Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How does the hazardous duty pay for ICE agents compare to US Marshals?
Executive Summary
Federal sources and salary surveys in the provided evidence do not show a clear, documented difference in hazardous duty pay between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and U.S. Marshals: the regulatory schedules note authorized hazardous duty differentials but the available documents and salary summaries do not list an explicit, comparable hazardous-duty premium for the two corps. The scattered records indicate base salary estimates for ICE positions and references to federal pay-differential authorities, but they leave a gap in direct, itemized hazardous-duty comparisons between ICE and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) in the supplied material [1] [2] [3].
1. What the claim asks — and why it matters for pay transparency
The user's question seeks a side-by-side comparison of hazardous duty pay for ICE agents and U.S. Marshals, a narrowly defined allowance distinct from base salary or locality pay. The provided materials include citations to federal regulations authorizing hazardous duty differentials and a Department of Justice budget document, but none of the supplied analyses present a line-item, agency-specific hazardous-duty differential rate for either ICE or USMS. This leaves the central claim unverified on the existing record because the necessary agency-level implementation data are missing [1] [4] [2].
2. What federal regulations show — authorization without agency specifics
Federal regulations in Title 5 and associated appendices establish that pay differentials for hazardous duty may be authorized for federal positions, creating a legal framework for agencies to implement such differentials. The referenced regulatory excerpts function as authorizing language rather than as proof that ICE or USMS currently apply identical or differing hazardous-duty pay. The documents provided do not include implementing agency personnel tables or memoranda that would reveal whether ICE or USMS assign a specific hazardous-duty percentage or flat amount to agents or deputies [1] [4].
3. What the salary summaries contribute — base pay but not hazardous premiums
Salary survey snapshots list average annual wages for ICE roles — for example, Special Agent, Immigration Officer, and Inspector averages — but these sources explicitly do not identify hazardous duty pay or separate allowances. These summaries provide context for base compensation in ICE but cannot be used to infer the presence, absence, or magnitude of hazardous-duty differentials for ICE or to compare them with USMS because hazardous pay is treated separately from base salary in federal accounting [3] [5] [6].
4. Department-level funding context — DOJ budgets are contextual but not granular
The DOJ FY 2026 budget and performance summary supplies high-level funding context for components that include ICE and the U.S. Marshals Service, giving a macro view of priorities and resource allocations. However, budget summaries typically aggregate personnel costs and do not break out pay differentials such as hazardous duty per agency or occupational series, so the budget document cannot substantiate a direct comparison of hazardous-duty rates between ICE and USMS from the provided record [2].
5. The evidentiary gap — what key documents are missing from the dataset
To conclusively compare hazardous duty pay between ICE agents and U.S. Marshals the record needs either: agency pay tables or human resources memos specifying hazardous-duty differentials; collective bargaining agreements or personnel policy directives that list differentials for covered series; or line-item payroll accounting showing hazardous-duty payments. The provided sources do not include any of these implementation documents, producing a clear evidentiary gap that prevents verification of the user's comparative claim [1] [7].
6. Possible interpretations — why the absence of data matters for conclusions
Because the regulatory framework authorizes hazardous pay but the supplied salary data omit it, two plausible interpretations fit the available evidence: agencies may apply hazardous duty differentials according to internal policy (resulting in possible differences), or hazardous-differential usage may be limited or applied inconsistently, meaning no reliable public comparison can be drawn from the current set of documents. The supplied materials are consistent with either scenario but confirm neither, leaving the user's question unresolved on the present record [1] [3].
7. Recommended next steps to close the information gap
To resolve the comparison definitively, obtain agency-specific implementing documents: ICE and USMS human resources directives, payroll line-item reports showing hazardous pay, or FOIA-released pay-differential tables and collective bargaining agreements. The regulatory citations and salary snapshots supply useful context but are insufficient to answer the user's question; acquiring those agency-level records will permit a factual, side-by-side comparison under the federal authorization structure outlined in the provided materials [2] [4] [5].