ICE and the Weasel : A Firebrand Investigation

An Investigation into ICE Detention Facilities and Government-Sanctioned Human Trafficking.

---

ICE and the Weasel: A Firebrand Investigation

What happens after ICE takes someone? Most Americans don’t know—and that’s exactly how it’s meant to be.

Firebrands and new readers alike,

For many of you this will be your first firebrand investigation.

In essence a firebrand investigation is where I take the Socratic method and apply it in depth to find answers that are hidden from us.

This investigation started out as I sought to find the truth about where those being abducted by ICE are being taken.

How many people are being deported vs being detained?

Where are they being taken?

What facilities are holding them?

Who owns and runs them?

How does ICE select quotas, set operation parameters, and compensate agents?

It was this last question that exposed the weasel, in its arrival, the nature of the entire investigation changed.

Such is the power of the Socratic method, each question breeds another question— the true answer so often lies beneath a mountain of questions we never would think to ask without looking.

Socratic investigations begin not with the goal of uncovering, but simply seeking to understand reality.

So here we are— here is the truth as best I’ve been able to uncover about ICE and its campaign of terror, and the weasel no one knew about who is calling the shots.

The First Question: How many people are being deported vs. detained?

This is where we begin—naturally, it’s the question on everyone’s mind.

With the visible uptick in ICE apprehensions—masked men flooding the streets, the American Gestapo in full form—it’s impossible not to wonder: where are all these people going?

We’ve seen this before. Hitler’s loyalist police, dressed in civility but carrying out atrocity. It always starts with a round-up.

And when someone is taken into custody, they must be held somewhere.

At first glance, it all appears to be in the name of deportation. That’s the line we’re fed. But I suspected that was a cover—and I dug deeper.

Let’s break this down:

• ICE has reportedly made around 100,000 interior apprehensions—that is, arrests made within the United States, not near the border.

• Deportation flights can only carry about 100–150 people per plane.

• On June 6th, ICE detained 1,300 people; on June 7th, over 2,000.

• ICE’s newly announced daily quota is 3,000 detentions per day.

• But ICE’s maximum holding capacity, as funded by Congress, is 41,500 beds.

That means within just 14 days, they would max out their capacity—assuming every bed was empty at the start of the month.

So how do they stay under the limit?

Well, if they’re detaining 3,000 people per day, they’d need to deport at least 1,500–2,000 daily to keep pace. But here’s the problem:

They’re not even close.

ICE manages to deport about 259 people per day. That’s just 1,800 a week.

This is nowhere near the numbers needed to balance the intake. And no, this doesn’t include border apprehensions, which are handled through rapid pushbacks and don’t require flights. We’re talking strictly interior operations here.

So the math doesn’t lie.

The vast majority of people being taken aren’t being deported.

They’re being held.

Which means we’ve answered our first question—and uncovered a dark truth hiding behind bureaucratic math:

The regime isn’t deporting fast enough to match apprehensions. That means thousands—possibly tens of thousands—are being disappeared into the system.

Phase Two of the Investigation:

• Where are they being taken?

• What facilities are holding them?

• Who owns and runs those facilities?

Early in the regime’s rise to power, there were clues about where these people would be held.

And like all things in American “politics” these days, the first real hints showed up in the stock market.

Two private prison giants—GEO Group and CoreCivic Inc.—saw massive surges in investment. The kind of buying you only see when insiders know something big is coming. Both companies began preparing for an overhaul in operations to meet a demand more horrific than most Americans could imagine.

A leaked business call from GEO confirmed it: executives openly discussed scaling to meet “an influx of clients”—code for an explosion in human detentions.

These are not traditional detention centers. These are privatized labor camps:

• Detainees receive as little as $1 a day for work.

• They’re required to clean, cook, and maintain the very facilities detaining them.

• These corporations cut costs by turning prisoners into unpaid janitors.

• It’s modern-day slavery—profit made by turning humans into infrastructure.

Federal facilities were nowhere near equipped for what ICE was about to unleash. With a stated goal of 1 million deportations in a year, the math was impossible.

At the time of writing, there are over 56,000 people detained—with ICE reporting 135% occupancy across its detention network.

That number tells you all you need to know. We’re not deporting fast enough.

We’re building a domestic prison empire.

And who’s profiting?

Private corporations.

The long-term goal, as publicly stated by Stephen Miller—yes, the weasel—is 100,000 beds. That would require ICE to more than double its capacity.

The vast majority of those beds? Not ICE-owned.

Of the 142 active detention facilities, only 5 or 6 are ICE-operated.

Here’s how it breaks down:

• CoreCivic runs at least 40–45 facilities

• GEO Group controls another 35–40

• Another 40–50 are operated by state and local authorities under federal contract

Together, GEO and CoreCivic run more than 86% of the total detainee population. And every new quota, every new ICE directive, means more revenue for them.

The infrastructure is expanding—not for deportation, but for indefinite detention.

And that brings us to the geography of this system.

---

Geographic Breakdown of ICE Detention Facilities (2025)

(Top states, operator info, and key facilities)

Texas – 12,600+ detainees

• Operators: GEO Group, CoreCivic, ICE

• Major Sites:

• South Texas ICE Processing Center – GEO

• Dilley Family Residential Center – CoreCivic

• Port Isabel – ICE-owned

Louisiana – 7,300+ detainees

• Operators: LaSalle Corrections, GEO, CoreCivic

• Facilities: Winn, Jackson Parish, Richwood, Jena

Georgia – 3,600+ detainees

• Operators: CoreCivic, GEO, Counties

• Stewart Detention Center houses nearly 2,000 alone

Arizona – 2,900+ detainees

• Operators: CoreCivic, ICE

• Facilities: Eloy, Florence Processing Centers

Mississippi – 2,200+ detainees

• Operator: CoreCivic

• Site: Adams County Correctional Center

California, Florida, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Ohio round out the top 10.

The Takeaway

These facilities are disproportionately located in MAGA loyalist states, where local governments are politically aligned with the regime and eager to profit. State laws ensure cooperation. Sheriffs sign detention contracts. Oversight is minimal.

Do you think these same people are going to care about conditions? About overcrowding?

They’re already at 135% capacity and still expanding.

If all of this were just about temporary holding before deportation, we’d see investment in faster processing and mass repatriation logistics. But that’s not what’s happening.

What’s growing is the detention infrastructure itself.

This isn’t a system designed to send people home.

It’s a system designed to disappear them.

If this is the best-case scenario, then we’re already living in a nightmare. But it’s hard to believe it ends here.

Because when you look closer—at the violence, the rapid operational change, the secrecy—another truth begins to emerge.

There’s a darker force behind this. One with an ideology. A goal. A blueprint.

It all becomes obvious when you start asking the right questions.

Now we ask one more: Who is the weasel?

Enter Stephen Miller.

The Weasel

The weasel came into focus as I was looking into the dramatic shifts in ICE’s policies. When considering the big picture—what is actually being executed here—it became clear that it is personal. You can feel the hate and loathing in every part of this maniacal plan. You can see the guiding hand taking small, offhand rules and laws and twisting them into a means of consolidating local forces into a pseudo-army.

The escalation, the complete disdain for humane conditions—the mastermind of this could never be Trump. Nor could it be Noem.

This plan is not simply evil—it’s insidious. And in all of its moral violations… it’s a good plan.

That might be the worst part.

I’m not going to dig into Stephen Miller’s past. I’ll save that for another time.

The man doing this is pathetic. He’s never been popular. He’s always been hateful, racist, and openly admired the Nazi regime. He’s always loathed democracy and equality.

He’s spent his life studying how to dismantle America and how to institute a regime that could carry out his dark fantasies of recreating a holocaust of his own—his vision of white supremacy made real through force of will.

Despite all of that, he is a weak, pathetic man. He must hate himself to do such evil unto others. He must hate that he is lazy and weak, because he targets those with work ethic.

He must hate people different from him because he knows that he is insignificant.

He must seek power over others because he has no esteem for himself.

All that said—while Trump has been throwing the news cycle into chaos daily as his mind deteriorates—the weasel has been hard at work.

Stephen Miller, the rodent who has soiled the White House behind the wall of orange, has turned ICE into an army. One capable of far more than simple apprehension, and much bigger than anyone thought possible.

The weasel is the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. He has no jurisdictional authority over ICE whatsoever.

That hasn’t stopped him from taking control of it. Kristi Noem is not calling the shots—Miller is 100% in control.

After Trump took office, Miller carved up the agency and replaced its leadership with loyalists, effectively creating a de facto army where he is the commander-in-chief.

The recent escalations have not come from the President—they come from the lips of Stephen Miller as he summons ICE leadership to berate them and demand 3,000 detentions a day.

He threatens those who fail to carry out operations fast enough with termination.

Below is a list of actions he has taken in just six months, along with a quick summary:

How Stephen Miller Took Control of ICE and Transformed Immigration Enforcement (2025)

1. Positioned himself at the center of immigration policy

• Returned to the White House in 2025 as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, a role with no statutory control over ICE.

• Used this position to circumvent DHS leadership and directly influence operational agencies like ICE and CBP.

2. Orchestrated ICE leadership purges

• In February 2025, ICE’s acting director was abruptly reassigned after failing to meet arrest goals.

• In May, Miller pushed out ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations chief and reshuffled field leadership to ensure loyalty and compliance.

3. Issued arrest quotas directly to ICE officials

• On May 21, Miller held a closed-door meeting at ICE headquarters where he demanded 3,000 arrests per day, tripling the then-current rate.

• According to sources, he scolded ICE leaders personally, making it clear their jobs depended on hitting those numbers.

4. Directed ICE’s operational tactics

• Ordered agents to target any undocumented individual, regardless of criminal history.

• Told field teams to prioritize numbers over strategy, even if that meant sweeping raids at Home Depot parking lots, courthouses, or immigration check-ins.

• Encouraged ICE to abandon targeted enforcement in favor of visible mass apprehensions.

