Which investigations into ICE conduct are ongoing as of December 2025 and who is leading them?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple investigations and oversight actions into ICE conduct were active in late 2025: congressional inquiries and subcommittee reports are probing ICE tactics and detentions while the agency’s own Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and other DHS components handle internal reviews and referrals [1] [2]. Senators and members of Congress — including Sen. Richard Blumenthal and city officials like NYC Comptroller Brad Lander and Rep. Dan Goldman — publicly opened inquiries or oversight letters focused on alleged abuses, training, and reinstatement decisions; ICE’s internal OPR is charged with investigating employee misconduct [3] [4] [2].
1. Congressional pressure: subcommittees and Senate oversight moving in
A Senate subcommittee produced a detailed report and launched inquiries that identified troubling patterns in ICE and CBP conduct and detentions; the subcommittee’s December 9, 2025 report is a central piece of federal oversight work documenting alleged arbitrary detentions and use-of-force concerns [1]. Senator Richard Blumenthal publicly opened an inquiry specifically into “abusive and unlawful ICE tactics,” asking the Acting ICE Director for documents and explanations about training, compensation, and use-of-force policies — signaling Senate-level scrutiny led by ranking committee members [3].
2. Congressional and city-level letters demanding answers about reinstatements and discipline
Local and federal elected officials escalated scrutiny after high-profile incidents. New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and Rep. Dan Goldman issued an interjurisdictional oversight inquiry to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem over the reinstatement of an officer recorded assaulting an asylum seeker, demanding the Office of Inspector General intervene and produce investigation details [4]. Those actions demonstrate elected officials driving targeted probes into personnel decisions and accountability processes beyond routine internal reviews [4].
3. ICE’s internal investigators: OPR’s stated role and activity
ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is the agency unit tasked with investigating serious employee misconduct and conducting independent reviews; ICE’s public materials describe OPR as responsible for referrals of criminal and serious administrative misconduct and for field investigations [5] [2]. Available sources do not enumerate each active OPR case by name or leader, but they establish OPR as the principal internal body handling allegations of misconduct [5] [2].
4. Multiple investigatory actors create overlapping authority — and friction
Oversight is fragmented: congressional subcommittees, individual senators, city or state oversight portals, the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) and DOJ referral pathways all play roles. The Senate subcommittee report documents patterns prompting further inquiries, while elected officials press DHS leadership and the inspector general; ICE’s own OPR handles internal probes, creating overlapping venues that can produce competing narratives and jurisdictional friction [1] [4] [2]. Sources show elected officials explicitly requesting OIG or DHS action, underscoring this multi‑track oversight environment [4] [3].
5. What leaders and names are visible in the public record
Publicly named congressional actors leading oversight include Sen. Richard Blumenthal (author of the inquiry into tactics) and New York officials Comptroller Brad Lander and Rep. Dan Goldman (interjurisdictional inquiry regarding an officer’s reinstatement) [3] [4]. On the agency side, ICE’s internal accountability office is OPR; acting agency leadership referenced in oversight requests and press coverage includes Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, who received congressional letters and oversight attention [3] [5]. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive list of individual OPR investigators or DOJ prosecutors assigned to specific misconduct cases [2] [5].
6. Context: a politically charged environment shaping investigations
Investigations occur amid an aggressive enforcement surge and leadership shakeups at ICE, including high-profile reassignments and replacement of field leadership with Border Patrol figures — developments that Hill sources and advocacy groups say amplify concerns and motivate oversight [6] [7]. State and city responses — new reporting portals and independent accountability commissions — reflect local attempts to document misconduct where federal oversight is perceived as insufficient [8].
7. Limits of available reporting and next steps for readers
Available sources document the existence of congressional inquiries, targeted local oversight letters, and ICE’s internal OPR role, but they do not enumerate every ongoing criminal or administrative investigation into ICE personnel nor identify the full slate of case leads inside OPR or DOJ [2] [5]. For authoritative case-level details — who is prosecuting a given misconduct allegation and the status of that file — readers should request specific case records from DHS OIG, ICE OPR, or the congressional committees that issued letters [4] [2] [1].