Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What happens to non-essential ICE staff during government shutdowns?
Executive Summary
During recent U.S. government shutdowns, most non‑law‑enforcement ICE employees are furloughed (placed on unpaid leave) while frontline ICE law‑enforcement personnel continue working and are subsequently paid retroactively; the classification between “essential” and “non‑essential” is made within agencies and can be subjective. Reporting from October 2025 shows that a large majority of ICE staff were designated exempt from furloughs, leaving a minority furloughed, and the Department of Homeland Security used contingency payroll practices like “super checks” to cover selected law‑enforcement pay during the lapse [1] [2] [3].
1. Who actually gets sent home? The furlough math that matters
Government shutdown reporting identifies a clear division: non‑essential ICE staff are typically furloughed, meaning they are not permitted to work and do not receive pay during the lapse. Multiple briefings and analyses state that a portion of ICE’s workforce is categorized as non‑essential and placed on unpaid leave when appropriations lapse; one analysis quantified that about 17 percent of ICE staff would be furloughed under typical contingency plans [4]. Other reporting provided precise personnel counts indicating that 19,626 of 21,028 employees were treated as exempt, signaling that only a small fraction faced furlough — a difference that underscores agency discretion in classifications [2]. The practical effect is immediate loss of pay for furloughed employees and suspension of their duties until funding resumes.
2. Who keeps working — and who gets paid later? The law‑enforcement exception
Shutdown practice consistently shows that law‑enforcement and certain national‑security roles continue to work despite funding lapses, including ICE deportation officers, Border Patrol agents, and special agents. Those working are required to perform duties without immediate pay but are later compensated once Congress appropriates funds; agencies have used contingency mechanisms such as a so‑called “super check” to retroactively cover pay cycles and overtime during the shutdown [3] [1]. Reporting from October 2025 confirms that DHS and ICE considered most enforcement personnel exempt from furlough, and payroll measures were implemented to cover those roles after the fact [2] [1]. The net result: continuity of enforcement operations while non‑essential functions pause.
3. Where the line is drawn: subjectivity, policy and politics
The decision to label employees “essential” or “non‑essential” is an internal agency determination shaped by statutory exemptions, operational priorities, and contingency plans. Analysts and observers note this classification can be arbitrary or subjective, reflecting policy choices rather than a uniform standard across agencies [3]. That subjectivity means two similar roles in different offices or regions could be treated differently during the same shutdown, with consequences for workloads, case backlogs, and employee income. The variability also creates political friction: critics argue essential designations shield enforcement functions from funding pressure, while proponents stress the need to maintain critical public‑safety operations.
4. Operational consequences: enforcement continues, other work stalls
When non‑essential ICE staff are furloughed, administrative, policy, and certain legal support functions slow or halt, while Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and selected legal teams continue to operate. Reporting highlights that OPLA and ERO remained focused on detained immigration court dockets during a shutdown, preserving deportation processing and legal representation of the government in detention cases [5]. At the same time, furloughs can delay background work, case preparation, and non‑urgent program implementation, producing downstream backlogs once normal operations resume. The mixed staffing picture can therefore maintain immediate enforcement but disrupt broader immigration system functions.
5. How agencies and journalists described pay arrangements during the 2025 lapse
Contemporary coverage from early October 2025 documented concrete payroll practices: DHS and outlets reported that most federal employees in ICE were exempt from the lapse, that those required to work were guaranteed back pay, and that agencies issued special payroll measures covering the shutdown’s initial days and overtime [2] [1] [3]. Business‑oriented reporting used the “super check” language to explain how select law‑enforcement personnel received consolidated retroactive payments [1] [3]. These descriptions emphasize a consistent pattern: furloughed non‑essential staff lose pay during the shutdown, while working enforcement staff are made whole afterward.
6. Conflicting emphases and underlying agendas to watch
Coverage varies in emphasis: policy groups and advocacy organizations highlight the disruption to immigration services and the share of employees furloughed, framing shutdowns as costly and dysfunctional [4]. News outlets focused on payroll mechanics and frontline agents’ pay emphasized continuity of enforcement and eventual back pay [3] [1]. Agency statements stressing exemptions and contingency plans can reflect an interest in reassuring the public about border security, while critiques about subjectivity in classifications often arise from fiscal or labor advocates concerned about worker impacts. Recognizing these differing emphases clarifies why descriptions of “who is hurt” can sound contradictory even when the underlying facts — furloughs for non‑essential staff and continued work plus retroactive pay for law‑enforcement personnel — remain consistent [3] [2].