What were the policy differences between ICE leadership under Obama (Homan in ERO) and under Trump when Homan was acting director?

1. A structured, priority‑driven Obama-era approach vs. an expansive Trump mandate

The Obama administration developed explicit, hierarchical enforcement priorities aimed at focusing limited ICE resources on particular classes of removable individuals and preserving prosecutorial discretion for others, a scheme that constrained interior enforcement and required supervisory review in certain cases ^{[1] [2]}. By contrast, the Trump White House issued executive orders and internal guidance early in the presidency that told ICE no population should be categorically protected from removal and effectively removed the tighter constraints on who could be targeted, giving agents wider latitude to arrest and detain noncitizens across communities ^{[3] [2]}.

2. Supervisory checks and prosecutorial discretion under Obama, loosened under Trump

Analysts note that under Obama, prosecutorial discretion was framed to limit enforcement through guidance and required reviews—e.g., supervisors reviewed decisions to target non‑priority cases—whereas Trump-era memos reframed discretion as not limiting agents’ ability to arrest, thereby reducing the institutional checks on front‑line decision making ^{[1] [2]}. Law enforcement and policy reviews contend this change translated into more interior enforcement actions and even higher numbers of screenings of U.S. citizens during early Trump months, evidence of a broader operational sweep ^{[4] [6]}.

3. Operational tactics and rhetoric: from measured to maximalist enforcement

Former colleagues and reporting describe Homan’s own shift in public posture: officials who worked with him in the Obama era say he pushed for broader enforcement internally but operated within a policy process; as acting director under Trump he publicly embraced tougher rhetoric and supported aggressive enforcement tactics, matching an administration push for mass arrests and higher removal numbers ^{[3] [5]}. Coverage of Trump administration threats of mass community raids and calls from White House aides for dramatically higher daily arrest targets illustrates a substantive operational change in priorities and expectations placed on ICE ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Oversight, reporting, and accountability implications

Observers and policy organizations document that the Obama‑era framework included reporting and oversight practices tied to priorities, while critics of the Trump shift warned that loosening constraints increased the risk of errant arrests, civil‑rights concerns, and reduced centralized oversight of field decisions ^{[1] [2]}. Subsequent reporting of leadership shakeups and internal unease over enforcement numbers underscores how political pressure to raise arrest totals undercut internal supervisory controls ^{[5] [7]}.

5. Outcomes, controversy, and competing narratives

The practical outcomes were contested: some point to higher interior enforcement activity and wider sweeps under Trump as a fulfillment of his executive orders, while defenders argue that Obama-era policies still produced large removal totals and that Homan’s law‑and‑order instincts were consistent across tenures ^{[4] [3]}. Civil‑liberties groups and critics say the Trump shift produced more aggressive, and in some accounts deadlier, enforcement outcomes, a claim invoked in later debates about use of force and accountability though detailed causal chains remain contested in reporting ^{[8] [9] [7]}.

6. Limits of the sources and what remains unsettled

Available reporting and policy analyses clearly document changes in written priorities, supervisory requirements, and public rhetoric between the two periods, but gaps remain about the precise causal impact of leadership tone versus formal policy changes on day‑to‑day field conduct; where source material does not supply causal attribution, this analysis flags the limitation rather than speculating ^{[1] [3]}.