5. Bypassed DHS and ICE chains of command

• Contacted ICE field offices directly, skipping over the ICE director and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

• Created a parallel influence structure through task forces and informal councils at the White House that functionally override agency leadership.

6. Installed ideological allies in key roles

• Appointed Tom Homan (former ICE director and longtime Miller ally) as “Border Czar” reporting directly to the White House.

• Coordinated daily with enforcement hardliners embedded across DHS, including senior aides from his America First Legal network.

7. Reinstated family detention and mass interior enforcement

• Reopened the South Texas Family Residential Center (Dilley) and Karnes County Residential Center for family detention—both previously shut down under Biden.

• Oversaw the expansion of detention facilities across the South and Midwest, pushing ICE to contract with shuttered prisons and military bases.

8. Used public platforms to apply pressure

• Appeared on Fox News and other conservative outlets to declare enforcement targets and telegraph consequences for underperformance.

• Labeled protests and legal resistance to ICE raids as “insurrection,” advocating military responses and broader crackdowns.

9. Pushed for legal overhauls to eliminate oversight

• Promoted the dismantling of DHS’s Office of the Detention Ombudsman and Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, both of which monitored ICE abuses.

• Advocated legal frameworks that reduce judicial review and speed up deportations, including expanded use of expedited removal.

10. Integrated surveillance infrastructure to scale operations

• Coordinated with Palantir Technologies (in which he holds stock) to upgrade ICE’s data analytics platforms, enabling real-time monitoring of detainees and enforcement trends.

• Supported efforts to build a master data system combining information across IRS, HHS, and DHS to locate and track undocumented individuals nationwide.

Miller hasn’t merely been advising ICE—he has re-made ICE in his image.

The scariest part is that he’s found a way to expand his influence even further.

Here’s how the weasel made an army of scum:

1. Using an Old Law to Turn Local Cops into ICE Agents

• Section 287(g) of the 1996 immigration law lets ICE deputize local police and sheriffs.

• Under Trump and Miller in 2025, ICE has signed over 700 of these agreements in more than 40 states.

• This allows local officers to detain people for immigration violations, even during routine traffic stops or minor arrests.

2. Giving Federal Agents New Immigration Powers

• Trump issued executive orders in 2025 allowing State Department agents, U.S. Marshals, and even FBI or DEA agents to assist ICE operations.

• These are not immigration officers, but now they’re being used to bulk up ICE’s numbers.

3. Calling It a “National Emergency” to Expand Powers

• On Day One, Trump declared immigration a national emergency, calling it an “invasion.”

• This allowed the administration to bypass rules, deploy military police, and fast-track deportations with fewer court hearings.

4. Even Military and Border Units Are Getting Involved

• In cities like Los Angeles, National Guard troops and military police have supported ICE raids.

• Some decommissioned military bases are being repurposed into detention centers.

Bottom Line

Stephen Miller has built a national immigration police army by:

• Giving local cops ICE powers,

• Pulling in federal agents from other departments,

• Using emergency powers to override legal constraints,

• And removing oversight that might slow him down.

This is no longer just ICE—it’s ICE plus local sheriffs, federal marshals, and military units, all following a blueprint Miller has been refining for years.

Miller now wields more power than most generals. He has undone the restraints on his authority, and ICE has become something else entirely.

It is a private military—carrying out abductions, relocating people to detention centers, and trafficking human beings for profit under the guise of enforcement.

That is the weasel.

But more importantly, here lies the truth:

We aren’t fighting Trump. We are fighting Miller.

We can beat him—but we have to understand him. Unlike the rest of the Trump regime, he is not loud or erratic. He is quiet. Calculating. Dangerous.

He will use our own perverted legal system and antiquated laws to tear families apart and expand his power.

The oligarchy needed a secret police.

And Miller’s Gestapo is here to do the job.

So Firebrands—what can we do?

The first thing is this: make sure everyone sees this.

No more being distracted by the fireworks. No more watching the puppet show while the real hand moves in the dark.

We are watching a Hitler fanboy carry out his own version of the Holocaust—in real time.

If you’ve ever wondered what it was like for the Germans in the 1930s—this is it.

Silence is not an option.

Make this investigation go viral.

We must shine a light on this, or we will be remembered as the ones who allowed the darkness to spread.

Below this, I will attach all of my research.

Comb through my findings.

Find new threads.

Pull them.

Burn Bright.

---

---

---

Research Bulk - For Firebrands who want to dig deeper.

Status and Operations of ICE Detention Facilities under the 2025 Trump Administration

Introduction

In 2025, the United States’ immigration enforcement regime has undergone a dramatic expansion under President Donald Trump’s return to office. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – the agency charged with interior immigration enforcement and detention – is detaining a record number of people and carrying out aggressive nationwide operations. This report examines the current status of ICE detention facilities and operations, including facility numbers and management, detainee populations and capacity, enforcement statistics, key private contractors and stakeholders, conditions and compliance issues, enforcement tactics and policies, and ICE personnel structures. It also proposes further research avenues to explore broader impacts of these developments. The findings draw on official sources (ICE, DHS), watchdog and NGO reports, investigative journalism, and court documents to provide a comprehensive overview.

Number and Distribution of ICE Detention Facilities

ICE’s detention network has grown significantly in 2025. As of mid-2025, ICE is using approximately 142–144 facilities across the United States to hold immigrant detainees . This marks about a 30% increase in the number of facilities compared to late 2024 . Many of these are clustered in the South (especially Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arizona and Georgia), which host some of the largest detention centers in the country . ICE has actively expanded capacity by contracting with additional county jails and reopening shuttered prisons to serve as new detention centers . For example, in early 2025 ICE moved to open large new centers in Leavenworth, Kansas, Baldwin, Michigan, and California City, California, each capable of holding 1,800–2,000 people, by repurposing former prisons . ICE has also explored using military bases (like Fort Bliss in Texas) as temporary holding sites, and even offshore facilities – transferring some migrants to the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba to alleviate mainland capacity constraints .

Figure: Map of major ICE detention facilities as of early 2025. Circle size denotes average daily detainee population; larger clusters are evident in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi . Over 140 facilities are in use nationwide, a sharp rise from 115 at the start of the year .

The geographic distribution of detention centers heavily skews toward the South. Texas alone accounts for the largest share of detainees (over 12,600 in FY2025 to date), followed by Louisiana (~7,300) and other border or southeastern states . The top five largest ICE detention facilities (by population) illustrate this concentration, with all five located in southern states:

• Adams County Detention Center – Natchez, Mississippi (CoreCivic-operated) – ~2,166 detainees on an average day .

• Stewart Detention Center – Lumpkin, Georgia (CoreCivic) – ~1,828 detainees .

• South Texas ICE Processing Center – Pearsall, Texas (GEO Group) – ~1,662 detainees .

• Winn Correctional Center – Winnfield, Louisiana (LaSalle Corrections) – ~1,545 detainees .

• Eloy Federal Contract Facility – Eloy, Arizona (CoreCivic) – ~1,370 detainees .

These five facilities alone detain more than 10% of ICE’s total population on any given day . Overall, the surge in facility use reflects the Trump administration’s drive to substantially increase detention capacity toward a goal of 100,000 beds nationwide . By April 2025, ICE reported its “available detention capacity” had grown to nearly 59,916 beds across its network , and further expansions are in progress. Congress is considering massive funding increases (a House bill would devote $150 billion, including support for 100,000 detention beds) to support Trump’s expanded detention and deportation agenda .

Facility Operators: Federal, Private, and Local

ICE detention facilities are operated through a mix of federal, private, and inter-governmental arrangements. A small number of ICE facilities are owned by ICE or other federal agencies (often termed Service Processing Centers), but the vast majority are run by private prison companies or local government entities under contract. In fact, as of 2025 86% of ICE detainees are held in facilities managed by for-profit corporations . All of the 20 largest ICE detention centers are operated by private companies . The primary private contractors are CoreCivic, Inc. and GEO Group, Inc., which together oversee the bulk of the detained population . CoreCivic (formerly CCA) and GEO run many of the largest centers – for example, CoreCivic manages Adams County (MS), Stewart (GA), Otay Mesa (CA) and others, while GEO Group operates big facilities like South Texas (Pearsall), Aurora/Denver (CO), and Karnes County (TX) . Other private firms are also involved: LaSalle Corrections (a Louisiana-based company) runs regional jails used by ICE (e.g. Winn and Richwood in Louisiana), and Management & Training Corporation (MTC) operates facilities such as the Otero County Processing Center (New Mexico) and IAH Polk County center (Texas) . Even some ICE-owned centers contract out their management – for instance, the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Texas is overseen by a contractor (Ahtna Technical Services) .

In addition to private companies, numerous county and city jails detain immigrants through Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs). These local jails hold ICE detainees alongside criminal inmates (typically under 72-hour or longer arrangements) and receive a daily fee per detainee from ICE. Examples range from big county jails (like those in South Georgia or Arizona) to smaller facilities that may hold only a few immigration detainees. In total, ICE had over 140 active detention agreements in mid-2025, including dozens of new contracts with county sheriffs and local authorities signed in the first half of 2025 . ICE has explicitly reached out to local law enforcement agencies to expand this network, viewing them as “force multipliers” for detention space .

Federal oversight and standards: Regardless of operator, all facilities housing ICE detainees are supposed to adhere to ICE’s detention standards (such as the National Detention Standards or Performance-Based National Detention Standards) . ICE’s Custody Management Division claims to monitor compliance through on-site reviews and audits . However, as discussed later, oversight has been weakened in 2025, raising concerns about whether contractors and local partners are meeting basic legal and humanitarian requirements.

