What percentage of undocumented immigrants removed (or pending removal) by ICE under Trump had a criminal record?
Executive summary
The answer depends on which metric and time period are used: ICE and DHS public statements have variably claimed that roughly three-quarters or 70% of those arrested had criminal records or pending charges (ICE’s 100‑day claim and a DHS spokeswoman’s figure) [1] [2], while independent and policy analyses of interior removals show a much lower share — roughly 36% with criminal convictions and another ~13% with pending charges (about 49% total) among interior removals in a documented ICE/CIS breakdown [3]. Discrepancies come down to differing definitions (arrests vs removals vs detention), the inclusion of pending charges, and disputed counting methods across agencies and analysts [4] [5].
1. What the government has been saying: high percentages for arrests and early bragging rights
ICE and DHS public messaging during the early Trump period touted that criminal aliens made up the bulk of arrests — ICE said three in four arrests during its first 100 days were “criminal illegal aliens” and enumerated thousands of assault, DWI and weapon offenses among those arrested [1], and a DHS spokeswoman later asserted that 70% of undocumented immigrants ICE arrested across the U.S. had convictions or pending charges [2]. Those claims are factual statements of agency messaging and reflect how the administration framed enforcement around public‑safety priorities rather than independent verification [1] [2].
2. What policy analysts and independent counts show: a smaller share among removals
Independent reporting and policy groups using ICE and court data paint a different picture for removals (as distinct from arrests). One analysis — cited by the Center for Immigration Studies and others — finds that among interior removals over a multiyear window, about 36.2% had criminal convictions and 12.8% had pending charges, leaving roughly half removed for immigration reasons rather than criminal convictions [3]. TRAC and other monitoring groups have also questioned headline counts, showing how cumulative and period‑specific methods change the totals and that ICE’s published series can be difficult to parse [4].
3. Why the numbers diverge: definitions, time windows and political incentives
Disagreement is less about arithmetic than about definitions: agencies sometimes report "arrests" (which can include administrative arrests of people with prior final removal orders or non‑criminal immigration violations), sometimes report "detentions in custody," and sometimes aggregate interior and border removals; analysts focus on "removals" or "interior removals" and separate convictions from pending charges [3] [4]. Political incentives matter: DHS and ICE have repeatedly used high percentages in messaging to justify broad enforcement, while watchdogs and journalists have highlighted growing shares of non‑criminal arrests and detainees without criminal records [2] [5].
4. Ground reporting and oversight: evidence of many non‑criminal detainees
Journalistic and oversight reporting has found notable populations in ICE custody without criminal convictions. The Guardian summarized data showing nearly 24,000 people in ICE custody lacked criminal records compared with about 17,000 who did — evidence that non‑criminal detention was substantial during the enforcement surge [5]. Other outlets and watchdogs reported internal ICE documents indicating lower shares of violent offenders among detainees and large increases in non‑criminal administrative arrests [6].
5. Bottom line: a range, not a single percent
There is no single, uncontested percentage in the provided reporting. Agency statements cite figures of roughly 70–75% criminal among those arrested [1] [2], while detailed breakdowns of interior removals show about 36% convicted plus ~13% with pending charges (≈49% total) — and other reporting documents sizeable numbers of detainees without criminal records [3] [5]. Any definitive answer requires specifying whether the question means arrests or final removals, whether pending charges count as “criminal record,” and which time window is used; the sources here document those differing approaches and the resulting divergence in percentages [3] [4] [5].