How does ICE define and report deaths in custody, and how have those definitions changed over time?
Executive summary
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) treats a "death in custody" as any death that occurs while an individual is detained by the agency and has formalized processes for notification, internal review, and public reporting, but those definitions and the transparency around them have been repeatedly contested and adjusted through policy memos, appropriations mandates, and external oversight since 2009 [1] [2] [3]. Critics — including advocacy groups, journalists and the DHS Office of Inspector General — say ICE’s reporting practices, investigatory rigor and scope of what it classifies as "in custody" have narrowed or been applied inconsistently at times, producing apparent undercounts and delayed public disclosure [4] [3] [5].
1. How ICE currently defines a death in custody
ICE’s public materials state that any detained alien who dies while in ICE custody is subject to notification and review under agency policy, and that facilities must provide continual medical care from intake onward; the agency’s 2021 policy, "Notification, Review, and Reporting Requirements for Detainee Deaths," governs initial notification, review and reporting and requires deaths be reported to stakeholders in a “timely” manner [1]. Congress also inserted a statutory reporting requirement in the DHS Appropriations Bill obligating ICE to publish reports on in-custody deaths within 90 days and to provide a running public list beginning in FY2018 [2] [1].
2. The mechanics of reporting: timelines, titles and public notices
Under ICE protocols a Field Office Director must report a detainee death within 12 hours up the chain and the agency conducts medical reviews and oversight investigations, then prepares and shares reports with stakeholders; ICE’s website presents individual death reports and newsroom releases for recent cases [1]. However, watchdogs note that ICE’s public messaging sometimes uses softer language such as "passes away" and narrative-style newsroom titles that differ from the standardized "Detainee Death Report" format — a shift advocates say affects clarity and accountability [2].
3. How definitions and policies evolved over time
The modern framework stems from reforms after investigative reporting and litigation in the late 2000s that prompted ICE to centralize death reviews and adopt standards in 2009; later, Congress codified public-reporting requirements in 2018 and ICE updated its internal notification and reporting policy in 2021 [3] [2] [1]. Independent oversight also expanded: the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) has reviewed custody deaths and mortality reviews, producing reports that assess agency processes and recommend changes [5].
4. Disputes over scope, transparency and investigators’ findings
Advocacy organizations (ACLU, Physicians for Human Rights, American Oversight) and investigative journalists have documented cases where ICE investigations allegedly omitted key evidence, destroyed or failed to preserve video, or released potential witnesses before interviews — findings that led those groups to conclude ICE’s oversight is critically flawed [4] [3]. By contrast, ICE and DHS spokespersons defend the system, pointing to national detention standards and agency mortality reviews as evidence of adequate care and oversight; OIG reviews have sometimes concluded no single systemic policy caused particular deaths even while noting case-level failures [1] [5].
5. Recent practice: rising fatalities, narrower counts and reduced inspections
Data show a sharp recent rise in reported deaths in custody — at least 30 deaths in 2025 according to ICE and media tallies, the highest in two decades — while independent analysts warn that ICE’s definition of custody and reporting practices may produce different totals than outside trackers [6] [7]. Simultaneously, Project On Government Oversight reported a 36% drop in ICE facility inspection reports in 2025 even as detention populations and deaths surged, a gap critics say reflects declining oversight capacity that undermines confidence in how deaths are defined, investigated and reported [8] [7].
6. Why definitions matter and reporting limitations
How ICE defines "in custody" determines which deaths appear in public tallies and triggers legal, consular and investigatory responsibilities; discrepancies matter for families, Congress and public health researchers trying to identify preventable patterns [2] [1]. Reporting constraints in the available sources mean some specifics — for example, precise internal criteria ICE uses to include or exclude deaths that occur shortly after release, during enforcement operations, or while in other agencies’ custody — cannot be conclusively described here beyond what ICE, OIG, and advocacy reports state [2] [5] [4].