What has ice done wrong/bad
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
ICE’s recent actions under the 2025 administration include a sharp rise in detentions (about a 70% increase to almost 66,000 in detention by November 2025) and a large jump in people accepting “voluntary departure” while detained — more than 16,000 in the first eight months of 2025, a five-fold increase over the prior year [1]. Reporting and advocacy groups document expanded surveillance, increased arrests of people without criminal records, and more aggressive tactics that critics say pressure migrants to abandon legal claims [2] [3] [1].
1. ICE escalated arrests and detention volumes — fast and far beyond past practice
Government data cited by Reuters show the population in ICE detention rose roughly 70% to nearly 66,000 by November 2025, and internal figures indicate arrest operations surged through 2025 as the agency pursued higher arrest rates [1]. Independent analyses and reporting also flag monthly arrest rates exceeding 30,000 during the year, illustrating a nationwide uptick in enforcement actions beyond prior administrations’ patterns [4] [3].
2. Many people arrested had no criminal convictions — a shift in who’s targeted
Multiple outlets that analyzed newly available ICE arrest records found the share of detainees with any past conviction dropped substantially during 2025: one dataset shows the share with convictions fell to 28% from 46% at the start of the term, and reporting emphasizes an “ever-larger share” of arrests were for immigration status alone rather than criminal offenses [3] [4]. Advocates and journalists interpret those trends as evidence ICE has broadened enforcement beyond the “serious criminals” the administration publicly emphasized [4] [5].
3. Tactics appear designed to compel people to give up legal claims
Reuters reported cases where detainees received stark choices—accept deportation or face criminal charges and separation from family—an approach that civil‑rights groups and lawyers say can coerce people into surrendering immigration proceedings rather than pursuing asylum or other defenses [1]. Legal advocates and immigrant‑rights organizations describe policy changes that limit bond eligibility and expand mandatory detention, which together make release and legal defense far harder [6].
4. Data and transparency problems complicate accountability
Several watchdog and reporting outlets warn ICE’s public data are incomplete or inconsistently coded. Prison Policy noted large numbers of cases with missing location information and shifting categorization practices that obscure critical details about where and how arrests occurred [7]. The Guardian and others raised concerns that daily arrest tallies released by the agency lack context (such as prior conviction rates and arrest locations), which hinders independent verification of ICE’s stated priorities [5].
5. Technology and contractors have enabled broader reach — and raised ethical alarms
Reporting from TechCrunch and investigative outlets describes contracts for location and surveillance tools (cell-site simulators, data integrations) and no‑bid deportation flight contracts that expanded ICE’s operational capacity; critics say these relationships raise privacy, due‑process and ethical questions [8] [9]. Civil‑society outlets flagged controversial uses of historical statutes and contractor behavior as part of an expanded deportation regime [9].
6. Local pushback and political consequences are visible on the ground
Widespread protests and community responses have accompanied raids in cities, with demonstrators clashing with federal agents and localities seeking to limit cooperation with ICE; reporting shows both grassroots resistance and official attempts to criminalize interference, producing a tense, politicized environment around immigration enforcement [10] [11]. Analysts attribute some limitations on ICE’s capacity to state and local noncooperation [7].
7. Competing narratives: security vs. coercion
The administration frames ramped‑up enforcement as necessary to remove dangerous individuals and deter illegal migration; some outlets report DHS intends to refocus on those with serious convictions in response to public polling [12]. Critics and many news investigations counter that ICE’s arrests increasingly include people with no criminal histories and that enforcement tactics and data practices amount to coercion, surveillance expansion, and reduced access to legal relief [3] [4] [6].
Limitations and what reporting does not settle
Available sources document trends, examples and data problems but do not provide a comprehensive causal accounting of every death, every coerced surrender, or internal decision‑making memos beyond cited reporting. Specific claims about individual motivations inside ICE or complete nationwide legality assessments are not detailed in these sources; those topics require additional investigative records not found in current reporting [1] [7] [9].