Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What specific changes did the Trump administration make to ICE enforcement priorities?
Executive Summary
The Trump administration issued a cascade of Department of Homeland Security memos in February 2017 that broadened ICE enforcement priorities from a narrow focus on serious criminals to a far wider population of noncitizens, explicitly prioritizing removal of those convicted of any criminal offense, charged with crimes, or deemed a public-safety or national-security risk [1]. The policy changes also rescinded prior restraint on arrests, restored older data-sharing and local-police cooperation programs, expanded expedited removal and detention capacity, and coincided with measurable increases in arrests and removals that critics called indistinguishable from mass deportation [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. How a memo rewrote the target list: sweeping language that widened enforcement
The DHS memos implementing President Trump’s Executive Order replaced earlier, narrower enforcement guidance with language that prioritized removal of any noncitizen convicted of any criminal offense, charged with a crime, or who had committed acts that could be charged, effectively making criminal history — even for minor offenses — a central criterion for ICE action [1]. The memos explicitly rescinded conflicting directives and reoriented interior enforcement toward more aggressive removals rather than discretionary restraint, shifting agency practice away from case-by-case prioritization toward a broader, categorical approach. This textual change removed much of the prosecutorial discretion that had previously guided field agents, creating authority for broader enforcement nationwide; supporters framed this as restoring rule-of-law enforcement, while opponents warned that the language eliminated meaningful prioritization and exposed many nonviolent or long-resident immigrants to deportation [1].
2. Operational changes: detention, expedited removal, and local partnerships expanded
Alongside changes to who to target, the administration authorized operational shifts intended to increase ICE’s capacity to carry out removals, including expansion of detention beds, hiring more Border Patrol and enforcement personnel, and wider use of expedited removal procedures that shorten or bypass traditional immigration court processes [3] [6]. The memos also promoted restoring programs that enhance data sharing and cooperation with local law enforcement, such as Secure Communities, and expanding the Criminal Alien Program to identify and process noncitizens in custody [2]. These operational directives translated into policy tools that accelerated processing and detention of apprehended migrants, while critics argued that expedited procedures reduced due-process protections for asylum seekers and other vulnerable populations [3] [6].
3. What changed in practice: arrests, removals, and reported outcomes
Federal statistics and contemporary reporting document that the shift in priorities correlated with a substantial rise in ICE arrests and removals, with one analysis noting a 42% increase in arrests between 2016 and 2017 as the new directives took effect [4]. ICE and administration supporters described these numbers as evidence of restored enforcement of immigration laws, while analysts and advocacy groups emphasized that the broader target set meant arrests increasingly included people without serious criminal histories, family members, and long-time residents. The numerical change in enforcement activity therefore reflects both a bureaucratic realignment of priorities and an operational ramp-up in detention and removal capacity, producing contested narratives about whether the changes improved public safety or produced needless separations and destabilization [4] [7].
4. Program reversals and legal implications: ending PEP, reviving Secure Communities
The administration terminated the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) — which had focused on the most dangerous offenders and placed limits on immigration holds — and moved to restore Secure Communities and similar programs that rely on biometric data sharing between local police and federal immigration authorities [2]. That reversal meant local arrests for minor offenses could trigger ICE inquiries and detainers, tightening the connection between routine criminal justice encounters and federal immigration enforcement. Legal observers flagged that these shifts raised civil liberties and due-process questions, particularly because they broadened the universe of interactions that could lead to deportation without altering the substantive criminal law standards that had previously constrained removals [2].
5. Human-rights and policy critiques: claims of mass deportation versus public-safety framing
Human Rights Watch and other critics characterized the memos as sweeping policy changes with the potential to lead to mass deportations, arguing the memos’ language and operational directives endangered asylum seekers, children, and families by expanding expedited removal and reducing safeguards [5]. Supporters insisted the changes were necessary to enforce law uniformly and protect communities from dangerous individuals, framing the approach as restoration of immigration law enforcement [1]. Independent reporting and later analyses contend the practical effect blurred priorities to the point that the term “enforcement priorities” became less meaningful, producing a measurable uptick in arrests but a deeply polarized assessment of public-safety benefits versus humanitarian and legal costs [8] [4].