Did Immigration and Customs Enforcement change policies under Trump that increased wrongful deportations?
Executive summary
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) underwent a marked shift in enforcement posture under the Trump administration that, according to multiple watchdogs and data projects, expanded arrests and detention and introduced operational changes that increased the risk of wrongful deportations [1] [2]. Critics point to new practices—arresting people at routine immigration appointments, narrowing access to hearings and counsel, and using detention as leverage—that produced documented cases of removals later deemed improper or unlawful [3] [4] [5].
1. A dramatic uptick in arrests and detention that changed the landscape
Federal reporting and independent analysts show ICE arrests more than quadrupled and average daily detention roughly doubled during the period reviewed, producing historically high detention populations and far more people moving from custody directly to removal proceedings [1] [2]. By late 2025, reports indicate ICE held roughly 66,000 people at peak levels and that the agency’s daily arrest cadence reached around 1,000–1,200 people, a scale that reshaped how cases were processed and accelerated removal timelines [1] [2].
2. Procedural shifts that constricted due process and raised wrongful-deportation risk
Advocacy groups and oversight organizations document policy shifts that reduced opportunities for bond hearings, limited legal access in detention, and targeted people who showed up for routine check-ins or hearings—practices that funnelled people into custody and shortened windows to mount defenses, increasing the risk that meritorious claims (like asylum or long-standing residency) would not be meaningfully adjudicated before removal [2] [3] [4].
3. Detention-as-pressure and the surge of deportations from custody
Reports from the American Immigration Council and others argue the administration used detention as a tool to “pressure” people to abandon claims, noting that by November 2025 the ratio of deportations to releases from ICE custody had ballooned to roughly 14 deportations for every one release—up sharply from prior ratios—suggesting the system’s incentives favored rapid removals from detention [2] [6].
4. Arresting noncriminals and documented wrongful removals
Data analyzed by university projects and coverage from NPR show a substantial share of ICE arrests involved people without criminal records—roughly one-third in an early nine-month snapshot—underscoring how expanded criteria and interior enforcement captured people who previously might have been lower priorities, and several high-profile cases of wrongful deportation (including U.S. citizens and people with pending claims) were reported and later contested [7] [5] [8].
5. Administrative assertions and political framing in contrast
The Department of Homeland Security framed the enforcement surge as delivering on public safety, asserting a high share of arrests were of people charged with or convicted of crimes and touting large removal counts as historic achievements, a narrative that supporters say justifies tougher operational tools [9]. Independent trackers and fact-checkers, however, describe uneven results, legal setbacks in courts, and examples where expedited removals ran into judicial pushback [1] [10].
6. Where the evidence ties policy changes to increased wrongful deportations—and where it does not
The reporting consistently documents policy changes (expanded arrests, detention growth, curtailed hearings, arrests at appointments) that plausibly and empirically increased removals from custody and captured many without criminal records—conditions that raise the probability of wrongful deportations and have produced documented wrongful removals [1] [2] [3] [7] [5]. Sources also show political and operational intent to intensify removals, but the evidence in these documents does not supply a comprehensive quasi-experimental causation study separating all confounders; thus while the aggregate reporting supports the conclusion that policy changes increased incidents of wrongful deportation, precise scope and counterfactuals remain underdocumented in the supplied sources [2] [4].
7. Political and oversight responses to the problem
Congressional inquiries and calls for investigations have followed reports of U.S. citizens and protected individuals detained or deported, reflecting bipartisan concern about the scale and legality of enforcement methods and signaling that oversight mechanisms are a central axis for accountability [8]. Courts also intervened at times to block or limit policies, indicating ongoing legal contestation over how far operational changes may lawfully go [10].