Which states have the highest number of ICE agents per capita in 2023 or latest data?
Executive summary
There is no public, authoritative dataset in the provided reporting that lists ICE agents by state on a per‑capita basis for 2023 or later; ICE’s own public statistics describe arrests and program activity but do not publish an easily comparable “agents per capita by state” table in the materials supplied here [1] [2]. Because that direct measure is absent from the sources, the best available signals are where enforcement activity and arrests have been concentrated — which consistently point to Texas, Florida, California and several Southern states as the locations with the heaviest ICE operational footprint in recent years [3] [4].
1. Why the precise question can’t be answered from the available records
ICE’s public pages and the supplied DHS documents summarize agency mission, arrests, program activity and national-level statistics but do not break out the number of ICE agents allocated to each state in a per‑capita format in the materials provided here, so a direct answer about “agents per capita” for 2023 cannot be produced from these sources [1] [2] [5]. The available ICE and DHS reporting focuses on enforcement outcomes (arrests, detentions, monitoring) rather than staffing headcounts by state; therefore any claim about agent density would require additional internal staffing data or FOIA disclosures not included in the briefing materials [1] [2].
2. What proxies in the reporting indicate about where ICE operates most heavily
Multiple analyses and news maps built on ICE arrest records show that a large share of ICE’s enforcement activity is concentrated in Texas, followed by Florida and California, with notable activity also in Georgia and Arizona — Texas alone accounted for roughly 23 percent of a national total of ICE arrests during a recent multi‑month period reported by Newsweek using Deportation Data Project compilations [3]. Independent researchers note that over 1,000 ICE arrests per day in recent periods were concentrated in states with high levels of cooperation with federal authorities, with Florida, Texas, Louisiana and Georgia called out as states that required local deputization and therefore produced higher arrest totals [4].
3. Why arrest counts are an imperfect stand‑in for agent density
Arrest totals reflect both staffing and local cooperation, meaning a state can register high ICE arrests without necessarily hosting a proportionally larger roster of permanently stationed federal agents; many operations rely on local jails, deputized local officers, and temporary deployments or task forces [4] [6]. Reporting also documents episodic deployments — for example, federal operations sent hundreds of agents on targeted campaigns such as the “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicago — further complicating any static per‑capita measure of permanent staffing [7].
4. Competing narratives, agendas and what the data emphasize
Advocacy and watchdog organizations emphasize arrests and deaths in custody to argue for policy change and transparency, while ICE and DHS emphasize mission scope and national statistics; both perspectives draw on different parts of the record [1] [7]. Journalists and researchers using Deportation Data Project compilations and local records have focused public attention on states with the most arrests, which can reflect political choices by state and local systems to cooperate with or resist federal enforcement — an implicit agenda in interpreting “where ICE is strongest” that conflates policy decisions with agency staffing levels [4] [3].
5. Bottom line and what would be needed to answer the question directly
From the supplied sources, the clearest, evidence‑based statement is that ICE enforcement activity in recent years has been heaviest in Texas, Florida and California, with significant operations in Georgia and Arizona — but the reporting does not provide a verifiable “ICE agents per capita by state” figure for 2023 [3] [4]. To answer the question precisely would require release of ICE staffing allocations by state (or a DHS staffing inventory) or an authoritative FOIA response; absent that, arrest and operation‑level data are the best available proxies and should be interpreted carefully because they reflect both federal deployments and local cooperation choices [1] [4] [6].