What official ICE data exist on detentions of Native Americans and tribal citizens in the last five years?
Executive summary
There is no sign in the reporting provided of a publicly available, comprehensive ICE dataset that tracks detentions specifically of Native Americans or enrolled tribal citizens over the last five years; what exists in the record are agency-wide detention totals and isolated case reports, tribal claims, and advocacy fact sheets documenting incidents and legal concerns [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the agency publishes in broad strokes — numbers but not tribal breakdowns
ICE does publish and release aggregate detention statistics — for example, reporting that the agency was detaining roughly 68,000–69,000 people in early January 2026 — and it publicly releases materials about deaths and facility populations, but those public figures are population-wide and do not, in the sources provided, include a disaggregated public accounting by Indigenous status or tribal enrollment [1] [2].
2. What news reporting shows — documented incidents, not systematic data
Recent national and Indigenous-focused reporting documents specific incidents in which Native people and tribal leaders say tribal citizens were detained — including multiple stories about Oglala Sioux members detained after Minneapolis raids and transfers to ICE custody at Fort Snelling — but those stories are case reporting, not agency-produced, disaggregated statistics covering a multiyear span [3] [5] [6] [7].
3. Agency statements and legal limits cited by reporting
Reporting that quotes ICE and DHS shows tension between tribal demands for information and the agency’s responses: Axios relays an ICE/DHS assertion that the agency had not uncovered claims by detained individuals of Oglala Sioux membership and that ICE “did NOT ask the tribe for any kind of agreement” while noting the legal principle that ICE cannot place verified U.S. citizens in immigration detention — a distinction that figures in tribal complaints and in the agency’s public posture [8].
4. Tribal, advocacy and legal groups’ record-keeping and claims
Tribal governments and Indigenous rights organizations have documented incidents, urged members to carry tribal IDs, and circulated fact sheets and resources — for example the Native American Rights Fund’s resource page noting that Native Americans are U.S. citizens and that ICE has, in their view, targeted tribal citizens and descendants — but those are advocacy and legal guidance materials rather than centralized ICE data releases covering five years [4] [9].
5. The gap between incident reporting and an official disaggregated dataset
Across the sources, the pattern is clear: journalists and tribal leaders have assembled incident-level reporting (detentions in Minneapolis and other alleged detentions in Arizona and Minnesota are documented in multiple outlets) while government disclosure, insofar as shown in these sources, remains at the aggregate level or in case-specific statements; the reporting does not point to any ICE public dataset that tallies detentions by tribal enrollment or Indigenous identity over the last five years [10] [3] [11] [6].
6. What that means for accountability and next steps
Because official ICE reporting in the cited coverage offers population totals and death tallies but not a tribal-disaggregated detention record, tribes and rights groups are calling for government-to-government consultations, access to information about detained tribal citizens, and assurances against unlawful detentions — appeals that show the practical consequences of the data gap even where individual detentions are widely reported [5] [3] [9].