What methodological differences explain the gap between Brookings/MPI estimates and DHS press-release deportation totals for 2025?

Checked on January 15, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

Brookings and the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) produce lower, independently derived estimates of 2025 removals—Brookings at roughly 310,000–315,000 and MPI about 340,000—while DHS public totals reported in press materials and historical fiscal-year summaries have been higher; these gaps arise not from a single error but from differences in data sources, timing and “as‑of” dates, definitional scopes (ICE removals vs. DHS component aggregate counts), and the statistical adjustments analysts apply to fill official reporting gaps [1] [2] [3].

1. Different starting data: ICE detention reports, Deportation Data Project, and DHS monthly tables

Analysts at Brookings relied on ICE detention management reports and the Deportation Data Project through November, then extrapolated December based on recent months to reach 310,000–315,000 removals for 2025, explicitly noting use of ICE detention updates and a multiplier to reconcile two sources (they multiply inferred monthly removals by 87% where necessary) [1]; MPI’s 340,000 figure is derived from the latest publicly available figures and MPI tabulations of ICE and CBP actions across the year [2], while DHS maintains its own monthly immigration enforcement tables that are published with a roughly 45‑day lag and warn that component agency tallies may differ due to methodology and “as‑of” dates [3].

2. Scope and definition: removals, deportations, returns, repatriations, and voluntary departures

Part of the discrepancy stems from what counts as a “deportation” or “removal”: Brookings refers to “removals” as captured in ICE detention and Deportation Data Project inputs [1], MPI’s commentary emphasizes ICE-conducted deportations including formal orders and voluntary departures [2], while DHS public totals often aggregate removals, returns, and repatriations across components (ICE + CBP) and may include administrative outcomes like expedited removal or returns that other analysts exclude or treat separately [3] [4].

3. Timing and incomplete official releases: gaps filled by inference and multipliers

DHS stopped publishing a continuous series of detailed monthly interior-removal tables after November 2024, forcing independent analysts to infer later months from partial ICE book‑in/out reports and to apply adjustment factors—Brookings explicitly multiplies inferred ICE monthly removals by 87% to harmonize sources and assumes December equals or modestly exceeds November—introducing estimation uncertainty that produces lower totals than some DHS public statements that use different cutoffs or later reconciled fiscal‑year aggregates [1] [3] [5].

4. Policy changes alter the composition of counted actions (expedited removal and non‑detained dockets)

Methodological counting diverges further because the Trump administration expanded expedited removal and fast‑track processes in 2025; MPI and other analysts note that these changes transform the mechanics of removal (moving cases off detained dockets and into expedited or non‑detained tracks), which can cause mismatches between ICE detention-based tallies and DHS aggregate counts if expedited removals are processed outside the same reporting tables or are later reclassified [6] [2].

5. Aggregation across DHS components and potential institutional incentives

DHS press releases and historical fiscal summaries often present component‑level aggregates (CBP encounters plus ICE removals) that yield larger headline totals than estimates derived strictly from ICE detention records, and agencies have incentives to present comprehensive enforcement outputs; independent researchers explicitly warn that DHS component statistical officers’ methods and as‑of dates can produce numbers that “may not match agency reporting” used by others, which explains why an MPI/ICE‑based count and a DHS press figure can both be truthful but not directly comparable [3] [2].

6. What this means for interpreting the gap and where uncertainty remains

The gap between Brookings, MPI, and DHS press totals in 2025 largely reflects definitional choices (what counts as a removal), source selection (ICE detention reports vs. DHS component aggregates), timing and lags in official releases necessitating extrapolation (Brookings’ 87% adjustment and December assumptions), and the reporting side‑effects of policy shifts like expanded expedited removal [1] [2] [6] [3]. Reporting limitations mean available public sources permit solid inference about methodological drivers but do not allow definitive reconciliation of every line‑item until DHS releases reconciled, component‑level datasets covering the full fiscal year [3].

Want to dive deeper?
How does DHS define and distinguish removals, returns, repatriations, and voluntary departures in its monthly tables?
What is the Deportation Data Project’s methodology for reconciling ICE and DHS releases, and how has it changed in 2025?
How did the 2025 expansion of expedited removal affect ICE detention counts versus administrative removal tallies?