What changes has the Biden administration made to ICE detention?
Executive summary
The Biden administration reshaped ICE detention through policy memos that narrowed enforcement priorities and a short-lived deportation pause, increased use of alternatives to detention and some facility repurposings, while stopping short of a complete break with privately operated detention—producing mixed outcomes that include both fewer formal removals early on and a rise in detainee numbers and private contracts in later years [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Advocacy groups and watchdogs characterize the results as a partial, uneven reform constrained by existing contracts, court decisions, budget politics, and operational needs at the border [7] [8] [9].
1. Narrowing who ICE targets: interim guidance and enforcement priorities
One of the administration’s earliest and clearest changes was issuance of revised enforcement guidance that sharply limited which noncitizens ICE should prioritize for arrest and removal—directing agents away from many low-level offenses and toward those posing national security or serious public-safety risks—a series of memos that began in February 2021 and included a second interim guidance in the same month [2] [1] [3].
2. A 100‑day deportation pause and review processes that never fully insulated detainees
The administration announced a 100-day pause on deportations at the outset of the presidency and created mechanisms for case review and requests for case reconsideration, but courts, litigation and agency practice limited the moratorium’s scope and ICE continued to detain and remove many people as legal fights and operational directives evolved [1] [3].
3. Alternatives to detention, family‑detention repurposing, and program expansion
DHS and ICE expanded alternatives to detention—ankle monitors, home visits and supervised release—while repurposing former family-detention centers into short-term reception centers or adult facilities, a shift that effectively halted large-scale family detention for a period and more than doubled monitored community cases tracked by program data cited in reporting [4].
4. Private detention: campaign promise versus on-the-ground contracting
Despite a Biden campaign pledge to end for‑profit immigration detention and an executive order phasing out the Justice Department’s use of private prisons, that order explicitly did not cover ICE facilities, and the administration both extended and signed new contracts with private operators in multiple instances—prompting repeated criticism that private contractors benefited from continuity and even expansion under Biden [10] [5] [6] [11].
5. Facility closures, reviews, and watchdog findings—uneven follow-through
The administration closed or reviewed some facilities and launched internal examinations of detention centers, but watchdog reports and media investigations documented continued substandard conditions at several privately run sites and federal auditors urged closures or drawdowns that were not always implemented, leaving critics to describe reform as too slow and inconsistent [5] [6] [7].
6. Detention and removal metrics: contradictory trends and contested interpretations
Different datasets and analysts show divergent trends: ICE removal numbers fell relative to the final months of the previous administration—an outcome attributed to the new enforcement priorities—yet multiple reports and advocacy groups documented substantial increases in the number of people held in ICE custody at certain points after pandemic restrictions loosened and noted a greater share held in private facilities, producing a contested picture of whether Biden reduced mass detention or presided over its transformation [3] [12] [6].
7. Legal and political constraints shaping detention policy
Reform efforts were bounded by statutory detention rules, ongoing litigation over mandatory detention and bond, congressional budgeting and the practical need for bed space amid border surges; judges and courts have continued to influence detention policy via rulings, and Congress and the appropriations process have enabled growth in detention funding that reformers say undercuts administration intent [13] [9].
8. Bottom line: partial reform, mixed results, and powerful countervailing forces
The Biden administration reoriented enforcement priorities, expanded alternatives to detention and repurposed some family facilities, but it did not eliminate private immigration detention or sharply reduce the detention footprint in practice—outcomes shaped by entrenched contracting, border pressures, legal constraints and budgetary incentives that produced a complex, often contradictory record of change [2] [4] [5] [8].