Fact check: How does ICE prioritize enforcement actions between documented and undocumented immigrants?

1. What advocates and reports say ICE actually did — a pattern that challenges policy promises

Advocacy groups and investigative reporting have documented that ICE frequently carried out enforcement actions against individuals who did not meet the administration’s stated priority categories. FOIA-obtained records and reporting indicate ICE labeled many arrestees as “other” priority rather than the named national-security, public-safety, or border-threat categories, suggesting a routine of arresting and deporting noncitizens outside the highest-priority groups ^{[2] [5]}. These sources present a pattern across multiple years showing that, despite memos designed to narrow targets, enforcement has often included people without serious criminal histories or clear ties to the stated priority categories, underscoring a persistent enforcement footprint affecting both recent arrivals and long-standing residents ^{[2] [4]}.

2. What the official policy says — a framework built on three core priorities and prosecutorial discretion

DHS and ICE guidance repeatedly frame interior enforcement around three core priorities: national security, public safety, and border security, and they direct prosecutors and field officers to exercise discretion for cases that fall outside those categories ^{[1] [6]}. The guidance reimplementation memos instruct agency leaders to focus resources on threats to those core interests, and to allow case-by-case decisions for lower-risk individuals, signaling an intent to reduce enforcement of minor immigration violations while concentrating on more serious threats ^{[7] [6]}. The official framework is intentionally broad, giving ICE substantial leeway to interpret and apply priorities at the field level, which creates variability in outcomes across offices and cases ^[1].

3. How prosecutors and field agents translate guidance into action — mixed indicators of change

Data on filings and case outcomes offers mixed signals: some indicators point to more case terminations and use of discretion, while other measures show continued use of arrest, detention, and removal tools against non-priority individuals ^{[3] [4]}. Analyses suggest ICE prosecutors did not dramatically reduce the total number of new deportation filings immediately following the policy shifts, but there was an observable increase in case terminations in some periods, indicating selective exercise of prosecutorial discretion that varied by office and over time ^[3]. Simultaneously, field tactics reported in surveys—surveillance, cooperation with local law enforcement, and other enforcement methods—persisted in ways that may capture people who fall outside the stated priorities, fueling tension between policy and practice ^[4].

4. The enforcement gap’s operational drivers — discretion, local practice, and documentation status

Three operational factors explain why documented and undocumented people may encounter different enforcement outcomes despite the same guidance: wide prosecutorial discretion, decentralized field practices, and variable definitions of “priority.” The memos empower Office of Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) prosecutors and ICE field offices to make independent decisions, producing inconsistent applications of priorities across jurisdictions ^{[1] [3]}. Local relationships with police, differences in rostered priorities at field offices, and record-keeping that classifies many cases as “other” contribute to arrested people being undocumented or documented noncitizens alike, depending on specific case facts and local enforcement culture ^{[2] [4]}.

5. Evidence and data — what’s documented and what remains opaque

Investigations and FOIA-revealed records provide the clearest evidence that ICE sometimes targets non-priority individuals, yet systematic, public data tying enforcement actions to documented vs. undocumented status under the priorities framework remains limited ^{[2] [3]}. Some analyses show increases in case terminations and signals of discretion being exercised in prosecutorial decision-making, but they also document arrests that do not fit neatly into priority buckets, leaving questions about scale, geographic concentration, and the characteristics of those detained or removed ^{[3] [4]}. The lack of standardized public reporting on how ICE classifies and tracks priority determinations makes it difficult to assess whether departures from the written priorities are isolated or widespread ^[2].

6. What this means for oversight, policy and affected communities — accountability and clarity are missing

The tension between stated enforcement priorities and documented enforcement actions implies a need for clearer metrics, stronger oversight, and uniform guidance that limits arbitrary classification of cases as non-priority or “other” ^{[1] [2]}. For communities and policymakers, the key factual takeaway is that written priorities alone have not eliminated enforcement against many noncitizens outside the named threat categories, and without consistent public data on case-level priority decisions and outcomes, independent assessment and policy correction are constrained ^{[3] [4]}. Strengthening transparency—uniform documentation of priority determinations and centralized reporting—would allow independent verification of whether ICE’s practices align with its professed priorities.