbers and political messaging, while agency defenders and some news pieces emphasize that ICE continues to claim it prioritizes public‑safety threats and fugitive operations [1] [9]. Independent analyses show the shift in arrest composition (more non‑criminals) and court findings suggest enforcement methods changed under pressure to meet targets; these diverging portrayals reflect competing agendas — enforcement expansion vs. constitutional and community‑safety concerns [2] [5] [6].
7. Bottom line and reporting limits
Available reporting documents explicit arrest targets and substantial increases in interior enforcement tied to those targets [1] [3], and courts have pushed back against some tactics used to meet them [5] [6]. However, the sources provided do not report that ICE agents receive individual pay per arrest; they describe managerial accountability and quotas but not monetary incentives for line agents [1] [4]. For any claim about pay‑per‑arrest, current reporting would need to be supplemented with explicit payroll or personnel policy evidence, which is not found in the sources supplied [4].
Sources cited in article: [6]; [5]; [1]; [2]; [3]; [8]; [4]; [7]; [9]