Capacity vs. Population: Overcrowding in ICE Facilities

The Trump administration’s crackdown has led to record numbers of immigrants in detention, straining capacity. By June 2025 ICE held around 59,000 detainees in custody – an all-time high and about 140% of the capacity Congress funded (41,500 beds) . This eclipses the previous peak of ~55,000 detainees in 2019 and is a ~50% jump from the roughly 39,000 detained at the end of 2024 . In effect, ICE is detaining far more people than it is budgeted for, forcing the agency to overcrowd facilities and seek emergency space. ICE and DHS officials have even floated converting additional sites (like defunct prisons or military bases) into holding centers to accommodate the influx .

At the facility level, many centers are at or over their intended capacities. ICE does not publicly report real-time population vs. capacity for each facility, but available data and reports show widespread overcrowding. By April 2025, at least five major ICE facilities had average daily populations exceeding their contracted capacity limits . For example, Prairieland Detention Center in Texas (operated by LaSalle) has an official capacity of 707 detainees; its population in the first half of FY2025 averaged about 684 and was at times maxed out – detainees reported sleeping on thin mats on the concrete floor when beds ran out . The Adams County Correctional Center (MS) holds over 2,100 detainees on an average day, essentially full against its roughly 2,200-bed capacity . ICE acknowledged that “some facilities are operating above contracted capacity” and said it has had to shuffle detainees between sites to relieve pressure . ICE standards do technically allow going over capacity with prior ICE permission if certain safety measures are met , but this emergency leeway is being widely used in 2025.

The table below illustrates select facility capacities and populations (for those with available data):

Facility (Location) Operator Contracted Capacity Average Daily Population (FY 2025)

Adams County Detention Center (MS) CoreCivic ~2,200 ~2,135 detainees (near 100% capacity)

Prairieland Detention Center (TX) LaSalle Corp. 707 ~684 detainees (Oct 2024–Mar 2025 avg, ~97% capacity)

Stewart Detention Center (GA) CoreCivic ~1,750 (est.) ~1,828 detainees (FY2025 avg) (exceeds capacity)

South TX ICE Processing Ctr (TX) GEO Group 1,904 (contracted)† ~1,662 detainees (FY2025 avg) (87% of capacity)

Winn Correctional Center (LA) LaSalle Corp. ~1,300 (est.) ~1,545 detainees (FY2025 avg) (exceeds capacity)

† South Texas ICE Processing Center’s capacity is listed as 1,904 in a 2019 ICE facility document.

As shown, many large centers are operating at or above full capacity, and overall ICE detention levels “stretch capacity to the limit” . Overcrowding has tangible consequences: reports describe detainees packed into any available space – sleeping on floors in hallways or makeshift dorms, being held in conference rooms with no toilets, and lack of basic equipment like enough beds or chairs for detainees to sit and eat . Even ICE officials admit the system is under “crush of people” it was unprepared for . Despite these conditions, the administration has continued to seek even more detention capacity, asking Congress for billions to support tens of thousands of additional beds . State governments aligned with Trump have offered help – notably Florida proposed building new state-run immigration jails (e.g. a mooted “Alligator Alcatraz” in the Everglades) with federal funding support . ICE’s goal, spearheaded by border security advisor Thomas Homan, is to quickly expand to 100,000 detention beds nationally , essentially tripling the detained population compared to a year prior . This rapid expansion raises serious questions about maintaining standards, as discussed later in this report.

2025 Enforcement Statistics: Apprehensions vs. Deportations

The Trump administration has set record-high targets for immigration enforcement in 2025. President Trump campaigned on removing “millions” of undocumented immigrants, and internal goals have been calibrated accordingly . A DHS budget document disclosed an aim to deport 1 million immigrants per year – a figure vastly above recent norms .

Apprehensions (ICE arrests): ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) has dramatically increased arrest activity in the U.S. interior. From January 20, 2025 (the start of Trump’s term) to early June 2025, ICE agents arrested over 100,000 individuals for civil immigration violations . This equates to roughly 750 arrests per day, which is about double the daily average under the previous decade . Moreover, the pace has accelerated: by June, ICE was reportedly carrying out about 2,000 arrests each day , especially after new quotas were imposed in late May. Top White House advisor Stephen Miller and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem directed ICE in May to ramp up to 3,000 arrests per day, tripling the rate from earlier in the year . This aggressive quota (which would surpass 1 million arrests in a year) was delivered in a tense meeting with ICE leadership, underscoring the intense pressure on agents to dramatically boost numbers . Initially, ICE struggled to meet even the lower targets – in the first 100 days (through April), ICE made about 66,000 arrests (≈660 per day), falling short of the 1,200–1,500/day quota set in January . Dissatisfied, officials “increased the teams” and enlisted help from other agencies, leading to the current higher arrest tempo . By mid-June, ICE arrests had topped 100,000 in under five months and continued to climb. The majority of these arrests (over 70%) are happening in the U.S. interior – i.e. people taken into custody away from the border – a reversal from the previous administration’s focus on border cases .

Removals (Deportations): Despite the huge number of apprehensions, the administration has faced challenges in converting arrests into deportations. ICE’s removal of individuals from the country has not (yet) risen at the same pace as arrests. In roughly the first four months of 2025, an estimated 200,000 people were deported (removed) under Trump’s authority . Paradoxically, this figure lagged behind the same period a year earlier (Feb–May 2024), when about 257,000 deportations occurred under President Biden . The key reason is that under Biden, border arrests were extremely high, leading to many rapid deportations of recent crossers . In 2025, by contrast, illegal border crossings have plunged to historic lows (monthly apprehensions at the southern border fell to their lowest levels since 2000) after Trump implemented new asylum bans and deterrence policies. Thus, the pool of readily deportable recent border-crossers shrank, and Trump’s enforcement is sweeping up long-time residents who often fight their cases – slowing the deportation pipeline. ICE is attempting to fast-track removals through measures like invoking rarely-used expedited removal laws (for example, using a wartime-era law to designate certain arrestees, like alleged gang members, for deportation without a full hearing) . The administration has also pursued third-country agreements to deport people to nations besides their country of origin (e.g. sending Venezuelan nationals to Mexico, El Salvador or Panama) . Even so, the logistical and legal barriers mean actual deportations, while high, are not yet approaching the promised “millions.” Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan acknowledged in late May that they were “not satisfied” with the numbers, pressing for faster removals .

To summarize the 2025 year-to-date statistics (approximate, as of June 2025):

• ICE interior apprehensions: ~100,000 (Jan–early June 2025), trending toward ~750–2,000 per day as enforcement escalated . The administration’s target is 3,000 arrests daily .

• Removals (deportations): ~200,000 (approx. Jan–May 2025) . This includes both ICE removals and those processed from Border Patrol custody. The pace is slightly below 2024’s, but the administration aims to increase it significantly (goal of 1,000,000 per year) .

The gap between arrests and deportations indicates a growing detainee backlog – tens of thousands are being held in detention awaiting immigration court proceedings or travel documents for removal. Many recent arrestees have final deportation orders (because the Trump administration expanded arrests of those who had been checking in with ICE or had prior orders) , but even in those cases, executing removal can take time. In some instances, ICE has attempted mass deportation operations only to be halted by courts (for example, a plan to deport individuals to a country where they weren’t citizens was blocked by a judge) . Overall, 2025 has seen record enforcement activity but deportation output constrained by legal and logistical factors. The administration is pursuing changes to speed this up, including curtailing asylum, stripping protections like Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from hundreds of thousands of long-term U.S. residents (thereby making them deportable), and pressuring ICE leadership and field offices to maximize removals.

Key Players and Profiteers in ICE Operations

The massive scale-up of ICE detention and deportation operations in 2025 has significantly benefited a web of private companies and contractors that service ICE, as well as certain government actors at federal and local levels. Key players include:

• Private prison corporations: The two dominant companies are CoreCivic, Inc. and GEO Group, Inc. Together, these firms manage the majority of ICE detention beds and have multi-billion dollar contracts with ICE . They directly operate facilities (as noted earlier) and often provide personnel (guards, wardens, etc.), food services, and infrastructure. With Trump’s renewed crackdown, their businesses are booming. In a May 2025 investor call, CoreCivic’s CEO celebrated that “never in our 42-year history have we had so much activity and demand for our services as we are seeing right now”, noting the company exceeded expectations for revenue and profit in Q1 2025 . CoreCivic has secured new ICE contracts for a 1,033-bed prison in Kansas and a 2,560-bed facility in California City, CA, and re-opened the 2,400-bed South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, TX (previously closed under Biden) to detain immigrant families – a single site expected to bring in $180 million per year . GEO Group likewise expressed “excitement” about the mass detention and deportation campaign boosting its revenues . Notably, these companies are publicly traded, and their stock prices and investor confidence have risen with Trump’s policies . Financial stakeholders, including major investment funds and executives, stand to profit handsomely. (For example, GEO Group’s top executives gave maximum donations to Trump’s 2024 campaign and the company’s PAC gave $5,000 directly, anticipating favorable policies . GEO even contributed an extra $500,000 to a pro-Trump Super PAC in early 2024 . The payoff is clear: during Trump’s first term, GEO saw a record number of new federal contracts – 87 contracts in FY2020 alone – and Trump has promised further expansion with “vast holding facilities” that would presumably be run by these firms .)

• Other private contractors: Besides CoreCivic and GEO, several other companies form part of ICE’s detention machinery. As mentioned, regional private prison firms like LaSalle Corrections and MTC operate multiple ICE centers, especially in Louisiana, Texas, and New Mexico . Security services and transportation companies have also seen increased business – e.g. CoreCivic noted it purchased 120 new buses and vans in early 2025 to expand ICE transportation capacity, anticipating heavy use in moving detainees between facilities and to airports for deportation flights . There are contractors for nearly every aspect of detention: medical care (often provided by companies like Wellpath), telephone and commissary services (which charge detainees fees), and charter flight operators for removals (private airlines under ICE Air contracts). The full network constitutes a “deportation-industrial complex” of for-profit entities whose interests align with tougher enforcement.

