Which ICE contracts filed since 2024 on USASpending.gov include line‑item descriptions and quantities for firearms or munitions?
Executive summary
Reporting and government audits show that USASpending.gov entries tied to ICE since 2024 do include contract records that reference purchases of small arms, munitions, and related equipment — in at least some cases with line‑item descriptions and dollar amounts tied to specific task orders [1] [2]. However, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that USASpending.gov data do not reliably reflect agency internal records or funding sources, and other media analyses that identified line‑item weapons purchases note limitations and possible misattribution of funding across agencies [3] [4] [1].
1. Known contract records that journalistic reporting flags as containing weapons line items
Investigations by reporters found specific task orders and FPDS/USASpending traces that identify weapons and munitions purchases: for example, journalists identified a task order to Quantico Tactical for firearms and magazines (reported as a roughly $10 million task order) and other large task orders for rifles and ballistic equipment that were visible in procurement data [1] [2]. Popular-media analyses and FPDS queries cited in Reason and Bloomberg flagged a September bulk purchase described as over $9 million for semi‑automatic and automatic rifles, and aggregated FPDS categories showing millions in “small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing” obligations for ICE in 2025 [2] [1].
2. What the GAO audit says about relying on USASpending.gov for line‑item accuracy
The Government Accountability Office’s review of federal law enforcement firearms and ammunition purchases found that publicly available data on USASpending.gov can overstate or misattribute ICE’s firearms spending compared with agency internal records — in one example, the dollar value shown for ICE on USASpending.gov was roughly eight times the amount ICE reported internally — because other agencies sometimes use ICE contracts and ICE didn’t always identify the actual funding agency in the system that feeds USASpending.gov [3] [4]. This caveat matters: an entry that appears on USASpending.gov with a weapons description may not reflect ICE’s own funded buy or may lack the granular quantity fields GAO used internal records to verify [3] [4].
3. How reporters established the presence of line‑item descriptions and quantities in public procurement feeds
Reporting teams examining the Federal Procurement Data System and USASpending.gov used keyword searches for “small arms,” “less lethal,” “pepperball,” and product descriptions to surface transactions and task orders that include explicit item descriptions and, in some instances, numerical quantities or unit descriptions in FPDS line items; these searches yielded entries the press summarized as bulk rifle purchases, taser orders, and munitions procurements that feed into the public-facing datasets [1] [2] [5]. Those public entries were then cited by outlets arguing ICE’s weapons spending had surged in 2025, with specific dollar amounts and item types reported [5] [2].
4. Limitations in the public record and competing explanations
The sources provided do not include an authoritative, exhaustive list of every USASpending.gov filing since 2024 that contains weapon‑oriented line items and explicit unit quantities; GAO’s audit warns that matching FPDS/USASpending records to agency inventories requires internal data and correct funding‑agency attribution, and reporters likewise note that some entries may be task orders used by other agencies or lack unit counts despite having descriptive text [3] [4] [1]. Alternative viewpoints reported alongside these findings emphasize that law‑enforcement agencies routinely procure firearms and related gear as part of policing operations, and that fast, high‑dollar entries in FPDS can reflect end‑of‑year buying or contract vehicles rather than immediate fielding [1] [6].
5. Bottom line for readers following the procurement trail
Available investigative reporting and the GAO audit together show that USASpending.gov has records since 2024 that reporters have used to identify specific ICE‑linked task orders and line‑item descriptions for firearms and munitions — including multimillion‑dollar task orders for rifles, magazines, and ballistic gear — but the public data can overstate or misattribute spending and do not constitute a definitive, agency‑verified catalog of quantities without corroborating internal ICE inventory records [1] [2] [3]. The sources provided do not allow producing a complete inventory of every USASpending.gov filing with line‑item quantities since 2024; confirming that would require FPDS/USASpending downloads cross‑checked with ICE’s internal procurement and property management records [3] [4].