What major incidents shaped public perceptions of ICE between 2018 and 2024?

Executive summary

Between 2018 and 2024, public perceptions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shifted dramatically due to a mix of high‑profile humanitarian scandals, investigative reports documenting systemic abuse and preventable deaths, and competing narratives emphasizing criminal‑enforcement successes. Major flashpoints included the 2018 family‑separation policy and multiple multi‑year investigative findings about dangerous conditions and oversight failures in ICE detention facilities; advocates and watchdogs pressed for dismantling mass detention while ICE highlighted law‑enforcement outcomes and operational reforms ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

1. Family separations: a policy that reshaped public outrage and policy debates

The 2018 zero‑tolerance policy that led to the separation of thousands of children from parents at the U.S.–Mexico border became the central incident that crystallized public anger toward ICE and broader immigration enforcement, producing lasting legal, political, and moral fallout. Reporting and legal advocacy documented specific cases—such as parents separated despite evidence of kinship—and subsequent investigations established that many children remained unreunited years later, triggering calls for accountability, apologies, compensation, and potential prosecutions ^{[1] [2] [5]}. Public reaction was amplified by media coverage and nonprofit reporting between 2018 and 2024, shaping sustained criticism of ICE as an agency responsible for traumatic family harm while creating political pressure on successive administrations to justify, reform, or roll back enforcement practices ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Detention conditions and deaths: investigative findings that reframed oversight questions

Independent reviews and FOIA‑based journalism between 2019 and 2024 chronicled repeated findings of neglect, poor medical care, and dangerous conditions inside ICE facilities, with specific incidents cited across multiple reports. Organizations including the National Immigrant Justice Center and interdisciplinary collaborations documenting deaths in custody concluded that a high share of reviewed deaths were preventable and that ICE’s oversight mechanisms routinely failed to enforce adequate medical and mental‑health care ^{[6] [3]}. NPR’s 2023 FOIA investigation described inspectors’ findings as “barbaric” and “negligent,” documenting cases of denial of care, retaliation against complainants, and racialized abuse that reinforced public perceptions of systemic cruelty and incompetence within the detention oversight regime ^[4].

3. Conflicting narratives: enforcement victories versus humanitarian failures

ICE and its supporters presented a contrasting narrative focused on criminal arrests, dismantling transnational networks, and public‑safety outcomes, as reflected in ICE’s FY2023 Annual Report and routine press releases emphasizing removals and investigative successes; these accounts aimed to bolster public confidence in ICE’s core mission ^{[7] [8]}. Critics countered that enforcement metrics do not address documented human‑rights failures in detention and the lasting harms of family separation, arguing that operational successes cannot obscure systemic neglect and preventable deaths. This clash between law‑and‑order framing and human‑rights critiques shaped partisan perceptions: proponents highlighted crime and border control, while opponents foregrounded humanitarian indicators and oversight failures ^{[7] [3]}.

4. Accountability battles: reports, reform promises, and continuing controversies

Between 2019 and 2024, watchdog reports and litigation pushed for reforms, while administrations alternately promised reviews or expanded detention resources—producing cycles of reform rhetoric and messy implementation. The NIJC and allied groups argued that ICE’s inspection protocols were designed to rubber‑stamp compliance and that contract renewals for facilities with poor records contradicted stated reform commitments ^[6]. Human Rights Watch and academic legal clinics continued documenting unresolved harms from family separations years later, urging official accounting and redress; these calls kept public scrutiny alive and framed ICE as an agency resistant to transparent corrective action ^{[2] [6]}.

5. The big picture: why these incidents mattered for public opinion and policy

The combination of the family‑separation scandal, investigative exposes of detention abuses, and ICE’s own emphasis on enforcement produced a polarized public image: an agency lauded in some quarters for public‑safety work and condemned in others for systemic mistreatment and policy cruelty. Between 2018 and 2024, this polarization influenced legislative debates, litigation, and administrative choices about detention budgets, oversight mechanisms, and alternatives to detention; it also drove advocacy campaigns seeking abolition or major reform of the immigration detention system. The competing evidence streams—detailed NGO and journalistic probes documenting deaths and neglect versus ICE’s operational reporting—explain why perceptions of ICE became not merely negative or positive but deeply contested and politically consequential ^{[3] [7]}.