What investigations, audits, or legal actions followed ICE detainee deaths between 2018 and 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
From 2018 through 2025, reporting and records show a pattern of internal ICE reviews, independent audits and repeated civil litigation tied to detainee deaths — with watchdog groups and Congress demanding broader federal audits and multiple families filing lawsuits over alleged neglect or withheld records [1] [2] [3] [4]. Independent reviews and NGO reports have concluded many deaths were likely preventable and have cataloged systemic investigative failures; Congressmembers and state officials pressed for GAO or DHS OIG scrutiny after high-profile deaths [5] [2] [6].
1. ICE’s own post‑death processes — formal but criticized
ICE has a written protocol: deaths trigger immediate internal notifications, an Office of Professional Responsibility review, and transmission of findings to DHS’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; ICE says it posts Detainee Death Reports and notifies next of kin and stakeholders [1] [7]. Critics and independent researchers, however, say those internal processes routinely omit key facts, allow destruction of evidence, and fail to interview witnesses — weaknesses documented in reports assembled by American Oversight, Physicians for Human Rights, and the ACLU [5] [3] [8].
2. External oversight: DHS OIG, GAO and mortality reviews
The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General has examined deaths across ICE and CBP custody and produced formal reviews highlighting systemic problems — for example, a 2023 DHS OIG report analyzed causes and recommended reforms after multiple custody deaths [6]. Senators and members of Congress have called for Government Accountability Office or federal audits in response to individual deaths and apparent patterns; Sen. Patty Murray requested a GAO review after a 2023 death in Tacoma [2].
3. Litigation by families and public‑interest groups
Families of detainees have filed lawsuits seeking documents, accountability and damages; the death of Chaofeng Ge in 2025 prompted a FOIA suit and civil litigation alleging withheld records and lack of transparency [9] [4]. NGOs have also used litigation and records requests to force disclosure of ICE death‑review reports; American Oversight and the ACLU have released collated death‑review documents and sued or petitioned for records in multiple cases [3] [5].
4. Independent reports conclude many deaths were preventable
Coalitions of NGOs and public‑health researchers published analyses concluding a large share of in‑custody deaths could have been prevented with adequate medical care and stronger oversight; an influential report concluded up to 95% of certain deaths were likely preventable and cataloged failures in medical diagnosis and timely care [8] [5]. Medical‑journal case series and academic reviews of FY2018–2023 deaths likewise flagged inconsistent reporting and the problem of “hidden” deaths when detainees are released shortly before dying [10].
5. Congressional and local political pressure escalated in 2024–2025
As detainee deaths rose in 2024–2025, lawmakers pressed DHS and ICE for answers. State and federal lawmakers demanded briefings and documents after clusters of deaths and publicized delays in ICE posting death notices; California and other officials sought explanations for dozens of 2025 in‑custody deaths [11] [12] [13]. Some members explicitly tied rising deaths to staffing cuts in DHS oversight offices and to detention expansion [14] [15].
6. Advocacy groups and media investigations filled oversight gaps
When internal oversight was scaled back or slow, media outlets and advocacy groups conducted independent investigations and published autopsy findings, FOIA‑driven document dumps, and aggregated fatality counts — work that underpinned lawsuits and congressional inquiries and highlighted discrepancies between ICE’s official reports and independent evidence [16] [3] [5].
7. Multiple perspectives and outstanding limits in public record
ICE defends its procedures and says it conducts thorough reviews, notifies families and posts reports in accordance with policy [1] [7]. Critics counter that those reports are incomplete and accountability rare [5] [8]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, single public database that reconciles every death, all investigations, and downstream prosecutions or disciplinary actions across 2018–2025; instead the record is dispersed across ICE releases, DHS OIG reports, NGO compilations, FOIA litigation and press reporting [1] [6] [3] [5].
8. What to watch next — transparency, audits, and litigation outcomes
Key signals will be GAO or DHS OIG audits, outcomes of FOIA suits and family lawsuits (including evidence releases), and whether Congress or the courts force enforceable reforms to medical care, reporting timelines and independent mortality review mechanisms [2] [6] [5]. Until a centralized, independently verified accounting of in‑custody deaths and follow‑up investigations is published, discrepancies between ICE’s official notices and independent tallies will remain a fulcrum for political and legal pressure [3] [8].