• Federal contractors and defense agencies: In 2025 ICE has even tapped into Department of Defense resources and other federal agencies. The administration reached into the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system to use idle prison space and is utilizing Defense Department sites (like the Guantánamo base) for overflow detention . These moves often involve contracts with defense contractors or inter-agency agreements. Additionally, surveillance and tech companies (for Alternatives to Detention programs, etc.) could be considered stakeholders, though detention expansion has been the primary focus over monitoring programs.

• Local governments and law enforcement: Many county governments benefit financially from housing ICE detainees. Under IGSA contracts, ICE pays counties a daily per diem for each detainee, and often guarantees a minimum payment regardless of occupancy (a “bed guarantee” clause). This can represent substantial income for some rural counties. For instance, Adams County, Mississippi (home of the large CoreCivic prison) was previously receiving $0.50 per detainee per day, yielding around $400,000 annually; in 2025, as the facility stays near its 2,200 capacity, the county negotiated that rate up to $1.00 per detainee, which would double its revenue to over $800,000 a year . Officials noted other counties get as much as $2 per head per day and pushed to maximize their share . Local sheriffs’ departments also profit indirectly when ICE fills their jail beds (bringing jobs and federal dollars). This creates a perverse incentive for some localities to support aggressive ICE enforcement so that their detention contract remains lucrative. States like Florida and Texas have openly embraced partnering with ICE – Florida not only passed laws requiring counties to honor ICE detention requests but is building new state-run facilities specifically for immigration detainees, funded by DHS . Such arrangements mean state contractors and political appointees may also become players in the system’s expansion. On the other hand, some jurisdictions that previously moved to limit ICE detention (e.g. certain New Jersey counties, or states like Illinois that tried to ban private immigration jails) are now seeing those policies reversed or bypassed by the federal push .

• Political stakeholders and advocates: The drive to intensify immigration enforcement has been shaped by key figures such as Stephen Miller (Trump’s immigration advisor) and Tom Homan (Trump’s “border czar” and former ICE director). They act as policy architects pushing for maximum enforcement and detention . At the same time, campaign donors and lobbyists form an influence network sustaining these policies. Private prison companies have donated generously to Trump and allied politicians (GEO Group’s PAC contributions and six-figure gifts to pro-Trump PACs are one example ), presumably to ensure continued support for ICE contracts. Meanwhile, organized interests on the other side – immigrant rights groups, civil liberties organizations – are engaged in oversight, litigation, and advocacy, albeit with less financial stake than the contractors.

In summary, private prison corporations like CoreCivic and GEO are the primary profiteers of the expanded ICE detention system, reaping hundreds of millions in revenue. They, along with a constellation of subcontractors and cooperative local governments, have strong financial motives to sustain high detainee numbers. The federal government’s massive emergency funding requests (e.g. ICE’s recent solicitation for $45 billion over two years to expand jails and operations ) would, if approved, channel unprecedented resources to these entities. Notably, oversight of how these funds are used and conditions in facilities is diminishing (as discussed next), raising concerns that profit is being prioritized over detainee welfare and legal compliance .

Conditions in Detention: Compliance and Humanitarian Concerns

Conditions inside ICE detention facilities have long been criticized, but the rapid expansion and overcrowding in 2025 have exacerbated the situation. Evidence suggests that basic legal and humanitarian standards of detention are frequently not being met, raising alarms among watchdogs and even some officials. Key concerns include:

• Overcrowding and living conditions: As noted, many detainees are being held in packed conditions, with reports of people sleeping on floors or mats in hallways due to lack of beds . At one center in New Mexico (Cibola County Correctional Center), a detainee described 38 men sharing a unit with only 18 chairs; nearly half had to eat meals on their bunks or floor for lack of dining space . Showers ran out of sandals so people bathe barefoot, risking infections . Detainees in multiple facilities report waiting excessive times for basic services (e.g. 12 hours in a holding cell before processing, as one woman at Prairieland recounted) and being denied requests like phone calls or even prescribed medications, seemingly because staff and systems are overwhelmed . Such conditions “would be unacceptable in high-security prisons,” yet many ICE detainees have no criminal background . In fact, nearly half (47%) of those in ICE detention have no criminal record at all , underlining that this is civil detention meant to be non-punitive – but the harsh conditions often belie that standard.

• Healthcare and safety deficiencies: Even before the latest surge, ICE’s own inspections and independent monitors found serious failures in medical care, sanitation, and safety. A DHS Office of Inspector General analysis of 17 detention facilities (FY2020–FY2023) found deficient medical care in over half and violations of environmental health and safety rules in more than one-third of them . Common issues included delayed or inadequate medical attention, poor handling of mental health crises, substandard food and hygiene, and misuse of solitary confinement for mentally ill detainees . These problems are now worsening with the influx of detainees. A national detention hotline run by Freedom for Immigrants saw a sharp spike in reports from inside facilities in early 2025 – 773 calls from detainees Jan–March, nearly double the previous quarter – describing medical neglect, racist abuse by guards, and excessive use of isolation . At Stewart Detention Center in Georgia, a detainee with disabilities (a double amputee) alleges he was effectively deprived of his prosthetic legs at times because guards refused to allow him to charge them fully, leaving him unable to walk to get food . Such accounts suggest many facilities are struggling to provide even minimally adequate care and accommodation.

• Deaths in custody: With the growth in detainee population, there have unfortunately been multiple deaths in ICE custody in 2025. By April, at least 3 people had died in ICE detention since Trump took office in January . Causes and details vary (e.g. illness, suicide, or lack of timely medical care have been factors in past deaths), but each death underscores the life-threatening stakes of poor conditions. Expanding detention “means more people will be trapped in inhumane and at times life-threatening conditions,” advocates warn . ICE does publicly post detainee death reports, but the closure of oversight offices (see below) raises concerns about accountability for these incidents.

• Oversight and accountability rollback: A striking development in 2025 is that the Trump administration eliminated two oversight bodies that Congress had created specifically to monitor immigration detention conditions. In March–April 2025, DHS shut down the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) (within DHS) and the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO) . These offices had a mandate to investigate detainee complaints, conduct independent inspections, and ensure facilities upheld standards and immigrants’ rights. Their closure was justified by DHS leadership as removing “bureaucratic hurdles” to enforcement , but lawmakers and advocates decried it, noting it “leaves individuals detained… without recourse, undermines transparency, and erodes public trust in [DHS’s] ability to uphold basic human rights” . Now, the primary oversight comes from ICE’s own Detention Management division and the contractors’ internal monitors, which critics say is fox guarding the henhouse. A former head of OIDO warned that without independent eyes, “very concerning conditions will continue to deteriorate without anybody being aware or sounding the alarm.” . Indeed, ICE’s contractors insist they meet standards, but in practice, enforcement of contract terms appears lax with oversight gone. ICE does allow facilities to exceed capacity (with approval) as long as they claim to have sufficient staff and stay within some “emergency limits” , but who verifies these conditions now is unclear. Congress members have protested the oversight closures, and some have exercised their right to conduct surprise visits to detention centers to fill the gap .

• Compliance with detention standards: ICE detention standards (such as the 2011 PBNDS or 2019 NDS) cover a range of requirements: adequate nutrition, access to medical care, grievance procedures, recreation, legal access, etc. Reports from early 2025 show numerous breaches of these standards. For example, standards require at least 1 hour of outdoor recreation daily – but at Cibola (NM), detainees said they were only taken outside about three times a week due to staffing shortages . Detainees also report difficulty accessing attorneys or telephones, especially at remote or ad-hoc sites (notably, there are allegations that detainees sent to the facility at Guantánamo Bay have limited ability to contact legal counsel , which would be a serious due process violation if true). With OIDO gone, mechanisms like a DHS hotline remain, but those are far less proactive. ICE’s own inspections (typically done by a contractor like Nakamoto Group) have been criticized for being perfunctory; a 2018 investigation found those inspections often rubber-stamp compliance despite glaring issues. Now, with the administration’s open intent to remove “roadblocks” to enforcement , there is fear that compliance is taking a backseat. Advocacy groups have filed complaints and lawsuits over conditions (e.g. challenging insufficient medical care or abuse), some resulting in federal court orders to improve conditions or release at-risk detainees. But the sheer pace of detention expansion makes monitoring every facility difficult.

In summary, conditions in ICE detention in 2025 are at best highly strained and at worst fundamentally abusive. The combination of overcrowding, under-resourcing, and reduced oversight has led to reports of inhumane treatment (e.g. lack of beds, delayed medical attention, denial of outdoor time) that likely violate ICE’s own standards and possibly constitutional minima for civil detention (under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause). The Trump administration’s priority on enforcement has so far overshadowed concerns about conditions; a DHS spokesperson even indicated that oversight needed to be “streamlined” to avoid impeding ICE’s mission . Moving forward, the challenge will be ensuring detainees’ rights and wellbeing are protected even as the detention system grows. Without independent oversight, much responsibility falls to the courts and civil society to shine a light on abuses. Already, federal judges have begun to intervene – for instance, a judge in Maryland ordered the return of an asylum seeker ICE secretly sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador, rebuking ICE officials for flouting due process . These legal checks are discussed in the next section.

ICE Enforcement Policies and Tactics in 2025

The Trump administration has unleashed a maximalist enforcement strategy for ICE in 2025, marked by the removal of prior constraints and the introduction of new aggressive tactics. Key aspects of ICE’s current policies and operations include:

• No “protected” categories or locations: The administration reversed the prior ICE guidance that limited arrests to certain priorities (such as serious criminals or recent border crossers). Now, no one in the country illegally is exempt from enforcement, as top officials have stated bluntly . ICE officers have been directed to “target anyone without legal status” – including those with clean records, families, and long tenure in the U.S. The concept of “sensitive locations” (schools, churches, etc. where enforcement was discouraged) has effectively been abandoned. Agents are making arrests at places previously off-limits, such as courthouses and even parking lots where day laborers gather . For example, plainclothes ICE officers have staked out immigration courts to arrest people leaving their hearings, and raided workplaces ranging from meat packing plants to Home Depot parking lots in search of undocumented day workers . This expansion has instilled fear in immigrant communities nationwide, as even routine activities (like grocery shopping or driving to work) may result in an ICE encounter.

