How have past ICE surges affected arrest patterns and community safety metrics in host cities?
Executive summary
ICE surges have produced clear, measurable spikes in interior arrests in host jurisdictions, often concentrated in particular states and metro areas and sometimes tripling short-term arrest rates [1]. Those surges have coincided with a marked shift toward detaining people without prior U.S. criminal convictions and an expanded use of aggressive tactics, producing contested claims about public‑safety benefits and demonstrable community harms [2] [3].
1. Arrest patterns: sudden increases and geographic concentration
During surge periods ICE arrest counts rose sharply and unevenly across the country, with some places seeing arrest rates nearly triple over a single enforcement season—for example Illinois’ ICE jail‑based arrest rate climbed from about 8 per 100,000 to 21 per 100,000 between two five‑month windows cited in one analysis [1]. Multiple data projects and reporting show that daily and weekly arrest totals spiked in specific operations—Human Rights Watch documented ICE averaging roughly 540 arrests per week during a Los Angeles surge window, and DHS reported 3,000 arrests in a recent Minneapolis operation—illustrating both concentrated bursts of activity and variation by field office [4] [5].
2. Composition of those arrested: more non‑criminal cases
Analyses across sources find the composition of arrests shifted during surges toward people without U.S. criminal convictions: national and regional studies reported that the share of detainees with no criminal record rose dramatically through 2025, with one NGO finding the percent of non‑criminal detainees in ICE custody jumped from single digits to roughly 41 percent by year’s end and other analyses showing nearly half of Bay Area arrestees lacked criminal convictions [2] [6]. Independent researchers and watchdogs have linked this change to new tactics—“at‑large” arrests, roving patrols, and worksite or community‑based detentions—that sweep up people who previously would not have been prioritized [2] [7] [3].
3. Detention practices and capacity effects
Surges have translated quickly into heavier detention populations and geographic redistribution of detainees: ICE detention counts rose precipitously in 2025—roughly 40,000 to 66,000 over the year in one major report—and agencies expanded the number of facilities in use, straining oversight and producing longer detentions while removal proceedings proceed [2]. Human Rights Watch and reporting projects documented a substantial increase in post‑arrest incarceration during surge periods compared with prior administrations’ practices of releasing many non‑criminal arrestees, showing a policy shift toward mandatory or near‑universal detention in some locales [4] [2].
4. Public‑safety claims vs. empirical evidence
Federal officials and DHS framed surges as removals of violent offenders and threats to community safety, publicizing cases of people with serious convictions arrested during operations [5] [8]. Independent analyses and media reviews, however, show that a large share of surge arrestees lacked criminal histories—one newspaper analysis put the nationwide rate of those with any past conviction at about 37 percent during a defined period—raising questions about how much of the surge targeted “worst of the worst” versus meeting numerical enforcement targets [9] [3].
5. Local variation, political drivers, and institutional incentives
State and local policy choices strongly shaped where surges landed: sanctuary laws, jail access policies, and state cooperation mandates correlated with lower or higher arrest rates, while political alignment with federal priorities appears to have been a statistically significant predictor of enforcement intensity in scholarly work [1] [10]. Reporting and research also point to institutional incentives—alleged arrest quotas and pressure to produce removals—as drivers that pushedICE tactics away from selective enforcement toward broader community arrests in targeted field office areas [3] [10].
6. Community impacts and unresolved measurement of safety outcomes
Surges have had immediate community effects—family separation, labor disruptions from workplace raids, and increased fear among immigrant communities documented by advocacy groups and academic studies—while independent assessment of crime‑rate impacts remains constrained by data gaps and contested claims from federal agencies; journalists note missing public data during funding disruptions that limit outside verification of arrest and removal tallies [7] [11] [4]. The balance of evidence in the materials reviewed shows that surges change arrest patterns decisively, increase detention of non‑criminals, and inflict social and economic harms in host cities, while the asserted public‑safety benefits are partially supported by selective examples but not uniformly corroborated across the datasets available [5] [9] [2].