What independent databases track deaths involving ICE and Border Patrol agents since 2000?
Executive summary
Three types of independent databases have tracked deaths involving ICE, Border Patrol and other CBP personnel since the early 2000s: advocacy group–run fatal‑encounter trackers such as the ACLU of Texas and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, volunteer or activist projects like the ICE List wiki born from leaked DHS material, and policy‑oriented research from independent think tanks such as Cato that compile line‑of‑duty death tallies; agency‑maintained pages exist but are not independent oversight [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Advocacy trackers: ACLU of Texas’s “CBP Fatal Encounters” and SBCC’s database
Regional and advocacy organizations maintain public, incident‑level databases focused on deaths tied to Border Patrol and CBP actions: the ACLU of Texas created and manages a “CBP Fatal Encounters” tracker to document fatal interactions involving Border Patrol and CBP officers [1], while the Southern Border Communities Coalition publishes a Fatal Encounters compilation that tallies shootings, deaths in custody, vehicle collisions and other categories and attributes dozens of deaths to use of force or high‑speed chases in its analysis [2] [7]. These projects explicitly frame the data as part of advocacy for immigrant and border communities and often include contextual narrative about systemic abuse; that perspective shapes what incidents are included and how causes are categorized [7] [2].
2. Volunteer/whistleblower projects: ICE List and its provenance
A separate strand of independent tracking grew from a volunteer‑run website called ICE List, which evolved into a wiki‑style database aiming to document agents, incidents and alleged abuses and which has incorporated leaked DHS personnel records after a 2026 disclosure [3] [8] [9]. ICE List’s founder and volunteers seek comprehensive public records of agents on scene and related details [3], but the project’s provenance—reliant in part on leaked data and public tips—raises ethical and accuracy debates, and mainstream coverage highlights both the scope of the leak and safety concerns for personnel [3] [8] [10].
3. Policy and research compilations: Cato Institute's death tallies
Think tanks and policy researchers have produced independent counts and analyses of agent deaths in the line of duty; the Cato Institute published multi‑year analyses of Border Patrol and ICE line‑of‑duty deaths and reported totals and cause breakdowns (for example, noting 92 ICE and Border Patrol agent deaths since 2003 in one analysis and attributing substantial proportions to COVID‑19, vehicles and health events) [4] [11]. Those compilations are methodological and often focus on comparative death rates and policy implications, reflecting the institutional viewpoint and research priorities of the organization [4].
4. Official agency trackers versus independent oversight
Both CBP and ICE publish their own pages marking fallen officers and report on internal reviews—CBP’s OPR says it reviews in‑custody and certain CBP‑related deaths and publishes border rescue and mortality statistics, while ICE maintains an “End of Watch” page listing fallen officers [6] [5]. These are primary sources for confirmation of agency personnel fatalities but are not independent databases; independent trackers frequently position themselves as necessary supplements or counters to official narratives [6] [5].
5. Limitations, agendas and how to choose a source
Each independent tracker carries an explicit or implicit agenda that affects inclusion criteria and framing: advocacy groups foreground harms to migrants and communities (SBCC, ACLU of Texas) [7] [2], ICE List emphasizes accountability and was built in part from leaked personnel data and crowd reports [3] [8], and think tanks like Cato analyze mortality from a policy‑statistics lens [4]. Researchers seeking comprehensive cross‑sector counts since 2000 should use multiple sources, recognize differing start dates (Cato’s public counting often cites data from 2003 onward) and treat agency pages as official complements rather than independent oversight [4] [11] [5] [6]. Where sources here do not specify exact start years or methodological detail, that gap should be addressed by consulting the trackers directly for scope and documentation [1] [2] [3].