What % of people arrested by ice are criminals

Checked on February 4, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

About roughly 30% of people arrested by ICE in the agency’s recent reporting period had U.S. criminal convictions, while the share without U.S. convictions has grown markedly — estimates range from roughly half to nearly three-quarters depending on the time window and the researcher’s counting method (convictions vs. pending charges vs. no charges) [1] [2] [3]. The answer turns less on a single percentage and more on how “criminal” is defined and which dates and datasets are used [4] [5].

1. Data snapshot: what the numbers commonly show

Analyses of ICE and Deportation Data Project figures indicate that about 30% of those arrested had prior criminal convictions in the Trump administration’s first year, while another sizable share had pending criminal charges; roughly a third had neither conviction nor pending charge in several snapshots researchers published [1] [6] [2]. Independent analysts and groups using ICE’s same underlying datasets report that by late 2025 and into early 2026 the proportion of people with no U.S. criminal conviction rose substantially — multiple accounts put the non‑convicted share between roughly 48% and as high as 73% depending on the cutoff and whether pending charges are counted as “criminal” [7] [3] [8].

2. Definitions drive the percentage: convictions vs. pending charges vs. immigration violations

Whether someone is counted as a “criminal” in these tallies hinges on at least three categories: those with U.S. criminal convictions, those with pending criminal charges, and those with only immigration violations or administrative removal orders; ICE’s public breakdowns use similar categories but researchers interpret them differently [4]. Many official and advocacy claims conflate “conviction or pending charge” into a single “criminal” bucket, which raises the share labeled criminal, whereas other analyses isolate only convictions — producing a much lower percent classified as convicted criminals [2] [3].

3. Recent trend: growth of arrests without U.S. convictions

Multiple datasets and journalistic analyses show a rapid rise in interior arrests of people without U.S. criminal convictions during 2025–early 2026, with arrests and detention growth driven overwhelmingly by people classified as immigration violators or without known U.S. convictions; one independent tracker concluded that 92% of detention growth in the early FY2026 period came from people with no criminal convictions [7] [5] [9]. That trend caused the overall convicted-share to fall even while the absolute number of arrests rose [10].

4. Geographic and procedural variation matters

State and local policies and cooperation shape who ICE arrests: analyses find large state-to-state differences in the share of arrestees with pending charges or convictions, and roughly half of ICE arrests occur after local jail stays or transfers — meaning local policing and prosecutorial practices influence ICE’s caseload composition [11] [10]. ICE’s own characterization of categories includes people without U.S. convictions who nonetheless reentered after deportation or have foreign criminal records, which further complicates a simple “% criminal” headline [4].

5. Competing narratives and hidden agendas

Political claims diverge: administration officials and DHS allies emphasize that most arrests implicate criminal history or threats, often grouping pending charges with convictions to boost that figure, while civil‑liberty groups and some analysts highlight the rapid rise in non‑convicted detainees to argue enforcement is sweeping up immigration violations and nonviolent cases [12] [9] [3]. Advocacy groups and think tanks bring differing incentives — for instance, civil‑liberties organizations emphasize due‑process harms and detention growth, whereas enforcement proponents stress public‑safety framing; both selections of data and definitional choices reflect these implicit agendas [9] [12].

6. Bottom line: a single percent is misleading — the best short answer

If “criminal” means a recorded U.S. criminal conviction, the clearest recent estimates put the share at roughly 30% of ICE arrestees in the sampled periods; if “criminal” includes pending criminal charges the share rises considerably, and if one focuses on detained populations at particular dates some analyses show a majority lack U.S. convictions [1] [2] [3] [7]. Any firm percentage therefore requires naming the dataset, the dates, and whether pending charges or foreign convictions are included — absent that, headlines claiming a single definitive percent oversimplify materially different realities reflected in the sources [4] [5].

Want to dive deeper?
How does ICE classify 'criminal history' in its public datasets and what are the categories?
How do state and local policing policies affect the composition of people ICE arrests and detains?
What are the differences between pending criminal charges and convictions in ICE reporting, and how often are pending charges dismissed?