Fact check: How much more money is spent on ice than during the biden administration

1. What people are claiming — and why the question is muddled

Multiple items in the dataset treat the question “How much more money is spent on ICE than during the Biden administration?” as if it were straightforward, but the materials show two distinct axes of confusion: first, the word “ice” is sometimes interpreted as the agency ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and sometimes as literal Arctic/ice science funding, creating category error in public discussion ^{[4] [6]}. Second, the documents mix program-level contract awards, state grant receipts, and internal resource reassignments without a consistent fiscal baseline or timeframes, so apparent increases in spending on certain tools or programs cannot be summed into a reliable “total increase” ^{[1] [7] [3]}.

2. Concrete contract-level evidence showing increased ICE expenditures

Several reports document new, specific expenditures in 2025 that indicate heightened ICE operational spending: a recent contract for phone-hacking/unlocking tools worth about $3 million and other contracts including a $3.75 million Clearview AI deal are explicitly cited ^{[1] [3]}. States such as Florida receiving over $28 million in federal funds for immigration enforcement through 287(g) style programs is another tangible funding flow that did not necessarily exist at the same scale earlier in the Biden term ^[7]. These items provide verifiable line-item increases, but they are discrete and not comprehensive.

3. Programmatic expansions and internal resource shifts paint a broader picture

Beyond contracts, the sources describe program-scale expansions and reallocation of personnel that imply larger budgetary commitments: reporting on an $8 billion ICE program to expand enforcement capacity, frequent ICE flights, and the diversion of Homeland Security Investigations agents to deportation operations suggest operational scale-up rather than only isolated purchases ^{[2] [8] [3]}. These program descriptions imply both capital and recurring costs—air operations, tech procurement, and staffing—consistent with a substantial rise in enforcement expenditures, though the documents do not translate program descriptions into an aggregate year-over-year dollar delta.

4. Arctic research funding has been conflated with ICE spending in the record

One prominent piece documents closure of an Arctic research consortium following large NSF cuts and reprioritization toward energy and security in the Arctic under the current administration; this piece addresses science budget cuts, not ICE enforcement spending, yet its inclusion in the dataset creates confusion between “ice” as Arctic research and “ICE” the agency ^[4]. That article is dated September 19, 2025, and demonstrates how narrative framing and labels can produce misleading comparisons when audiences equate “ice” with immigration enforcement without checking programmatic context.

5. Limits of the dataset — why a precise comparison isn’t possible here

The available items include dated examples of contracts and program descriptions (September–November 2025) but lack authoritative consolidated budget documents—such as DHS appropriation tables, ICE annual financial reports, or OMB budget comparisons—needed to compute total fiscal differences across administrations ^{[1] [7] [2]}. The sources themselves acknowledge they do not provide a direct administration-to-administration comparison, and they focus on illustrative increases, not comprehensive accounting ^{[6] [5]}.

6. How different outlets and actors frame the increases — watch for agendas

Reporting emphasizes different angles: watchdog and advocacy outlets highlight human-impact and civil-liberties concerns tied to tech procurement and mass deportation operations, while state and political actors frame federal funding as support for local enforcement priorities ^{[8] [7]}. These frames signal agendas—policy critique versus political defense—and help explain why the same facts (new contracts, funding flows) are used to advance contrasting narratives about whether spending increases are prudent or problematic ^{[1] [3]}.

7. What additional data would resolve the question cleanly

To determine “how much more” with confidence, obtain: 1) annual ICE appropriations and obligation tables for FY2021–FY2025 from DHS/ICE and OMB; 2) consolidated contract and grants totals for the same years; and 3) line-item program budgets for major initiatives (air operations, technology, 287(g) grants). The present sources supply useful examples and indicators but not the consolidated fiscal series needed for a precise comparison ^{[1] [2]}.

8. Bottom line: credible direction, not a definitive number

The documents compiled point consistently to increased spending and programmatic expansion for ICE and related immigration enforcement in 2025, shown by explicit contracts, state-level funding, and descriptions of enlarged operations; however, they stop short of providing the aggregated, administration-to-administration dollar difference required to answer “how much more” precisely without consulting formal budget records ^{[1] [7] [3]}. For a definitive figure, obtain OMB/DHS budget tables and ICE financial statements covering both administrations.