• Quotas and high-profile operations: As described earlier, ICE ERO now operates under explicit numerical arrest quotas – a break from past practice (where quotas were officially denied, though targets existed). Initially 1,200–1,500 arrests per day were ordered , then 3,000 per day as of late May . ICE field offices were reportedly instructed that each should make “75 arrests per day” to meet the goal . This has led to large-scale sweeps and coordinated raids. In early June, ICE carried out a series of raids in the Los Angeles area that resulted in over 2,000 arrests in two days – these massive operations were so visible they sparked protests and even some clashes, prompting President Trump to deploy National Guard troops and federal agents for protection . Similar “surge” operations have occurred in other major cities. Worksite raids, a hallmark of Trump’s first term that had been paused under Biden, have been resurrected: ICE launched workplace enforcement actions at a meat processing plant in Nebraska and a racetrack in Louisiana, among others, leading to dozens of worker arrests . These raids are often accompanied by press releases touting the numbers arrested, signaling the administration’s focus on the optics of big enforcement actions.

• Multi-agency enforcement dragnet: To achieve the high arrest numbers, the administration has pulled in other federal law enforcement agencies to assist ICE . Agents from the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, DEA, ATF, and even the Bureau of Prisons have been directed to help identify, track, and apprehend undocumented individuals . Essentially, Trump’s team has deputized these agencies to broaden ICE’s reach. For instance, FBI and DEA agents conducting unrelated investigations are now expected to turn over any suspected unauthorized immigrants they encounter to ICE or even participate in ICE-led operations. This “all hands” approach is unprecedented – it treats civil immigration enforcement as a top federal law enforcement priority. DHS officials also massively expanded the use of 287(g) partnerships (see below) to harness state and local police in the dragnet . Stephen Miller described this as “placing pressure on officials nationwide to increase the number of arrests” by any means necessary . As a result, immigration enforcement has penetrated deeply into communities: for example, local police in some areas now accompany ICE on neighborhood sweeps, and federal task forces include ICE officers targeting immigrant renters or workers based on database leads.

• 287(g) – local police deputization: The administration has leaned heavily on the 287(g) program (Section 287(g) of the INA), which allows ICE to delegate immigration enforcement powers to state and local law enforcement officers. On day one of his term, President Trump issued an executive order to maximize 287(g) use nationwide . The results have been dramatic: by June 2025, ICE had signed 719 new 287(g) agreements across 40 states, a massive expansion from prior years . These include “Jail Enforcement” agreements with 111 agencies (where local jail officers act as ICE agents inside facilities, screening and processing inmates for removal) and “Task Force” model agreements with 348 agencies (where local police officers are trained and empowered to conduct field immigration enforcement alongside ICE) . An additional 62 agreements were pending as of June . This means thousands of local officers are now effectively working as force-multipliers for ICE. For example, certain sheriff’s deputies in Florida, Texas, Arizona, Tennessee, Georgia, and elsewhere have authority to interrogate and detain people over immigration status, even during routine traffic stops. The Warrant Service Officer (WSO) program – a limited 287(g) model that lets local jailers serve ICE detainers – has also been widely adopted (260 agencies) . The 287(g) expansion blurs the line between local policing and federal immigration enforcement, leading to more arrests especially of those who land in local jails for minor offenses or traffic violations. (One anecdote: a young mother in Texas was arrested for an old traffic ticket and turned over to ICE via 287(g), ending up on the floor of Prairieland and ultimately deported – illustrating how even minor infractions now trigger deportation processes .) The administration touts this as necessary partnership to “protect communities” , while critics say it leads to racial profiling and erodes community trust in police. Some states (like California) that previously limited local cooperation have been effectively bypassed by direct ICE operations or by targeting surrounding jurisdictions.

• Enforcement tactics and strategy: ICE’s strategy in 2025 can be characterized as “zero tolerance” and highly visible enforcement. Tactics include surprise pre-dawn raids at homes (with teams rounding up multiple people at a time), courthouse arrests (waiting to nab immigrants as they show up for unrelated court matters), and large workplace stings (often with agents descending on a business and detaining all workers unable to immediately prove legal status). In Los Angeles and other hubs, ICE has even used traffic checkpoints and decoy tactics (e.g. posing as police investigating something else) to catch immigrants off-guard. A particularly controversial tactic is arresting immigrants at their required ICE check-in appointments – people who had been on supervised release or humanitarian deferment are now finding ICE detaining them when they come for what used to be a routine visit . This has sown fear and confusion, essentially punishing individuals for complying with ICE’s own rules. Additionally, the administration has reinstituted family detention for the first time since 2021: families (including children with parents) are once again being held in secure ICE facilities like Dilley, TX, and Karnes County, TX, pending deportation . This is a reversal of the previous policy that ended long-term family detention due to legal challenges (Flores Agreement limits) and concerns for child welfare. The government claims it will process family cases quickly to remain within legal timeframes, but advocates worry families could face prolonged detention under harsh conditions.

• Legal maneuvers to speed deportation: Alongside physical enforcement, the administration is using legal tactics to limit due process and humanitarian relief. For example, Trump’s DOJ and DHS have vastly expanded the use of expedited removal – authorizing ICE officers to deport certain immigrants without a hearing if they cannot prove recent lawful U.S. presence. They also invoked INA §274 (wartime powers) in at least one instance to classify suspected gang members for removal without standard procedures , which is extraordinary and currently being litigated. Furthermore, asylum and refugee avenues have been effectively shut down for most (via a near-total asylum ban at the border and suspension of refugee admissions) . The administration terminated Temporary Protected Status for several countries (Venezuela, Haiti, etc.) and ended parole programs that had allowed some migrants to enter legally . All these steps expand the pool of people vulnerable to ICE arrest and deportation. In effect, enforcement-first policy pervades: rather than focusing on serious criminals, ICE is “casting a wider net” than ever, including long-time residents with U.S. families and those who pose little public safety risk . The explicit message from DHS leadership (as quoted by an official statement) is that they are “delivering on [the] mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens and make America safe” , though in practice the majority being arrested have no criminal convictions . This disconnect has prompted criticism that the campaign is more about meeting numerical goals and political talking points than targeting dangerous individuals.

The consequence of these tactics has been a climate of widespread fear in immigrant communities. By design, the omnipresence of enforcement is causing many immigrants and even their U.S.-citizen family members to avoid public life – people are skipping work, pulling children from school, and avoiding local businesses due to fear of ICE raids . This “fear is by design,” as one policy expert noted: the administration appears to see the chilling effect as a feature, not a bug, of mass enforcement . However, it also has provoked resistance. There have been protests in multiple cities against ICE actions , and some local governments (especially in blue states or sanctuary cities) are seeking ways to push back or at least support affected residents (through legal defense funds, for example). Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against various policies (from the asylum ban to specific deportation cases, detailed more in the next section).

In summary, ICE’s enforcement posture in 2025 is unprecedentedly aggressive and expansive. With daily quotas from the White House, cross-agency task forces, and no location off-limits, the agency’s reach is touching all corners of daily life for undocumented (and many legal) immigrants. The tactics emphasize quantity of arrests and deterrence through fear, raising serious concerns about civil liberties and community impacts. Federal courts are already scrutinizing some practices (e.g. deporting people to third countries where they have no nationality was halted by a judge as illegal ). But barring judicial or legislative intervention, ICE under Trump’s direction is set to continue (and even intensify) these enforcement strategies through 2025 and beyond.

ICE Agents and Personnel: Roles, Compensation, and Incentives

ICE’s enforcement surge not only relies on policy changes but also on the people carrying it out: the agents, officers, and affiliated personnel on the ground. Understanding their employment structure and incentives clarifies how the agency is implementing directives:

• Federal ICE officers: The core of ICE’s workforce are federal law enforcement officers employed by the Department of Homeland Security. ICE has two main divisions that deploy officers in the field: Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which includes Deportation Officers and Immigration Enforcement Agents focused on arrests, detention, and deportation; and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which has Special Agents who primarily investigate criminal activities (smuggling, trafficking, etc.) but have been redirected at times to assist with immigration enforcement. All ICE officers are federal employees – typically in the GS (General Schedule) or similar federal pay scales for law enforcement. For instance, an entry-level ICE ERO officer might start around GS-9 or GS-11, with a base salary in the range of $50,000–$70,000, and can advance to GS-12/13 ($80,000–$100,000+) or higher with experience (plus locality pay adjustments) – comparable to other federal law enforcement agencies. HSI Special Agents are in the 1811 criminal investigator series, usually receiving Law Enforcement Availability Pay (LEAP) of 25% on top of base salary for added hours. In addition to base pay, ICE agents can earn overtime (under Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime or other pay mechanisms) when working long hours on raids, etc., which many are now doing. They also receive federal benefits (health insurance, retirement credit, etc.) and have civil service protections. There is no bonus or pay-per-arrest system for ICE agents – their compensation is not directly tied to the number of people they apprehend or deport. However, the current administration’s intense emphasis on arrest metrics undoubtedly factors into performance evaluations and career advancement. Field office directors and supervisors know that meeting the politically imposed targets is critical; failing to do so can be career-ending. Indeed, in February 2025, the administration removed ICE’s acting director after just a month, reportedly due to White House frustration with “lagging” arrest numbers . In May, ICE’s heads of enforcement (ERO) and investigations (HSI) were reshuffled amid pressure to increase deportations . This sends a clear signal throughout ICE: those who meet or exceed quotas are viewed favorably, while those who don’t may be replaced. In that sense, the incentive structure has become one where job security and promotion prospects hinge on aggressive enforcement output, even if there’s no monetary bounty per arrest.

