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 is the average age of individuals who have died in ICE detention centers since 2020?
Executive Summary
The available analyses indicate that the average age of people who have died in ICE detention since 2020 is reported between about 42.7 and 45 years, depending on the study or dataset referenced. A 2011–2018 JAMA Network Open analysis gives an average age of 42.7 years, while a recent 2025 report cites an average of 45 years for deaths within the broader recent period; contemporaneous reporting also highlights individual older cases and rising death counts in 2024–2025 [1] [2] [3] [4]. These different figures reflect varying time frames, sample sizes, and inclusion criteria used by researchers and reporters.
1. What the key claims say — headline numbers and differences that matter
The primary claims extracted from the provided analyses are two headline figures: 42.7 years as the average age at death in ICE custody from a peer-reviewed study covering 2011–2018, and 45 years as the average age reported in a recent 2025 report covering deaths in more recent years. The JAMA Network Open study presents a multi-year, research-based number rooted in systematic review of death reports, while the 45-year figure emerges from a 2025 report summarizing more recent fatalities and noting medical causes predominate. Reporters also cite individual older decedents, such as a 75-year-old Cuban national, underscoring case heterogeneity [1] [5] [2] [3].
2. Why time frame and methods change the headline average
Differences between 42.7 and 45 years largely stem from the time frame and methods used by each source. The 42.7-year figure derives from analysis of deaths between 2011 and 2018, offering a longer-term historical average and systematic methodology typical of academic studies. The 45-year figure reflects a recent snapshot of deaths reported around 2024–2025, when some reporters noted rising death counts and a concentration of medically related fatalities. Shorter, recent windows can shift averages if specific older or younger cases cluster in those years [5] [2] [1].
3. What the sources say about causes and context behind the ages
Both the academic study and recent reporting emphasize that medical causes, and not primarily suicide, account for most deaths, which affects interpretation of average ages. The JAMA-based analysis observed relatively low burdens of preexisting disease in many decedents despite middle-age averages, suggesting care gaps may play a role, while 2025 reporting reiterates medical causes as the dominant category among recent deaths. This context means the average age statistic does not imply otherwise-healthy juveniles or elderly are the main groups dying, but points to middle-aged adults with varying health profiles [5] [2] [1].
4. How many deaths and recent trends influence the number
Recent reporting documents an uptick in deaths: 15 deaths by September 2025, and comparisons showing that 2024’s total deaths were among the highest since 2020. Reporters also noted that by mid-2025 the number of deaths had already matched or exceeded prior annual totals, which can skew recent averages if particular age cohorts are overrepresented in those clusters. Rising counts make short-term averages more sensitive to individual high-age or low-age cases and underline the importance of knowing the denominator and exact dates covered when interpreting the mean age figure [4] [3] [2].
5. What is missing or unclear in these reports — gaps to watch
Key omissions remain: public summaries often lack full methodological transparency on inclusion criteria (which deaths counted, whether community deaths post-release were included), and reporting rarely provides age distributions, medians, or age-specific rates. Without those details, the mean age can hide skewness or bimodal patterns. The academic study covers 2011–2018 but predates the latest surge in deaths; the recent 45-year figure is timely yet may use different inclusion rules. These gaps limit direct comparability and should caution readers against overinterpreting a single average [1] [2] [5].
6. Multiple perspectives and potential agendas to consider
Reporting and studies come from distinct institutions with differing incentives: peer-reviewed studies prioritize systematic methods and long windows, while news reports emphasize current trends and human cases to highlight urgent developments. Advocacy groups, government agencies, and journalists may selectively emphasize totals, individual ages, or causes to support calls for reform or to defend protocols. Readers should weigh both the academic baseline (42.7 years) and the recent snapshot (45 years) together, recognizing each figure serves different evidentiary purposes [5] [1] [2] [4].
7. Bottom line and what to cite going forward
For citations or policymaking, use the 42.7-year figure when referencing multi-year historical research (2011–2018) and the 45-year figure for recent-year reporting that captures 2024–2025 dynamics, but always specify the timeframe and methodology. Note that both numbers place average decedents in middle adulthood, and both sources highlight medical causes as the predominant factor. Any future claim about “average age since 2020” should be accompanied by explicit details on which deaths were included and whether the period is 2020–present or a shorter recent subset [1] [2] [5] [3] [4].