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: How does the US deport illegal immigrants, and what is the process for 2025?
Executive Summary
The U.S. deportation system in 2025 combines administrative detention, courtroom removal proceedings, and expedited administrative pathways, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) executing arrests, detention, and flights for removals. Key controversies in 2025 include an expanded expedited removal authority covering noncitizens unlawfully present less than two years and a challenged ICE directive on third-country removals; these changes shape who is prioritized for removal and how cases may bypass full court adjudication [1] [2].
1. How removal begins — a paperwork trail that sets the stage for deportation
Removal proceedings typically start when DHS issues a Notice to Appear (NTA) or when an individual is placed in expedited removal or administrative processes; the NTA triggers immigration-court proceedings that can include an initial master calendar hearing and a merits hearing leading to an order of removal, with appeal rights to the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal courts, unless the case proceeds through expedited channels [1]. Expedited removal, as expanded in 2025 to cover anyone unlawfully present under two years, allows DHS to remove certain noncitizens without a full hearing before an immigration judge unless they express a credible fear of persecution or torture; this expansion materially increases administrative removals and reduces judicial oversight for a wider set of noncitizens [1].
2. Who enforces removals — the ERO machinery and priorities in practice
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) within ICE manages identification, arrest, detention, and removal logistics; ERO’s Custody Management, Field Operations, and Removal teams coordinate to locate individuals, detain them in ICE facilities, and arrange transport and flights for deportation [3]. Public-safety prioritization has directed ICE interior enforcement toward individuals with criminal convictions: ICE reported that 79 percent of interior removals in recent fiscal years involved people with criminal convictions, reflecting a policy emphasis on removing those judged to pose threats or who have prior criminal records [4]. This enforcement posture shapes operational choices about arrests, use of detention space, and allocation of removal flights, concentrating resources on specific populations rather than universal interior enforcement [4] [3].
3. What detention and transport look like — from arrest to deportation flight
Field reporting on deportation flights in 2025 documents a repeatable sequence: an arrest (often by local partners or ICE teams), transfer to an ICE detention facility, completion of removal paperwork or exhaustion of appeals, and placement on a deportation flight organized by ERO. Detained individuals typically undergo security screening, case review, and logistical coordination before removal; deportation flights are the operational endpoint where removals are executed [5] [3]. The lived reality on flight manifests reflects policy choices upstream: whether a person was subject to full removal proceedings, expedited removal, or administrative transfer; the logistics underscore the state capacity to move groups internationally once removal orders are final or administrative authorities are invoked [5] [3].
4. Legal shields and contested new tools — third-country removals and injunctions
In 2025 ICE issued directives to increase use of third-country removals for people granted withholding under the INA or protections under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), aiming to transfer individuals to a third country rather than return them to the country of origin; courts intervened with a preliminary injunction blocking removals to third countries without notice and opportunity to express fear, illustrating active judicial checks on novel enforcement tactics [2]. This dispute highlights a tension between administrative efficiency and procedural protections: DHS and ICE argue third-country removals reduce risks and logistical burdens, while litigants and advocates argue such transfers can violate due process and nonrefoulement obligations unless adequate notice and screenings occur [2].
5. Broader policy context — DHS rulemaking, TPS decisions, and USCIS enforcement roles
DHS and USCIS policy changes in 2025 affected who faces removal and under what authorities: DHS published memoranda and interim guidance reshaping enforcement priorities, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) terminations altered legal status for some groups, and USCIS codified certain law enforcement authorities, clarifying who may exercise immigration enforcement powers. These regulatory shifts interact: TPS terminations can expand the pool of removable people, codified USCIS authorities change interagency enforcement roles, and DHS guidance drives ERO operational focus [6] [7] [8]. The net effect in 2025 is an enforcement system operating with expanded administrative removal tools and active rulemaking that both enlarges and constrains ERO’s portfolio depending on pending litigation and policy directives [6] [8].