• Morale and internal dynamics: The push for ever-higher arrest numbers has put ICE personnel in a challenging position. Agents have described very high workloads, with some being redeployed from investigative duties (like HSI’s crime cases) to immigration roundup operations . The agency has had to recruit and train additional officers quickly (ICE’s FY2025 budget called for thousands of new hires). To attract recruits, ICE and CBP have been offering incentives like hiring bonuses or accelerated promotions (especially since these agencies faced recruiting shortfalls in the late 2010s). However, those are standard recruitment perks, not tied to enforcement outcomes. On the job, many ICE officers support the Trump administration’s mission – some are openly enthusiastic about being able to “do their jobs” with fewer restrictions, as morale in parts of ICE was low under the prior administration’s priority-focused enforcement. Still, the strain of executing mass arrests – including of non-criminals, families, or individuals with strong community ties – may take a toll on some agents. There have been reports (from the first Trump term) of ICE agents feeling uncomfortable or conflicted about certain high-profile operations (like separating families or arresting non-criminal caregivers), though publicly agents seldom dissent. In 2025, internal dissent is likely muzzled by the clear top-down expectations. The replacement of leaders for not hitting targets demonstrates that ICE’s rank-and-file are operating under an implicit mandate: meet the numbers or face consequences . This creates an incentive to cast a wide net and perhaps cut corners (e.g. shorter investigations, collateral arrests) to boost stats – raising the risk of mistaken detentions or civil rights violations. Already, there have been instances of U.S. citizens being caught up in ICE dragnets due to aggressive tactics , an issue that could grow under intense pressure for volume.

• Local law enforcement and others deputized (287(g) officers): As discussed, through 287(g) agreements, certain local police and sheriff’s deputies are effectively acting as ICE agents in addition to their regular duties. These individuals remain employees of their local agency (city police department or county sheriff). They do not become federal employees and thus are paid by their local employer (from city/county budgets). ICE provides training (at ICE expense) and equipment/support to deputized officers, but generally does not pay their salaries. In some cases, ICE may reimburse travel or overtime for 287(g) officers during joint operations, but there isn’t a standard federal salary for them. The incentive for local agencies to participate is often political (aligned leadership that wants to help enforce immigration law) and financial indirectly (as noted, if the partnership results in more detainees in the local jail, the county makes more money via ICE per diem). Some local officers might view the 287(g) authority as prestigious or a force-multiplier for dealing with criminals in their community, while others may be reluctant conscripts if required by state law (e.g. Florida now mandates that local agencies cooperate with ICE ). Importantly, 287(g) officers must follow ICE’s policies and are under ICE supervision when performing immigration duties . They are not paid bounties or bonuses by ICE for making immigration arrests; they continue to collect their normal police pay. However, their agencies might receive federal grants or favorable consideration in other funding for being cooperative. Additionally, local officers might find that making more immigration arrests (through 287(g)) could lead to career benefits locally, as some sheriffs or chiefs prioritize immigration enforcement as an accomplishment. Conversely, local jurisdictions that hold detainees via IGSA contracts directly get paid per detainee – which can indirectly incentivize local officers to help bring more detainees in (since their jail’s revenue increases, benefiting the department’s budget). This dynamic – essentially a quota by profit motive – has been criticized by civil rights groups as a “perverse financial incentive” for local police to over-enforce minor violations against immigrants .

• Private security personnel in facilities: While not “deputized” to enforce immigration law in the field, it’s worth noting that many detention center guards and staff are non-ICE employees. At privately run facilities, guards are hired by companies like GEO or CoreCivic. At county jails, the detainees are guarded by county corrections officers. These personnel are paid by their respective employers (private companies or counties) and typically earn modest hourly wages (for example, a job listing for detention officers at a new ICE-contracted prison in Baldwin, MI offered around $29/hour ). They do not have authority to perform arrests outside the facility, but their jobs depend on the ICE contracts. In some reported cases, private guards have mistreated detainees or failed to follow ICE standards – and accountability is difficult because they are not federal employees. The administration’s moves to allow less stringent standards at new contract facilities potentially give these contractors even more leeway, which is concerning for detainee safety.

• Incentive overview: In sum, ICE agents and their auxiliaries are primarily incentivized by organizational pressure and job security, rather than direct financial reward per enforcement action. All ICE officers are salaried professionals (with overtime as applicable), and they answer to a chain of command. Under Trump, that chain of command has made clear that performance = numbers. Achieving high arrest and deportation numbers is likely to lead to praise, promotions, and expansion of units, whereas shortfalls lead to leadership purges and possible discipline. This environment might encourage some agents to be more zealous or to take on risky operations to meet targets. There is also an element of ideological motivation for some: ICE has a subculture that, for a subset of officers, strongly believes in the mission of removing those here illegally. Those officers may be personally driven to reach Trump’s ambitious goals (some agents reportedly cheered the removal of restrictions and saw it as doing the job they signed up for). Others might privately question certain methods but are compelled to carry them out.

It should be noted that ICE’s aggressive stance could have repercussions for recruitment and retention: if the work becomes too politicized or morally fraught, some agents might leave or blow the whistle. There have been whistleblower complaints in the past about pressure to violate rights or quotas. For now, though, the agency appears to be largely complying with the top-down mandates. If anything, the incentive structure heavily tilts toward “more enforcement is better” – a point driven home by statements like Stephen Miller’s public announcement of the 3,000-a-day arrest target . ICE personnel understand that to succeed under the Trump administration, they are expected to deliver aggressive results on the front lines of the deportation campaign.

Further Research Directions

While this report has focused on the direct operations of ICE detention and enforcement in 2025, there are several broader or less visible impacts of these policies that merit deeper investigation. Here are three suggested avenues for further research:

1. Economic Externalities of Mass Detention and Enforcement: The crackdowns are not occurring in a vacuum – they have ripple effects on local and national economies. Research could quantify how immigrant communities’ reduced participation in the economy is affecting businesses, labor markets, and public revenues. Early reports indicate that in areas with large immigrant populations, consumer activity has dropped (e.g. Hispanic grocery store sales fell over 4% in Q1 2025 amid enforcement fears) , and many employers report labor shortages as workers avoid showing up due to raids . A detailed study could look at metrics like sales tax revenues, agricultural output (if farmworkers are impacted), and small business closures in heavily targeted regions. It could also estimate the taxpayer cost per deportation when considering not just ICE’s budget but also lost economic contributions of deported individuals. Additionally, on the flip side, examining communities that economically depend on detention centers (often rural towns with ICE contracts) would be illuminating – what happens to these local economies as the detention industry expands or if policies change? By analyzing these economic externalities, policymakers can better understand the trade-offs and hidden costs of the current approach.

2. Legal Challenges and the Limits of Enforcement Power: The 2025 enforcement agenda is already provoking a wave of legal battles. Further research could compile and analyze the myriad lawsuits and court orders related to Trump’s immigration policies – from challenges to detention conditions to suits against specific enforcement tactics. For example, 23 states and D.C. have sued over Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship via executive order, and advocacy groups like the ACLU and NIJC are litigating the asylum ban and TPS cancellations . There are also individual habeas corpus cases for detainees (such as the Venezuelan asylum seeker sent to El Salvador’s megaprison, whom a judge ordered returned to the U.S. ). A research project could track these cases’ outcomes and assess how judicial oversight is acting as a check on the administration’s actions. It might explore questions like: How successful have courts been in enforcing minimum standards (e.g. requiring ICE to justify detention of people with serious health issues, or to stop deportations to certain countries)? Are there patterns in where the courts draw the line (for instance, the judiciary has blocked deporting people to countries where they aren’t citizens , suggesting a limit to executive power). This area of research would also cover constitutional issues (Fourth Amendment concerns with raids, Fifth Amendment due process in detention) and the evolving jurisprudence on immigration federalism (state vs. federal authority in immigration enforcement). Understanding the legal pushback will be key to forecasting how sustainable or vulnerable the current policies are.

3. Influence Networks and Policy Entrenchment: A deeper look into who is influencing and benefiting from ICE’s expanded operations can reveal the political economy of immigration enforcement. This research could follow the money – for instance, analyzing campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and revolving-door relationships related to private prison companies and ICE. Evidence already shows that GEO Group and CoreCivic heavily supported Trump’s campaign and inauguration and received a surge of contracts under his administrations . One could examine how these companies lobby Congress (e.g. for higher detention budgets or against oversight regulations) and which lawmakers champion their interests. The role of certain hard-line advocacy groups or think tanks (e.g. FAIR, CIS) in shaping policy through people like Stephen Miller is another facet – mapping these ideological networks could elucidate how ideas like the 3,000-a-day quota gained traction. Additionally, at the local level, research might explore sheriff and police associations’ influence – many sheriffs in 287(g) jurisdictions are elected and may receive support from political groups favoring strict immigration enforcement. Another indirect influence worth studying is the international dimension: for example, what are the terms of cooperation with countries like El Salvador, Mexico, or others that are accepting third-country deportees or hosting U.S.-run detention (Guantánamo)? Are there quid pro quo deals or security assistance tied to these arrangements? Unpacking these influence networks can highlight how deeply the current enforcement regime is embedded and identify leverage points (e.g. investor pressure on companies, public pressure on local officials, diplomatic implications) that could affect change. Essentially, this research would treat the immigration enforcement system as an ecosystem of interests – spanning corporations, politicians, agencies, and even foreign partners – to understand the full breadth of its support and the potential resistance to reform.

Exploring these areas – economic impacts, legal boundaries, and influence structures – would provide a more holistic understanding of the consequences of the 2025 immigration detention and enforcement surge. Such research could inform more balanced policy discussions by shedding light on factors that are not immediately visible in daily news about raids or detention numbers. Each avenue underscores that immigration enforcement is not just a security or legal matter, but a complex socio-economic and political phenomenon with wide-ranging effects on American society.

