Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Arrests of Immigrants With No Criminal Record up More Than 1,000%, While Criminal Arrests Rise 55%: The Change at ICE Under Trump Administration

News

Arrests of Immigrants With No Criminal Record up More Than 1,000%, While Criminal Arrests Rise 55%: The Change at ICE Under Trump Administration

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second presidential term in January 2025, detentions of immigrants without criminal records increased more than 10-fold

Getty Images, fudfoto

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second presidential term in January 2025, detentions of immigrants without criminal records increased more than 10-fold: from 1,048 detainees to 11,972 (an increase of 1,042%), according to public data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency in charge of immigration enforcement within the United States

In the same period (January 1 to June 28, 2025), the number of detainees with criminal records rose by 55%, from 9,741 to 15,141.


ICE data also show that fewer arrests are happening at border crossings and more are occurring throughout the rest of the country.

The increase in arrests of people without a criminal record, according to experts consulted by Factchequeado, is due to changes in immigration policies and measures taken by the Republican administration.

Puedes leer esta nota en español haciendo clic aquí.

Lauren DesRosiers, professor and director of the Immigration Law Clinic at the P. Swyer Justice Center at Albany Law School, told Factchequeadothat the arrests increased because the Trump administration rescinded immigration enforcement priorities implemented under President Joe Biden, a democrat. The Biden administration had prioritized arrests of individuals with “certain serious convictions,” DesRosiers said.

Another factor, according to DeRosiers and Florence Otaigbe-Nkwocha, an immigration attorney and member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), is the daily arrest “quotas” imposed on ICE agents. As reported by media outlets such as AlJazeera or Reuters, at the end of May 2025, the Trump administration increased the daily arrest quota from 1,000 per day to 3,000 immigrants. California Democratic Congressman Mark Takano also said on June 25, 2025, that the quota “does not force them to focus on felons and violent criminals" during a speech on the House floor in a special session titled "Holding Power Accountable."

Otaigbe-Nkwocha also cited other contributing factors, such as the rescinding of an October 2021 memo that prohibited immigration enforcement actions near or inside protected areas, like schools, hospitals, or religious sites, and the suspension of an April 27, 2021 memo that prohibited immigration enforcement near courthouses.

"Enforcement has increased due to ICE having more access to areas where they can arrest people," Otaigbe-Nkwocha told Factchequeado. "With how easy it is today to arrest in almost any location now, it could be said that this directly correlates to the increase," he added.

What the data say: fewer arrests at border crossings, more in the rest of the country

Since the beginning of Trump's second term, ICE arrests have become less common at border crossings and more frequent in the rest of the country. For example, looking at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) apprehensions data, there were 460 arrests per day in the last quarter of 2024 (October, November and December). That figure dropped to an average of 170 arrests per day (14,264 per month) beginning in January 2025.

In contrast, data on immigrants detained by ICE in the rest of the country (non-border areas) show that the average daily number of arrests rose from 262 people in the last quarter of 2024 to 666 detainees per day as of January 2025, with a peak of 1,011 detainees per day in June (a total of 30,328 were detained in that month, according to data collected by Factchequeado through June 28).

ICE also classifies both ICE and CBP arrests into three categories based on the detainees’ criminal history.

These are the official ICE definitions:

  • Convicted criminal: people who have violated immigration laws and who already had a criminal conviction when they were detained by ICE.
  • Pending criminal charges: people who have violated immigration laws and had unresolved criminal charges at the time they were detained by ICE.
  • Other immigration violator: people who have violated immigration laws, but had no criminal convictions or pending criminal charges at the time they were detained by ICE.

Among all immigrants detained by ICE, those classified as "other immigration violators," i.e., those with no criminal history, rose from 7% (1,048) in January 2025 to 29% (11,972) in June 2025. Meanwhile, those arrested under the "pending criminal charges" category accounted for 31% (4,747) in January and rose to 33% (13,560) by June 2025.

In contrast, the percentage of detainees classified as "convicted of a crime" dropped from 63% (9,741) to 37% (15,141) of the total number of arrestees over the same period.

John Sandweg, former acting director of ICE during Barack Obama's presidency, told ABC News, " for the last probably 15 years at least, the majority of ICE arrests, people booked into ICE custody or ICE apprehensions, were individuals apprehended at the border."

"The problem is that you are now engaged in operations that are, frankly, more likely to find non-criminals than criminals," Sandweg added in the ABC article, which also found in ICE data that the current administration is increasingly arresting immigrants without criminal records.

An analysis by the Cato Institute, a nonpartisan, independent public policy research organization that "promotes libertarian ideas", of non-public ICE data found that 65% of those detained between October 1, 2024, and June 14, 2025, had no criminal record, and more than 93% have never been convicted of violent crimes.

84% of ICE detainees are considered "non-threat level" individuals

The data also shows the criminal history of immigrants held in ICE detention centers.

The agency classifies detainees into four categories::

  • ICE Threat Level 1: Includes aggravated felonies, violence, major drugs, terrorism or threats to national security. These individuals are ICE's highest priority.
  • ICE Threat Level 2: Includes crimes not as serious as Level 1, but still significant (fraud, weapons, multiple misdemeanors). They are a medium-high priority.
  • ICE Threat Level 3: Includes individuals with one or two non-violent misdemeanors. Low priority for ICE, although may be subject to action.
  • No ICE Threat Level: Individuals with no criminal convictions. Generally undocumented migrants with no criminal history. Low priority under current policy, but still subject to deportation depending on political or legal context.

According to data collected as of June 23, 84% (39,722 individuals) of immigrants held in detention centers were classified under the "No ICE Threat Level" category. Threat Level 1 accounted for 7% (3,371 people); Level 2 for 4% (1,801); and Level 3 for 5% (2,338). The majority of detainees in all categories are held in detention centers in Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, California, and Georgia.

The percentages of each group has remained relatively the same since fiscal year (FY) 2022. However, between 2019 and 2021 (during part of the previous Trump administration) immigrants with no criminal history accounted for about 62%, while those at ICE Threat Level 1 made up 17%.

Jacqueline Watson, an immigration attorney and second national vice president of AILA, told Factchequeado that the data show that most immigrants in ICE detention centers have no criminal history "because immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native-born population," contrary to what is repeated on social media. In this Factchequeadoarticle, we explained that there is no data showing a "crime wave" caused by immigrants, and in this article, we explained that immigrants have lower incarceration rates than U.S.-born individuals.


Graphic: Ignacio Ferreiro.

Data also shows that FY 2025 has already surpassed the number of detainees in detention centers in FY 2019 (46,304). As of June 23, 2025, there were 47,232 individuals in detention centers and there are still three months left in the fiscal year (which runs from October 1, 2024, to September 30, 2025).

Data on immigrants in detention centers do not include certain facilities classified as:

Arrests of Immigrants With No Criminal Record up More Than 1,000%, While Criminal Arrests Rise 55%: The Change at ICE Under Trump Administration was originally published by Factchequeado and is republished with permission.


Read More

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less