What documented cases exist of ICE detaining or deporting people who later were reported missing?
Executive summary
Documented reporting shows multiple instances in 2025 where people tracked in or removed by U.S. immigration authorities later could not be located in the ICE Online Detainee Locator or were reported missing after deportation flights — including hundreds tied to weekend deportation flights in March and at least dozens sent to El Salvador’s CECOT facility (AP, Human Rights First, NILC) [1] [2] [3]. Civil‑rights groups and news outlets identified specific batches — for example, reporting that 48 detainees were “forcibly disappeared” from U.S. public tracking in March 2025 (El País) [4].
1. Missing from ICE’s public tracker: a recurring reporting thread
Multiple news organizations and advocacy groups documented that people who were in ICE custody or on deportation flights later could not be located via ICE’s Online Detainee Locator System, leaving families and lawyers unable to confirm whereabouts (AP; Human Rights First; ICE statements on locating individuals) [1] [2] [5]. The AP reported weekend flights in March 2025 that “set off a frantic scramble among terrified families” after hundreds vanished from the government’s online detainee tracker [1]. ICE and DHS fact sheets continue to direct inquiries to field ERO offices when the online system yields “no record,” but reporting shows that mechanism did not resolve many family searches in practice [5] [6].
2. Deportations to third‑country or foreign prisons that created “disappearances”
Human Rights First and other organizations documented transfers of detained migrants to extra‑U.S. facilities and third‑country prisons (notably El Salvador’s CECOT), reporting that migrants who were in ICE custody “suddenly vanished” from the detainee locator after rendition or offshore transfers [2]. AP and NILC reporting corroborate that weekend deportation flights and payments to El Salvador placed people in facilities where U.S. transparency and family contact were effectively limited, producing missing‑personlike conditions for relatives [1] [3].
3. Specific counts cited by advocacy trackers and media
Advocacy trackers and some media outlets compiled large tallies. A crowd‑sourced site cited in opinion coverage claimed 5,784 individuals were “disappeared by ICE” beginning January 20, 2025, though that figure comes from a media‑sourced database rather than an independent government count [7]. Human Rights First documented at least several hundred migrants transferred off established public tracking, and NILC reported “dozens” of Salvadorans among the 280+ men sent to CECOT who remained there in mid‑2025 [2] [3].
4. Government and agency responses — transparency versus denials
ICE and DHS emphasize the Online Detainee Locator System and instruct relatives to contact ERO field offices when the locator fails; ICE’s factsheet repeats that guidance [5]. At the same time, DHS issued strong denials in some high‑profile instances — for example, a DHS statement asserting “DHS does NOT deport U.S. citizens” in response to reporting — underscoring tension between agency assurances and reports of misidentifications or people not appearing in public systems [8]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive government tally of how many people were unlocatable after detention or deportation beyond patchwork journalism and NGO counts [9].
5. Legal and human‑rights framing: advocates’ claims and limits of public data
Civil‑rights groups characterized many cases as “forcibly disappeared” or as enforced disappearances, arguing that transfers to facilities like CECOT or Guantanamo removed people from legal protections and public oversight [2] [4]. Journalistic accounts — including AP and New Yorker reporting — document specific families and cases where people later surfaced in foreign prisons or were exchanged in prisoner swaps, but the broader scale relies on NGO tracking and flight monitors rather than a single authoritative public dataset [1] [10].
6. Competing narratives and reporting caveats
Sources diverge: NGOs and some press outlets portray a pattern of secretive renditions and systemic opacity [2] [3]; official materials stress locator tools and ERO channels for resolving “no record” results [5] [6]. Some claims — such as large crowd‑sourced tallies — come from compilations of media reports rather than primary government logs, and several government statements deny deporting U.S. citizens or assert procedural safeguards in specific incidents [7] [8]. Where sources are silent — for instance, about a comprehensive federal count of missing detainees — available reporting does not provide that number [9].
7. What reporters and families can point to now
Documented, sourceable examples include hundreds unlocatable after March weekend flights (AP) and dozens remaining at CECOT after U.S. transfers (NILC; Human Rights First), plus NGO and media tracking that compiled larger lists [1] [3] [2]. For individual searches, counsel and relatives are still directed to ICE’s Online Detainee Locator and to ERO field offices, but the reporting shows those steps often failed to produce timely answers in 2025 [5] [6].
Limitations: this summary uses only the provided reporting and advocacy documents; it does not claim to represent an exhaustive list of every case nationwide. Available sources do not mention a single, official count maintained by the U.S. government of people detained or missing after removal beyond fragmented agency statistics and NGO tallies [9].