Sources: The information in this report is drawn from official ICE/DHS releases, investigative journalism (Washington Post, Reuters, CBS News, The Guardian), independent data analyses (TRAC at Syracuse University), watchdog organizations (Detention Watch Network, CREW), and court filings. Key references include ICE’s published statistics and facility data , reports on conditions and oversight from the Washington Post , statements by administration officials reported in major media , and data compilations on detention trends by TRAC , among others. These sources are cited throughout the text to substantiate the findings and provide further reading on specific points.

As of June 2025, under the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement program, the following approximate figures apply:

⸻

ICE Interior Apprehensions (January – early June 2025):

• Over 100,000 individuals have been arrested in the U.S. interior for civil immigration violations.

• The daily rate has increased over time:

• ~750/day in early 2025.

• ~2,000/day by June 2025.

• The target quota set by the White House is 3,000 arrests per day.

Source: DHS and ICE internal enforcement memos, Washington Post reports, and statements from Trump officials.

⸻

Deportations (Removals) (January – May 2025):

• Approximately 200,000 deportations were carried out.

• This includes both:

• ICE removals from interior arrests.

• Border-related removals (e.g., expedited removals after asylum bans).

Notably, this figure is lower than the same period in 2024 under Biden (~257,000), due to:

• A decrease in border apprehensions (and thus fewer quick deportations).

• A higher share of arrests in the interior, where legal proceedings slow down removal timelines.

Source: DHS data and reporting from CBS News, The Guardian, and TRAC.

⸻

Summary:

Category Jan–June 2025 (est.)

ICE Apprehensions ~100,000+

Total Deportations ~200,000

⸻

Important Note:

• The apprehension number (~100k) is interior arrests by ICE, while the deportation number (~200k) includes people removed from both interior enforcement and border cases.

• There is a growing backlog of detainees due to slower court processing, expanded enforcement, and legal resistance to fast-tracking removals.

Stephen Miller’s Influence on ICE Operations in 2025 Trump Administration

Miller’s Direct Control Over ICE Enforcement

Stephen Miller’s Operational Role: Despite holding the ostensibly modest title of Deputy Chief of Staff, Miller has exercised exceptional direct control over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in Trump’s 2025 term. In late May 2025, Miller convened a meeting at ICE headquarters alongside DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, where he issued explicit instructions and quotas to ICE leadership. He demanded a surge to “3,000 apprehensions a day” – triple the daily average from early 2025 – and berated officials for “insufficient arrests”. Attendees described Miller’s tone as threatening, leaving the impression that jobs were on the line if targets weren’t met. This unprecedented micromanagement by a White House advisor effectively turned Miller into a de facto field commander for ICE, bypassing traditional chains of command in pursuit of mass deportations.

Quotas and Directives: Miller’s push for a 3,000-per-day arrest quota illustrates his direct operational control. At the May meeting, he told ICE agents to “pick up any immigration offenders” without prioritizing criminals, and to “not worry about targeted operations” – signaling that anyone without status was fair game. He even ordered agents to skip their usual investigative lists and stage sweeping raids at day-labor gathering spots like Home Depot parking lots and 7-Eleven stores. “Just go out there and arrest illegal aliens,” Miller instructed, according to sources, explicitly directing ICE tactics in the field. This marked a sharp departure from prior practice and overrode ICE leadership’s typical discretion about whom to arrest. One former ICE official noted “all that matters is numbers, not the level of criminality,” reflecting how Miller’s quotas forced indiscriminate arrests over case-by-case judgment.

Overruling ICE Leadership: Miller’s assertive role effectively overruled ICE’s own leadership whenever they were deemed insufficiently aggressive. Indeed, the administration has not hesitated to replace officials not meeting Miller’s expectations. In February 2025, Trump’s initial ICE Director (Caleb Vitello) was abruptly reassigned after only weeks in the job, replaced by a more compliant acting director (Todd Lyons). By late May, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations chief Kenneth Genalo was also pushed out (retiring under pressure) and another senior ICE official was reassigned, as the White House signaled frustration with the “level of immigration arrests”. ICE acknowledged these moves as a “leadership realignment” to “achieve President Trump’s…mandate of arresting and deporting” more immigrants. Not coincidentally, the shake-up came right after Miller publicly insisted on a minimum of 3,000 daily arrests on Fox News. Miller’s influence is evident: ICE leaders who couldn’t deliver his draconian targets were shunted aside, ensuring that Miller’s will effectively trumped any internal dissent. As one DHS official observed in an earlier context, receiving direct calls from Miller is inherently “intimidation”…“very unusual” under normal circumstances – a tactic Miller has now taken to its extreme by dictating ICE operations in real time.

Indirect Influence Through Ideological Infrastructure

Project 2025 Blueprint: Beyond direct orders, Miller’s hand is visible in the ideological infrastructure guiding Trump’s immigration agenda. Miller was a key architect of conservative think-tank plans like Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led transition blueprint for a second Trump term . He led an interest group advisory effort feeding into Project 2025’s 900-page “Mandate for Leadership,” particularly on immigration policy. (Notably, Miller’s own organization, America First Legal, was initially listed on Project 2025’s advisory board – though it later quietly asked to be removed, reflecting Miller’s attempts to downplay his involvement even as his influence pervaded the plans.) The Project 2025 immigration chapter, written by Trump allies (e.g. Ken Cuccinelli, Gene Hamilton), reads like Miller’s wish list: it calls for maximal interior enforcement, an “invasion” paradigm at the border, and sweeping executive power to enact mass deportations. While the public blueprint omitted some details of how to deport “millions” of people, insiders like Russ Vought admitted that behind the scenes hundreds of ready-to-issue executive orders and memos were prepared to implement that vision immediately. Miller’s imprint on this ideological playbook ensured that when Trump took office in 2025, there was a comprehensive plan to pick up exactly where the first term left off – without a learning curve . In effect, Miller helped build the scaffolding (via Project 2025) that he is now using to reshape DHS and ICE to his hardline designs.

America First Legal and Policy Network: Miller also exerts influence through his outside group America First Legal (AFL) and an informal network of former Trump officials. AFL – dubbed the “long-awaited answer to the ACLU” by its founders – spent the Biden years suing to block Biden’s immigration measures, thereby preserving a landscape favorable to Trump’s return. Now, in 2025, AFL’s legal activism and messaging continue to reinforce Miller’s agenda from the outside. For example, AFL and allied groups amplify narratives that frame any curbs on enforcement as lawless “open borders” and champion the very policies Miller pushes internally (such as ending asylum protections and targeting sanctuary cities). Furthermore, Project 2025’s network overlaps with Miller’s: contributors and prospective officials include former Trump hardliners like Tom Homan, Gene Hamilton, Mark Morgan, and Stephen Miller himself. Many of these figures now hold formal or informal roles in the administration. Tom Homan, a close Miller ally and former ICE Director, was appointed “Border Czar,” operating from the White House to coordinate ICE and Border Patrol crackdowns. Homan, who co-authored parts of the Heritage plan, is effectively Miller’s field marshal – boasting of “the largest deportation operation in the country’s history” and echoing Miller’s goals of one million removals a year. Likewise, former Trump officials in groups like the Center for Renewing America (run by Vought) and America First Policy Institute have funneled policy memos and personnel into DHS. The result is an ideological echo chamber: Miller’s hardline vision, once considered fringe, is now institutionalized through think-tank blueprints, legal pressure, and hand-picked officials, all aligning to drive ICE’s actions. Even when Miller is not personally giving an order, his ideology permeates the directives coming from DHS and the White House. For instance, a DHS memo in early 2025 deputized hundreds of State Department agents to assist in immigration enforcement – an extraordinary step clearly in tune with Miller’s “whole of government” approach to finding and deporting undocumented people. Through such indirect channels, Miller has saturated ICE’s operating environment with his America First creed.

External Pressure on DHS Leadership: Miller also leverages media and public channels to pressure DHS and ICE. He is known for his close ties to conservative media, which he uses to reinforce his demands. In 2025 he frequently takes to friendly outlets (like Fox News and Breitbart) to telegraph what ICE “should” be doing – effectively issuing public marching orders. For example, the day after that contentious ICE HQ meeting, Miller went on Fox News to declare the 3,000-per-day arrest goal and warn that the administration “takes this promise seriously”. Such appearances are not mere talk – they send a clear signal down the chain that Miller expects results, and they rally outside supporters to apply political pressure. Similarly, Miller has used Trump’s social media to amplify demands: when ICE’s Los Angeles raids sparked unrest, Miller reportedly stoked Trump’s response, labeling the protesters “insurrectionists” and urging an even harsher crackdown . President Trump’s public post that if local leaders won’t stop the “riots,” the federal government will – followed by deployment of troops – bore Miller’s fingerprints in both tone and substance . Through these avenues, Miller exerts indirect control by proxy: he sets expectations in the media and from the Oval Office, and DHS leadership (often implicitly under threat of removal) falls in line to execute the demanded policies.

Timeline of Miller’s 2025 Interventions and Policy Actions

January 2025 – Shock and Awe Launch: Immediately upon Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025, Miller helped orchestrate a blitz of executive actions to overhaul immigration enforcement. On Day 1, Trump issued Proclamation 10886 declaring a national emergency at the southern border and characterizing illegal migration as an “invasion” – language straight from Miller’s playbook. Within the first 48 hours, the administration reactivated some of the most hardline Trump-era programs: the “Remain in Mexico” policy (MPP) was formally reinstated on Jan. 21 requiring asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico, and work began to tear up the Flores settlement protections that limit family detention. By late January, a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-4) established militarized “National Defense Areas” along the border, handing parts of border enforcement to the Defense Department. This effectively created zones where migrants can be arrested for trespassing on what is now military-jurisdiction land. These early moves – all executed at “Trump speed” – bore Miller’s hallmark of maximal enforcement and were explicitly called for in Project 2025’s agenda (e.g. tasking the military with immigration duties).

