What proportion of immigration enforcement agents have criminal records compared to FBI and DEA agents?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No reliable, public data were found in the supplied reporting that directly measure the proportion of immigration enforcement agents who themselves have criminal records versus the proportions for FBI and DEA agents; instead, the available reporting quantifies the criminal histories of people arrested by ICE and the redeployment of other federal agents into immigration tasks, not the criminal record status of the agents working for those agencies [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the question really asks — and what the sources actually show
The user’s question seeks a direct personnel-comparison: what share of ICE, FBI and DEA sworn agents have criminal records; none of the supplied documents report any agency-level statistics on employees’ criminal-conviction histories or background-check failure rates, so the sources cannot answer that personnel metric [5] [6]. Instead, the materials focus on two related but distinct topics: the criminal histories of people arrested or detained by immigration authorities and the diversion of FBI/DEA/other federal agents to assist immigration enforcement [1] [2] [3] [4].
2. What the reporting says about people arrested by ICE versus internal staffing
Multiple pieces of reporting document that a large fraction of people arrested or detained by immigration authorities have no criminal convictions: the Deportation Data Project figures cited in NBC show that more than a third of roughly 220,000 people arrested by ICE in an early period of the current administration had no criminal histories [1], and TRA’s quick facts report that, as of Nov. 30, 2025, about 48,377 of 65,735 people in ICE detention — roughly 73.6% — had no criminal convictions [2]. By contrast, ICE’s own enforcement-statistics pages describe that historically many ERO arrests involve people with prior convictions for DUI, drug possession, assault or certain traffic offenses, showing a mix of case types rather than an agency workforce metric [5].
3. What the reporting says about FBI and DEA agent redeployments (not criminal-records of agents)
Several sources document that the FBI, DEA and other DOJ components have been used as “force multipliers” for immigration operations: Cato and The Marshall Project reporting cited by The Marshall Project and the Niskanen Center indicate that large numbers — described as “almost half” of DEA agents in one account and substantial shares of FBI and ATF personnel in others — have been shifted to immigration tasks or otherwise assisting ICE, but those figures are about operational assignments, not the criminal histories of those agents [3] [4]. The Niskanen Center summarized anonymous reporting that many DOJ agents were reassigned to support DHS immigration work and that FBI field offices have directed agents to spend up to a third of their time on immigration-related work [4].
4. Why the supplied sources cannot answer the personnel-criminal-record comparison
None of the provided items contain clearance-level personnel statistics such as agency-wide counts of employees with criminal convictions, disciplinary records, or security-access revocations; the documents instead report on detainee conviction rates, referral/prosecution rates, and interagency deployments [1] [2] [7] [3]. Publicly reporting on federal law-enforcement employees’ criminal-history status would typically come from internal agency human-resources data, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) disclosures, Inspector General audits, or Freedom of Information Act releases — materials not present in the supplied set (p1_s6 notes agency sizes but not employee criminal histories).
5. Alternative interpretations and political incentives in the coverage
Narratives in the supplied reporting reveal competing agendas: proponents of expanded immigration enforcement highlight arrests of individuals with criminal convictions and interagency cooperation as evidence of protecting public safety [5] [3], while watchdog and advocacy reporting emphasizes that many people detained have no criminal convictions and that diversion of specialized agents may hollow out investigations into other serious crimes [1] [2] [4] [7]. Those framing differences matter because data about detainees or reassignment percentages can be used politically as proxies for claims about agent fitness — a leap the available evidence does not support without explicit personnel records [3] [1].
6. Bottom line and what evidence would be needed to answer the question
The supplied reporting does not supply the requested proportions of ICE, FBI, and DEA agents who have criminal records; therefore, a direct answer is not possible from these sources [5] [6] [3]. A definitive comparison would require agency personnel records or OPM/Inspector General data that enumerate convictions, sustained misconduct findings, or security-clearance revocations among sworn staff; absent those records the best the current sources can do is describe detainee conviction rates and interagency deployments, not employee criminal-record prevalence [1] [2] [4].