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: ICE operation at an imaging school, or that multiple operations beyond Home Depot occurred,
Executive Summary
The claim that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted an operation at an imaging school is not supported by the available reporting; documented ICE actions cite raids at Home Depot locations and at a food-processing plant, with no credible record of an imaging school raid. Multiple local enforcement actions occurred in different cities during the same period, but contemporaneous official statements or detailed reporting indicate some reported locations were single-site operations, not a coordinated sweep across unrelated institutions [1] [2] [3].
1. Where reporters actually found agents—Home Depot incidents that drew attention
Multiple news reports describe ICE actions linked to Home Depot or nearby locations, creating the impression of retail-targeted enforcement. A North Hollywood incident explicitly involved federal agents raiding a Home Depot and taking at least three men into custody, which directly supports claims of ICE activity at Home Depot stores [1]. A separate Chicago account describes an ICE raid near a Home Depot on the Southwest Side and names a tamale vendor among those arrested, reinforcing that agents operated in commerce-adjacent spaces where day laborers gather rather than educational institutions [2]. None of these pieces mention an imaging school.
2. The imaging-school allegation lacks corroboration in reviewed reporting
Across the set of sources provided, there is no evidence that ICE executed operations at an imaging school. One input was a technical file of web code and unrelated material which contained no reporting on such a raid [4]. Other documents in the set discuss entirely different topics—corporate expansions or federal workforce programs—and similarly do not reference any enforcement action at an imaging school [5] [6]. The absence of any independent local reporting or official confirmation suggests the imaging-school claim is unsubstantiated by the current record.
3. Were there multiple operations beyond Home Depot? The mixed picture of single versus multiple sites
Reporting shows multiple, geographically distinct enforcement actions occurring around the same timeframe—examples include the North Hollywood and Chicago incidents—but the characterization of those actions as a multi-site coordinated campaign is not uniformly supported. In Omaha, federal agents conducted a large raid at Glenn Valley Foods with up to 100 workers implicated; local officials reported hearing of other possible site visits, yet an ICE spokesperson clarified that Glenn Valley was the only operation executed in that area and that no arrests were made at the other businesses mentioned [3]. This highlights a difference between rumors of multiple local visits and confirmed single-site enforcement.
4. How officials and community leaders framed the operations—and why that matters
Community leaders reported multiple possible visits to worksites in some locales even when agencies later characterized actions as limited to a single plant or store. This divergence can stem from confusion at the scene, secondhand accounts, or proactive community alerts, which amplify perceptions of widespread raids [3]. The careful phrasing in official statements—pointing to single confirmed operations—should be weighed against community accounts that may reflect fear and incomplete information; both perspectives are factual but capture different slices of the unfolding events [3] [2].
5. Sources that do not corroborate enforcement claims and what they actually cover
Several materials in the provided dataset are unrelated to enforcement locations: one describes ICEYE’s commercial expansion into Spain, another outlines the IMAGE voluntary employer program, and another profiles ICE recruitment efforts internationally [5] [6] [7]. These items can create noise when aggregated with local enforcement reporting because they share the acronym “ICE” or reference immigration broadly, but they do not provide evidentiary support for a raid at an imaging school or confirm multiple simultaneous operations beyond those already documented.
6. What open questions remain and what to watch for next
Key uncertainties persist about the scale and coordination of operations: whether disparate local raids were part of a targeted campaign or independent enforcement actions, and whether any additional confirmed sites (schools, retailers, or plants) will emerge in subsequent reporting. Journalists and officials should clarify arrest records, search warrants, and timelines for each locale to resolve whether reports of multiple site visits reflect separate enforcement activities or miscommunication. Follow-up coverage that includes ICE statements and local law-enforcement records will be essential to fully adjudicate these claims [1] [3].
7. Bottom line for readers trying to assess the original claim
Based on the reviewed sources, the most defensible conclusion is that ICE conducted documented operations at Home Depot-adjacent locations and at a large food-processing plant, while the imaging-school allegation lacks substantiation and should be treated as unverified until independent reporting or official confirmation appears. Reports of multiple additional site visits exist in the public record as community assertions, but official clarifications indicate confirmed operations were often limited to single, identifiable worksites [1] [2] [3].