What changes to ICE responsibilities have been proposed or enacted since 2018 and in 2025?
Executive summary
Since 2018 ICE’s mission has steadily widened from traditional interior arrests and removals toward broader, more aggressive enforcement tools and partnerships — a trend amplified by policy shifts, budget surges, and new delegated authority in 2025 that expanded where and how agents operate [1] [2] [3]. The year 2025 in particular saw rapid hiring, large congressional appropriations, directives removing “protected area” limits, expanded use of technology, and regulatory moves that put other DHS components and local law enforcement into enforcement roles [4] [2] [3] [5] [6].
1. From interior enforcement to expansive reach: the policy arc since 2018
ICE’s core responsibility historically centered on interior arrest, detention, and removal of noncitizens [1], but since 2018 the agency’s posture shifted toward more aggressive operations and broader interpretations of where arrests can occur; reporting documents arrests in places once considered off‑limits, such as schools and churches [2] [1]. Critics trace this evolution to both executive directives and operational choices that emphasized rapid removals and interior enforcement beyond prior constraints [2].
2. Budget, hiring, and operational capacity growth in 2025
Congressional funding packages in 2025 dramatically increased resources for ICE, enabling large-scale hiring and operational expansion: one analysis describes tens of billions for deportation operations and projections of thousands of additional officers, and DHS reported ICE employment jumping to more than 22,000 officers and agents in 2025 [2] [4]. Advocates warn that that influx creates a “deportation‑industrial complex,” while supporters argue the funding restores enforcement capacity [2] [4].
3. Executive directives and the end of “protected area” constraints (Jan 2025)
Early in 2025 the Acting DHS Secretary issued a directive ending previous limits on enforcement in or near “protected areas,” a change that authorizes ICE actions in sensitive locations including hospitals, schools, and churches — a concrete policy reversal compared with prior restrictions [3]. Legal and advocacy groups have flagged civil‑liberties risks and potential for heightened community disruption as a result [3] [2].
4. Delegation and diffusion of enforcement — 287(g), USCIS roles, and local partners
Since 2018 ICE has increasingly used delegation mechanisms to push enforcement responsibilities outward: the 287(g) framework allows state and local officers to perform immigration functions under ICE supervision, and New York reporting shows expanded 287(g) activity by 2025 [7] [6]. Separately in 2025 the administration moved to empower USCIS and other DHS components to refer cases, issue Notices to Appear, and create law‑enforcement roles within adjudicative agencies — changes that reallocate enforcement touchpoints into civilian functions [8] [9].
5. Technology, surveillance, and narrower accountability avenues
Reporting in 2025 documents new tech adoption by ICE — including mobile facial‑identification apps and desires for broader social‑media surveillance — raising questions about mission creep and oversight [5] [10]. Parallel legal developments reported late in 2025 and 2026 suggest the courts have limited avenues for damages claims after alleged ICE misconduct, which advocates say weakens civil remedies and accountability [11].
6. Oversight, legal challenges, and competing narratives
Pushback has accompanied these operational expansions: civil‑rights suits, local policies limiting cooperation, and congressional oversight frictions increased as ICE curtailed some reporting to lawmakers and faced court orders and litigation over profiling and tactics in 2025 [12] [5] [13]. There are competing frames: administration and DHS officials describe restored enforcement and public‑safety priorities supported by funding and hires [4], while advocacy groups and some judges warn of civil‑liberties erosion and uneven procedural safeguards [2] [11].
Limitations of available reporting: the sources document major 2025 directives, budget and hiring figures, delegation moves, and tech adoption, but they do not provide a single, comprehensive statutory list of every formal change to ICE’s legally defined responsibilities; where claims extend beyond these documents, this review notes that limitation rather than asserting unreported specifics [3] [2] [4] [9].