Under the Trump administration what are statistics about ICE's progress in stopping violent criminals and drug dealers from operating in the US?

1. Arrests and removals surged — raw counts and official tallies

ICE and DHS press releases and reporting document big increases in enforcement: ICE said it arrested 66,463 people and removed 65,682 in the administration’s first 100 days ^[4], DHS/White House materials tout tens of thousands of arrests and state tallies ^{[5] [6]}, and TRAC/Marshall Project tracking found hundreds of thousands booked into custody and deportations since late 2024 ^{[7] [8]}. These figures underpin the administration’s claim that it has significantly expanded interior immigration enforcement ^{[4] [9]}.

2. Who were being arrested — conflicting portraits

Administration statements and ICE/DHS spot releases emphasize arrests of “the worst of the worst” — murders, child‑sex offenders, gang members and drug traffickers — and cite specific criminal arrests ^{[10] [6]}. Independent reporters and researchers counter that many of those arrested lacked convictions: Reuters and other outlets found only about one‑third of 177,000 people booked from Oct. 2024–May had convictions of any kind ^[3], while nonpublic data cited by the Cato Institute and media showed roughly 65% of processed individuals since FY2025 began had no criminal convictions and that only about 6.9% of convicted detainees had violent‑crime convictions ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Share of violent criminals and drug dealers: small by some measures

Multiple analyses using ICE detention snapshots and nonpublic datasets show a relatively small share of detainees were convicted of violent crimes: the Cato‑sourced reporting and Fortune/Time pieces put violent‑crime convictions at roughly 6–7% of those processed or detained ^{[1] [2]}. Marshall Project and other reporting likewise note many removals were for minor offenses (traffic, immigration violations, low‑level drug or vice offenses) rather than high‑level drug trafficking convictions ^[11].

4. Metrics and data gaps that shape differing conclusions

Part of the disagreement arises from different metrics: DHS/ICE highlight arrests and named criminal removals (counts and anecdotal high‑profile cases) while researchers use detention snapshots and nonpublic "book‑in" datasets that classify detainees by conviction status and threat level ^{[4] [3] [1]}. ICE stopped publishing some granular updates regularly after January 2025, forcing outside groups to rely on FOIA, leaked/nonpublic agency data, and partial snapshots — creating room for divergent interpretations ^{[7] [12]}.

5. How advocates and analysts interpret the data

Administration and DHS messaging frames the statistics as evidence of public‑safety gains and cites increases in arrests of people with criminal records ^{[6] [4]}. Civil‑liberties groups, researchers and some journalists say the enforcement strategy prioritized volume and quotas, producing a large number of “collateral” arrests of people without convictions and diverting resources from targeting violent criminals ^{[3] [13] [14]}.

6. Additional consequences and context

Reporting documents downstream effects: record rises in detention populations and budget increases for detention (Migration Policy/ICE data), spikes in deaths in custody in 2025, community disruptions such as school absences after raids, and political pushback including state officials and polls showing declining approval for ICE actions ^{[15] [16] [17] [18]}. These outcomes complicate evaluating whether the enforcement surge meaningfully reduced violent crime tied to noncitizens versus producing collateral harms ^{[16] [17]}.

7. Bottom line for your original question

Available reporting shows the Trump administration increased overall ICE arrests and removals substantially (tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands counted across releases and tracking projects) while independent analyses find a large share of those detained had no criminal convictions and that only a small percentage of convicted detainees were convicted of violent crimes (roughly 6–7%) — a contrast between official emphasis on violent‑criminal removals and outside data showing many arrests were non‑criminal or for minor offenses ^{[4] [1] [3]}. Limitations: ICE’s selective publishing and use of different counting methods create persistent disagreements about precise percentages and the net public‑safety impact ^{[7] [12]}.