How many immigrants did Obama deport per year?
Executive summary
Barack Obama’s administrations (fiscal years 2009–2016) carried out roughly 2.7 million formal removals—commonly reported as “deportations”—which works out to an average of about 343,700 removals per year; the program peaked with very high annual totals in the early 2010s, including a record DHS figure often cited for FY2013 (roughly 438,000) [1][2][3]. That headline number requires context: federal statistics distinguish removals from returns and changed counting practices over time, so comparisons across administrations and headlines like “3 million” or “deporter-in-chief” reflect different measures and emphases [4][5][6].
1. The simple arithmetic: the widely cited annual average
Multiple data-driven summaries of DHS yearbook figures put the Obama-period total removals at roughly 2.7 million from FY2009–FY2016, which divides to an average of about 343,713 removals per year and has been reported by outlets that reconstructed DHS numbers [1][3]. Independent reporters and policy shops echo similar averages and identify 2012–2013 as the high-water years for formal removals, producing the common statistic that Obama-era annual removals were the highest in decades [1][2].
2. The annual peaks and variation: when deportations were highest
The highest single-year totals occurred in the early 2010s, with FY2013 commonly cited as a record year (DHS/Pew reporting of roughly 438,421 removals that year) and FY2012 also very large—numbers that pushed cumulative removals past two million during his tenure [2][7]. After that peak the yearly totals declined in the mid‑2010s, reflecting both changing enforcement priorities and practical legal limits on removals [6].
3. Definitions matter: removals vs. returns and counting changes
Official “removals” are formal expulsions under order of the U.S. government, distinct from “returns” (apprehensions turned back at the border) and from variations the agencies began counting in different ways; some mid‑2000s changes folded certain border apprehensions into removal tallies, so the time series can mix technically different events [5][6]. Migration Policy Institute and other analysts emphasize that the Obama administration’s record shows more removals than earlier administrations but also a shift toward prioritizing certain populations—recent border crossers and criminal aliens—rather than blanket enforcement [4].
4. Policy context: priorities, tools and rhetoric
The Obama administration invested in programs like Secure Communities that funneled local arrests into federal immigration enforcement and announced “record-breaking” removal statistics in DHS press releases, noting especially the rise in criminal removals in early years [8][4]. That combination of high numerical removals and targeted messaging generated political backlash and labels such as “deporter‑in‑chief,” a characterization used by critics and amplified in media and political debate [9][10].
5. Disputes, alternative counts and methodological limits
Some commentators and fact-checkers have used slightly different aggregations—producing rounded claims such as “about 3 million removals” for Obama’s tenure—because of different start/end cutoffs, inclusion of returns, or assigning first-year figures to prior administrations; academic critics and civil‑liberties groups also highlight administrative changes (fast‑track removals, expedited processing) that inflate counts relative to individualized due process, complicating simple comparisons [5][10][11]. Reporting organizations note that DHS yearbooks and public data require careful reading and that some numbers are updated or reclassified over time, which affects precise totals [1][3].
6. Bottom line: what can be stated with confidence
The best-supported, widely used figure is that the Obama administration carried out about 2.7 million formal removals from FY2009–FY2016—an average near 343,700 removals per year—with a peak in the early 2010s (notably FY2012–FY2013); however, the meaning of “deportations” varies across datasets, and policy choices about who to target shaped those totals as much as raw volume [1][2][4]. Where the sources diverge or use broader aggregates, reporting notes methodological caveats rather than substantive contradictions, so any single headline should be read alongside the definitional limits explained by DHS, MPI, Pew, and independent analysts [8][4][6].