How did ICE enforcement priorities memos change from 2014 through 2018?

1. 2014: A targeted, department-wide prioritization is established

In November 2014, DHS issued guidance that narrowed enforcement to defined priority groups—principally national security threats, serious criminals, recent arrivals, and others specified in three overarching priorities—formalizing a focus on the “worst of the worst” and embedding prosecutorial discretion as a governing principle across DHS components ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. Operational intent and programs tied to the 2014 priorities

Those 2014 priorities were not limited to ICE alone: they underpinned the Priority Enforcement Program and shaped how ICE, CBP, and USCIS allocated scarce enforcement resources, instructed field offices to weigh the totality of circumstances, and allowed for exceptions where local judgment found compelling mitigating factors ^{[1] [6]}.

3. 2017: A reversal and expansion under new political direction

Following the January 2017 executive orders, DHS guidance in February 2017 and subsequent ICE directives abandoned the categorical limits of 2014 and directed enforcement against “all removable aliens encountered” while still signaling prioritization of those with criminal convictions or public-safety risks; the new guidance also sought to expand cooperative programs such as 287(g) to widen local-state participation ^{[2] [7] [1]}.

4. Concrete policy shifts inside ICE and the removal of protective language

GAO found that after the 2017 DHS memo, ICE deleted language from its policy manuals for pregnant people and parents of minors that it said conflicted with the new DHS direction, reflecting a substantive retrenchment of the narrower protections that had existed under earlier memos ^[3]. In practice, ICE leadership ordered officers to take enforcement action against all removable noncitizens encountered in the course of duties, signaling a programmatic end to categorical non-enforcement ^[1].

5. Data and operational outcomes, 2015–2018

GAO’s review of ICE data for calendar years 2015–2018 shows that arrests, detentions, and removals varied year to year but rose overall across the period covered; Migration Policy and other analysts characterized the post‑2017 posture as a “sea change” that broadened the interior enforcement net and prioritized final orders and a wider range of removable persons ^{[3] [7]}.

6. Tension between resources, discretion, and political goals

Analysts warned that without significant new resources, a broadened mandate would force a tradeoff between pursuing the highest‑priority, dangerous offenders and arresting larger numbers of non‑criminals or long‑term residents; proponents of the 2017 expansion framed it as restoring rule-of-law and public-safety priorities, while critics described it as politically driven and likely to sweep in low‑risk immigrants ^{[7] [5]}.

7. Alternative perspectives and institutional legacies

Supporters of the 2014 approach argued it improved focus and community cooperation by protecting low‑risk groups and encouraging reporting to police; supporters of the 2017 changes argued the narrower Obama-era priorities had created enforcement gaps. Independent oversight and reporting—including GAO—documented both policy changes and gaps in ICE’s data collection on vulnerable populations, leaving some questions about how consistently field offices implemented the shifting guidance ^{[1] [3]}.

8. Bottom line: from categorical discretion to broader enforcement authority

From 2014 through 2018 the dominant arc was clear: a move from a deliberate, category‑based prosecutorial‑discretion framework to an expanded enforcement posture that rescinded many earlier protections and encouraged broader interior enforcement and local cooperation; measurable enforcement actions increased overall during the period even as debates about resources, legal authority, and humanitarian impacts intensified ^{[1] [2] [3] [7]}.