How have ICE enforcement priorities changed since 2017 and in 2024?
Executive summary
Enforcement priorities under ICE shifted from a broad "enforce against all removable aliens" approach under the 2017 Trump-era directives to a narrower, risk‑based focus under the Biden administration that emphasized threats to national security, public safety, and border security; by 2024 ICE had again reoriented resources toward border‑related operations and expedited removals amid new policies and budgetary moves [1] [2] [3]. Independent reviews and ICE’s own reports show these changes were driven by presidential directives, resource constraints, and operational urgencies at the Southwest border, while watchdogs warn about data gaps and political incentives shaping how priorities are described and executed [4] [5] [2].
1. From "all removable aliens" to prioritized enforcement: the 2017–2021 pivot
The 2017 Executive Order set a wide enforcement posture, directing DHS and ICE to use "all lawful means" against removable aliens and prompting ICE to treat interior enforcement expansively, a shift documented in contemporaneous DHS memoranda and GAO reviews [1] [2]. That expansive posture was reflected in practice — and in later GAO analysis — which contrasts with post‑2021 policies that narrowed the pool of targeted noncitizens to those posing national security, public‑safety, or border‑security risks [2].
2. The Biden recalibration: discretion, three priorities, and new guidance
On January 20, 2021, President Biden revoked the 2017 order and directed DHS to rebalance enforcement toward humanitarian and public‑safety considerations; DHS issued interim civil enforcement guidelines and later finalized new enforcement guidance that narrowed targets and emphasized prosecutorial discretion [1] [6]. Migration Policy and legal practitioners noted the practical result: ICE officers were instructed to concentrate on people who present specific threats, and attorneys were given guidance on prosecutorial discretion affecting removals and case dismissals [6] [7].
3. Data and capacity: how resources constrained and shaped priorities
ICE and GAO reports make clear that enforcement is constrained by funding, personnel, and operational realities; ICE’s FY2024 materials and statistics emphasize flexibility in response to border surges and note increases in staffing and budget lines while also acknowledging resource limits that force prioritization decisions [5] [8]. The GAO found that ICE’s public reports sometimes understate detention totals and stressed that evolving priorities from 2019–2022 affected patterns of arrests, removals, and detentions [2].
4. 2024: a renewed focus on the border, expedited removal, and operational shifts
In 2024 ICE signaled a pronounced operational shift back toward border management and speeding removals, citing a Presidential Proclamation and DHS/DOJ interim rules to streamline expedited removal procedures; ICE announced steps to increase detention and repatriation capacity and to optimize enforcement resources to implement those directives [4]. ICE’s FY2024 annual report admits the operational emphasis on border cases "impacted routine interior enforcement operations," indicating a reallocation of scarce Enforcement and Removal Operations resources to Southwest border demands [3].
5. Political incentives, budget pressures, and competing narratives
Analysts and advocacy groups highlighted that big funding injections and political priorities can reshape enforcement in ways that expand local cooperation and contractor roles — a concern framed by the Brennan Center as creating incentives for expanded enforcement capacity with limited accountability [9]. Legal commentary and employer advisories predicted ramped‑up worksite enforcement when administrations change, underscoring how policy shifts translate quickly into different enforcement tactics on the ground [10].
6. What the records don’t settle: transparency gaps and divergent interpretations
While ICE publishes statistics and annual reporting, GAO has flagged weaknesses in data reporting and inconsistencies that make it difficult to trace exactly how policy changes translate into day‑to‑day enforcement decisions, and some claims about scope and impact remain contested between agency releases, watchdogs, and advocacy groups [2] [8]. Where reporting does not cover causal links or outcomes, this analysis refrains from asserting conclusions beyond the cited sources.