Is ICE deporting criminals?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive Summary
ICE does deport people with criminal records—its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) explicitly prioritizes arresting and removing individuals who pose public-safety or national-security risks—and recent agency reports and arrest tallies cite removals of convicted offenders and gang members. At the same time, policy changes since mid‑2025 have expanded ICE’s enforcement to include some immigrants who were previously considered crime victims or otherwise protected, producing conflicting priorities and sparking debate about public-safety tradeoffs [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why advocates and officials say “ICE deporting criminals” is true—and what they point to as evidence
ICE’s own enforcement framework foregrounds removal of people who have committed serious crimes or threaten security, listing known or suspected terrorists, gang members, and those convicted of egregious offenses as priorities; ICE’s annual reporting frames removals in public‑safety terms and cites convicted aliens among those removed [1]. Operational data from CBP and ICE count substantial numbers of criminal-alien arrests and removals, including convictions for assault, domestic violence, and drug offenses—data defenders of the claim use to show ICE is actively deporting individuals with criminal records [2]. These records are offered as direct confirmation that criminality is a central enforcement criterion.
2. High‑profile enforcement examples that supporters highlight to prove the point
Recent enforcement actions cited in the materials include the deportation or arrest of people described as convicted murderers, human smugglers, and repeat deportees with lengthy criminal histories, such as a captured Sureño gang member; these individual cases are used to illustrate ICE’s emphasis on removing recidivist offenders and violent actors [4] [5]. Agency statements about removing 122 Chinese nationals that included those allegations are presented to show both scale and severity, although reporting on specific cases varies in detail and context [4]. Supporters treat these incidents as emblematic of stated priorities actually being implemented.
3. The counter‑narrative: ICE moving to deport some crime victims and the resulting critiques
Several recent reports describe policy shifts where ICE is expanding deportation actions to include immigrants who were previously treated as victims—people who cooperated with law enforcement or received protections—suggesting ICE is not limited to deporting only criminals. Critics argue this change undermines public safety by discouraging cooperation with police and penalizing vulnerable people, presenting an alternative picture of enforcement that encompasses noncriminals [3] [4]. These sources frame the policy change as a meaningful departure from narrower “criminals only” enforcement.
4. How the two frames can both be factually correct at once
The materials show coexisting realities: ICE continues to arrest and deport individuals with criminal convictions and gang affiliations while policy changes broaden the pool of removable people to include some victims or nonviolent immigrants. This duality explains why both claims—“ICE deporting criminals” and “ICE deporting victims/noncriminals”—appear simultaneously true depending on which enforcement actions and timeframes are emphasized [1] [3] [5]. The documentation supports a nuanced conclusion: enforcement is aimed at criminals but is not limited to them under current policies.
5. What the datasets and agency reports do—and do not—reveal about scale and intent
Agency annual reports and CBP criminal‑alien statistics quantify arrests and removals of people with convictions, which supports assertions about targeting criminals, yet these datasets do not fully capture the policy rationale for expanding removals or the discretionary choices ICE officers make in the field [2] [1]. The materials provide examples of both categories—convicted offenders and crime‑victim deportees—but lack a single, consolidated metric that proves intent to exclusively target one group over another. This leaves room for competing interpretations based on selective use of the same evidence.
6. Political and public‑safety arguments shaping how each side uses the facts
Proponents of strict enforcement use the removals of convicted murderers, human smugglers, and gang members to argue ICE is fulfilling a public‑safety mandate and protecting communities; opponents cite deportations of crime victims and rescinded protections to argue enforcement is overbroad and erodes trust in law enforcement [4] [3]. Both sides rely on the same set of enforcement actions and reports but emphasize different subsets of data to advance distinct policy agendas. The materials show a clear interplay between operational facts and political narratives.
7. Bottom line: accurate claim, but incomplete without context and tradeoffs
The simple statement “ICE is deporting criminals” is accurate insofar as ICE continues to remove people with criminal convictions and gang ties, as shown in agency reports and arrest statistics; however, it is incomplete because recent policy shifts and specific removals also involve non‑violent immigrants and some crime victims, raising concerns about cooperation with police and the scope of enforcement [1] [2] [3] [4]. A full assessment requires recognizing both the documented removals of criminals and the documented expansion of removals beyond that group, along with the public‑safety and humanitarian tradeoffs those choices create.