What is ice doing differently during this administration
Executive summary
Under the Biden administration ICE shifted from a broad, interior-focused enforcement posture toward stated prioritization of national-security and serious-crime cases while simultaneously pursuing policies to streamline removals and expand capacity—producing a mixed record of fewer routine interior arrests early on but a later surge in total removals driven largely by border returns and expedited processes [1] [2] [3]. Critics and watchdogs say ICE often ignored the administration’s written “enforcement priorities” in practice, and policy reversals under the next administration have since undone some protections [4] [5].
1. A stated move to prioritize violent and national-security cases, not low-level violations
From its first weeks the administration issued guidance to rein in deportation practices and prioritize threats to national security and public safety over petty or nonviolent immigration violations, signaling a change in who ICE should target [1] [4]. That guidance encouraged prosecutorial discretion for people outside the priority categories, a departure from the prior administration’s expansive targeting, and was meant to limit routine interior arrests and detainers [4] [6].
2. Fewer interior removals early, but a later surge in overall repatriations
ICE removals under Biden initially fell relative to the prior administration’s peaks—detentions and interior removals dropped from Trump-era averages and enforcement numbers showed a lower annual ICE deportation average early in the term—but by FY2024 and in the year after Title 42 ended removals and expulsions rose sharply, with some reporting a 10-year high attributed to streamlined processes and diplomatic returns rather than classic interior arrests [1] [2] [3]. Migration-policy reporting and ICE figures indicate the later surge included large numbers of border returns and airport denials counted as “repatriations” [2].
3. New limits on “sensitive locations” and operational constraints—until they weren’t
The administration expanded guidance protecting “sensitive locations” such as hospitals, schools, and places of worship from enforcement actions, and required higher-level permission for some arrests outside jails—operational constraints designed to reduce raids in those spaces [6] [1]. However, watchdog reporting documented that ICE still found ways to arrest and remove people outside the priority groups, raising questions about implementation and accountability [4]. Those protections were later rescinded by the subsequent administration, which directed ICE can operate in such areas, demonstrating the fragility of policy shields [5] [7].
4. Investments, detention planning, and pressure to speed removals
The administration proposed increases to CBP and ICE budgets, including contingency funds and detention capacity initiatives intended to handle surges and fast-track asylum and removal processes—moves that critics said undercut hopes for a less punitive system [8] [3]. Internal ICE planning documents revealed consideration of detention expansion and fast-track mechanisms to accelerate decisions, which corresponded with higher removal totals once those systems were activated [3].
5. Accountability gaps and competing narratives about who was targeted
Advocates documented instances where ICE actions diverged from the stated priorities, with reports that many arrested or removed people lacked serious criminal convictions—fueling criticism that discretion was unevenly applied [4] [2]. Meanwhile, defenders pointed to increases in removals and diplomatic repatriations as evidence the administration was enforcing immigration laws responsibly; migration-policy analysis noted large numbers of repatriations in FY2024 but also emphasized that many were border returns rather than interior ICE-initiated arrests [2].
6. Big-picture: policy vs. practice and the political swing factor
The core difference under this administration was an effort to replace blanket interior enforcement with prioritized, bureaucratically constrained enforcement and faster removal pathways at the border—yet implementation gaps, budget and detention planning, and later reversals by the next administration created a policy record that looks both more restrained and more punitive depending on which metric (interior arrests, detentions, border returns, or total repatriations) is used [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting limitations prevent a definitive accounting of every internal decision, but the evidence shows the administration retooled ICE’s mandate while leaving room for both expanded removals and continued enforcement discretion abuses [4] [3].