Do ICE agents have performance metrics tied to arrests or deportations?
Executive summary
ICE publicly tracks and publishes enforcement metrics and statistics and its management directorate says it "identifies and tracks the agency's performance measurements" [1] [2]. Independent and press reporting also documents that the White House and DHS set concrete daily arrest targets — widely reported as 1,200–1,500 early in 2025 and later escalated or framed as a 3,000-per-day goal — and that ICE was pressured to meet those targets [3] [4] [5].
1. ICE publishes enforcement metrics — but publication is not the same as incentives
ICE maintains an online metrics and statistics program and updated its public dashboards and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) statistics to show arrests, removals and related data [1] [6] [7]. The agency’s Management & Administration (M&A) directorate explicitly “identifies and tracks the agency’s performance measurements” and links performance to planning and budgeting [2]. Those public data releases document what ICE counts; available sources do not mention internal pay-for-performance systems in those documents [1] [7].
2. Multiple news outlets report political directives to raise arrest totals
Journalists reporting from inside DHS and White House meetings say administration officials set numeric arrest goals for ICE. Reuters, The Guardian and others reported orders or demands to boost daily arrests — Reuters and The Guardian describe targets rising to roughly 3,000 arrests per day after earlier targets of about 1,000, and other outlets reported field-office targets such as "75 arrests per day" with managers "held accountable" if targets were missed [4] [5] [8]. These reports portray targets as political direction intended to increase enforcement volume.
3. Reporting describes accountability pressure on managers, not a single HR metric
Investigations and reporting describe managers being “held accountable” for failing to meet increased arrest expectations and describe shifts in tactics to produce higher numbers [8] [4]. That language indicates supervisory performance pressure and operational targets rather than a single line-item bonus tied strictly to arrests in publicly available reporting [8] [4]. ICE’s own statements frame new dashboards as tools to “inform how our officers and special agents perform their law enforcement missions,” which can be read as managerial oversight [7].
4. Data show arrests rose and the composition of arrests changed after quotas
Independent data projects and outlets that analyzed ICE records show arrest volumes rose after the administration’s directives and that a larger share of those arrested had no criminal convictions — for example, Axios reported non-criminal arrests making up roughly 47% of daily arrests in early June, up from ~21% in early May, coincident with the quota increase [9]. The Deportation Data Project, Vera Institute and other researchers archived ICE releases showing spikes in bookings and removals [10] [11] [12].
5. Competing narratives: administration says targets are necessary; critics say quotas drive indiscriminate arrests
DHS and ICE defenders argue the enforcement push fulfills policy priorities and that dashboards increase transparency [7] [2]. Critics — journalists, advocates and some data analysts — say imposed quotas produce volume-driven enforcement that sweeps up non-criminals and forces tactical changes [4] [13] [9]. Both perspectives are present in the record: reporting documents both the political orders and the measurable rise in arrests and in non-criminal detentions [5] [9].
6. What the sources do not show — and why that matters
Available sources document public metrics, managerial accountability statements and external directives to increase arrests, but they do not publish an ICE internal personnel policy that spells out explicit individual performance bonuses or stepwise pay increases directly tied to arrest/deportation counts [1] [2] [7]. In other words, public reporting shows quotas and managerial pressure; available sources do not mention a formal HR incentive program paying agents per arrest.
7. Practical implications for communities and oversight
Independent analyses and advocacy groups warn that quota-driven enforcement can increase arrests of people without criminal convictions and strain detention capacity [13] [9]. Journalistic investigations also note ICE changed tactics to boost numbers — for instance, targeting public spaces — which raises constitutional and policy concerns that Congress, courts, and civil-society groups have highlighted [4] [14].
Conclusion — the simple answer: ICE documents and publishes enforcement metrics and senior officials publicly track performance; reporting from major outlets shows political directives and numerical arrest goals that created managerial pressure to increase arrests, but the available sources do not produce a public ICE HR policy that explicitly ties individual agent pay or formal bonuses to arrest or deportation counts [1] [7] [4].