47% of the ICE arrests in South Carolina this year were on people with pending charges. Another 41% were on people already convicted.
Executive summary
ICE arrest records for South Carolina compiled by the Deportation Data Project and reported locally show that 47% of ICE arrests in the state so far this year were of people with pending criminal charges, and 41% were of people already convicted, according to Fox Carolina’s analysis of the dataset [1]. Those figures are echoed by a White House summary of enforcement numbers released by the administration [2].
1. What the numbers actually are — and where they come from
The 47% and 41% figures trace to data collected and published by the Deportation Data Project and analyzed by Fox Carolina; that outlet reported “47% of the ICE arrests in South Carolina this year were on people with pending charges” and that many arrests were of people “already facing charges or currently serving a sentence,” citing the Deportation Data Project records [1]. The White House also quoted similar language when highlighting enforcement gains, citing the same split — 47% pending charges, 41% convicted — in its roundup of ICE activity [2].
2. What the dataset covers — and what it does not
The underlying dataset comes from ICE records obtained via public‑records requests and compiled by the Deportation Data Project, which includes case‑level details about when and where arrests happened and the ICE classification of the person’s status [1]. Available sources do not mention whether the Deportation Data Project’s categorization distinguishes between misdemeanors, violent felonies, or foreign versus domestic convictions in South Carolina records; Fox Carolina’s article does not enumerate offense types beyond noting “pending charges” and “already facing charges” [1]. The White House summary repeats the same percentages without granular offense breakdowns [2].
3. Local operations that move the totals
High‑profile operations in South Carolina — most notably a June raid on an unlicensed nightclub near Charleston that yielded 72 arrests and seizures of cash, drugs and firearms — pushed local arrest counts upward and illustrate how single large operations can change percentages in a given county or period [3] [4]. Fox Carolina’s reporting flagged Charleston County as the local epicenter of arrests, noting it recorded more than 900 detentions in the year as ICE activity surged [5] [1].
4. How national context complicates interpretation
National reporting on ICE’s recent surge in arrests shows variation across regions: in some cities and operations a majority of arrestees have no criminal records, while in other places a larger share have convictions or pending charges [6] [7]. For example, New York Times analysis found that in several high‑profile operations more than half of those arrested had no criminal record, and an investigative local study in San Diego found 58% of arrests were of people without criminal histories [6] [7]. Those national variations mean the South Carolina percentages reflect local case mix and targeted operations rather than a uniform national pattern.
5. Possible explanations and competing perspectives
ICE and the White House frame the South Carolina numbers as evidence that enforcement is focused on people with criminal histories — an assertion supported by the 47%/41% split in the cited dataset [1] [2]. Critics and independent reporters point out that other locales show many arrests are of people without criminal records, and that the Deportation Data Project data by itself does not reveal the severity of the charges or whether arrests involve non‑violent immigration violations versus serious crimes [6] [7]. Available sources do not mention deeper adjudicative context — for example, whether pending charges led to convictions, or whether convictions were for minor versus serious offenses [1].
6. What the counts mean for overall arrest totals
Local outlets report ICE arrests in South Carolina have more than doubled or even tripled compared with last year, totaling more than 3,000 arrests statewide in recent reporting and with Charleston County accounting for a large share [5] [8]. Fox Carolina also reported a mid‑year figure of 1,755 arrests through the first half of 2025, indicating accelerated activity that produced the percentages cited [9]. These surges mean percentages can be influenced by a few large multi‑person operations as well as by steady daily arrests [5] [9] [3].
7. Limitations, transparency and what’s missing
The public reporting relied on a third‑party compilation (the Deportation Data Project) and local news analysis (Fox Carolina), and the White House repeated the same figures; none of the cited pieces provide a full offense‑level breakdown for South Carolina that would let reporters and the public assess severity, recency, or cross‑jurisdictional warrants [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention whether ICE’s internal criteria, multiple arrests of the same individual, or partnerships with local law enforcement affected the counts in South Carolina — omissions that limit causal claims [1] [3].
8. Bottom line
The 47% pending‑charges and 41% convicted figures for South Carolina arrests are documented in local reporting based on Deportation Data Project records and echoed by the White House [1] [2]. Those numbers are a meaningful snapshot of a surge in local enforcement, but they do not by themselves resolve disputes over how many arrestees had serious violent records versus lesser offenses, nor do they by themselves establish whether the enforcement pattern is consistent nationwide [1] [6].