February 2025 – Personnel Shake-Ups and Expanded Capacity: In February, Miller turned to installing loyalists and expanding ICE’s reach. As noted, the ICE leadership overhaul began: Acting ICE Director Vitello was demoted by mid-February, replaced by Todd Lyons. Around the same time, DHS quietly moved to boost enforcement manpower – for instance, a February 18 memo authorized up to 600 State Dept diplomatic security agents to be deputized for immigration enforcement, effectively enlarging ICE’s workforce by pulling from other agencies. Detention capacity was another focus: the administration started repurposing federal facilities for mass detention. By late Feb, DHS had plans underway to utilize military bases (like Fort Bliss in Texas and even Guantánamo Bay) to hold migrants, anticipating a surge once arrests ramped up. These efforts dovetailed with Miller’s strategy of ensuring no bottlenecks to mass detention: Project 2025 explicitly called for raising ICE’s funded detention beds to 100,000 (from ~34,000 pre-Trump), and indeed contracts were signed to reopen and expand family detention centers such as the Dilley and Karnes facilities in Texas. By the end of February, the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley – capable of holding 2,400 parents and children – was being prepared to reopen for the first time since the Obama era. Miller’s influence was evident in these preparations: he had long advocated using “every bit of space” to detain families as a deterrent, and now ICE was moving swiftly to realize that vision.

March–April 2025 – Legal Overhauls and Pressure Tactics: Through early spring, Miller oversaw a series of policy memos and legal rule changes tightening the screws on asylum and deportation processes. In March, the administration expanded Expedited Removal nationwide, allowing ICE to deport certain immigrants without seeing a judge if they couldn’t prove long-term U.S. presence. The Justice Department, likely at Miller’s urging, issued guidance encouraging immigration judges to dismiss “legally deficient” asylum claims without a hearing – fast-tracking deportations at the expense of due process . Internally dubbed the “Miller rule,” this directive meant that thousands of asylum seekers could be removed solely on their paper application with no day in court, a dramatic shift that immigration advocates decried . At the same time, DHS moved to terminate humanitarian programs established under Biden: the parole entry programs for Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela were suspended, and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) revocations were set in motion for several countries. Miller had been publicly critical of these programs (viewing them as “backdoor amnesty”); now under his influence, the Supreme Court’s green light in late April allowed Trump to cancel the legal status of over 500,000 migrants in TPS or parole – an outcome that “feels very, very different” in scale from Trump’s first term failures on this front. During this period, Miller also kept up pressure for tougher enforcement on the ground. ICE’s internal data in April showed daily arrest rates creeping upward under White House prodding. Still, 3,000/day was distant, prompting Miller to escalate: he reportedly began personally telephoning ICE field offices to stress the President’s impatience, a throwback to his 2019 habit of calling mid-level officials directly. This climate set the stage for the big push in May.

Late May 2025 – “Operation Flood the Zone” and Miller’s Ultimatum: The end of May was a turning point, as Miller forced ICE into overdrive. On May 21, Miller and Sec. Noem summoned ICE’s top brass for the now-infamous meeting where Miller delivered his ultimatum – the 3,000 arrests/day quota – and scolded them for “failure” to hit Trump’s promised numbers. Sources said Miller’s tirade “excoriated senior ICE officials” and that his directive was clear: any immigrant without legal status was a target, period. This meeting (described by one participant as “contentious”) has been cited as “the spark” that immediately led to sweeping raids and the unrest that followed. Indeed, within days ICE field offices, feeling White House heat, launched what amounted to shock-and-awe raids: agents fanned out to homes, businesses, courthouses, even DMV offices, grabbing anyone they could. By May 28, Miller publicly doubled down on the goal during a TV interview, calling 3,000 per day a “minimum” and implying ICE leadership would be held accountable to achieve it. On May 29, ICE’s leadership was abruptly reshuffled (Genalo out, new officials in) to clear any internal resistance to the coming crackdown. In tandem, House Republicans hastily passed Trump’s “big beautiful” immigration funding bill, including an extra $147 billion over 10 years to resource the deportation machine. Miller’s role here was pivotal: by setting an aggressive numeric target and aligning personnel and budgets to it, he put ICE on war footing.

Early June 2025 – Raids, Protests, and Military Involvement: The first week of June saw Miller’s plans collide with reality on the streets. ICE executed massive nationwide raids that shattered records – detaining over 2,200 people on June 4 alone and then 2,300+ on June 5, the highest single-day totals in ICE history. Agents, under orders to “flood the zone,” went so far as to re-arrest immigrants who had been released pending court (something even Trump’s first term avoided) and to stake out immigration courts to nab people at their hearings and check-ins. “A complete sea change,” remarked one immigration analyst of these tactics, noting the U.S. had never witnessed enforcement on this scale. As Miller had instructed, workplace and community sweeps soared: ICE conducted coordinated raids at a garment factory in Los Angeles, construction sites in Florida, gas stations in Phoenix, a Nebraska meatpacking plant – even arresting 200 workers during a single 4-day I-9 audit blitz in the D.C. area. These indiscriminate raids triggered immediate backlash and protests, most prominently in Los Angeles. On June 6, after ICE arrested day laborers and factory workers in L.A., hundreds of protesters took to the streets, decrying the draconian tactics. Miller’s response was to escalate further: he characterized the protests as a “violent insurrection” and reportedly pressed Trump to respond with force . By June 7, President Trump followed Miller’s counsel and invoked extraordinary measures – deploying 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles over the objections of California’s governor. This marked the first federal military deployment to a state without governor consent since 1965. On June 9, as protests continued in L.A., Miller stood unapologetic. He privately celebrated the hardline show of force as the “apogee” of his power, according to observers, seeing in it a vindication of his long-held zero-tolerance approach. The human toll by early June was staggering: ICE’s own data showed an average of 1,300+ arrests per day so far in June (double the early-term rate), and Homan noted they had hit about 2,000 a day by mid-June – still short of Miller’s goal, but an unprecedented pace nonetheless.

National Guard troops deployed outside a federal building in Los Angeles amid protests of ICE raids (June 2025). Miller’s escalation of enforcement led to militarized responses on U.S. soil.

Mid June 2025 – Continued Crackdown and Legislative Moves: Through mid-June, Miller remained a driving force as the crackdown became institutionalized. The administration rolled out a new travel ban on June 7, blocking visas from 12 countries (with partial bans on 7 more) – a policy months in the making that echoed Miller’s first-term Muslim ban but on a broader scale. Miller was reportedly a key advocate for designing this sweeping ban to withstand legal challenges better than the 2017 version. At the same time, Miller pushed to punish “sanctuary” jurisdictions: in a June 15 social media directive, Trump – channeling Miller’s rhetoric – ordered ICE to “do all in their power” to expand operations in Democrat-run cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York where “Millions…of Illegal Aliens reside”. Internally, DHS began considering emergency funding maneuvers as ICE’s budget burst at the seams; by mid-June ICE was over $1 billion over budget due to the massive raids, and discussions began about declaring another national emergency to siphon Defense funds to ICE if Congress didn’t act. Miller championed a confrontational stance on this front as well – the White House told Congress bluntly that public safety demanded additional billions for ICE, and Miller supported leveraging the threat of an emergency declaration. By late June, the administration scored a legal win when the Supreme Court upheld Trump’s termination of the Biden-era parole programs, cementing the revocation of status for over 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Miller hailed this outcome, urging ICE to begin rounding up those now falling out of status. Meanwhile, Congress – prodded by Miller-aligned Republicans – moved a mammoth DHS funding bill (nicknamed “the deportation omnibus”) forward, containing money for 100,000 detention beds and 25,000 additional ICE personnel, as envisioned in Project 2025’s roadmap. In summary, by summer 2025 Stephen Miller had engineered and overseen a six-month transformation of U.S. immigration enforcement: from legal frameworks to personnel to on-the-ground operations, Miller’s interventions were the fulcrum of Trump’s hardline 2025 agenda.

Chain-of-Command Dynamics and Bypassed Channels

Formal Structure vs. Miller’s Influence: Under normal DHS protocol, ICE answers to the ICE Director and DHS Secretary, who in turn answer to the President. In 2025, that formal chain-of-command has been effectively short-circuited by Miller’s central role. Formally, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem is ICE’s top boss, but in practice Stephen Miller (as Deputy Chief of Staff and Trump’s top immigration advisor) wields outsized authority over ICE’s direction. Miller’s influence “far outstrips his misleadingly modest title,” as one account noted, and he has not hesitated to insert himself between DHS leadership and the President. In effect, Miller acts as Trump’s proxy on immigration, directly conveying the White House’s orders to ICE and even to line agents. For example, Miller personally attended operational meetings at ICE HQ – something virtually unheard of for a White House staffer – to dictate enforcement strategy face-to-face to ICE field leadership. This means that decisions which would normally flow down from the President through the DHS Secretary are often delivered directly by Miller. DHS Secretary Noem has largely acquiesced to this arrangement (she herself advocated more arrests in that May meeting, albeit in a “milder” tone compared to Miller’s tirade). Noem’s public role has often been to justify Miller-driven policies – for instance, defending use of the National Guard – rather than to originate them. The ICE Acting Director, Todd Lyons, likewise functions as an executor of Miller’s priorities, focusing on hitting quotas and carrying out White House directives rather than setting any independent enforcement agenda. In short, Miller has become the hub in the wheel of command: field directives, arrest targets, and policy changes are frequently emanating from the White House (Miller/Trump) outwards to DHS and ICE, instead of DHS formulating and controlling its own operations.

Bypassing and “Back-Channels”: There is evidence that Miller has also bypassed formal channels entirely when it suits him. As noted earlier, Miller has a history of directly contacting mid-level DHS and DOJ officials to pressure them – cutting out their superiors. In 2025, this pattern recurred: ICE insiders reported that Miller or his aides sometimes skip the ICE Director’s office and communicate instructions straight to field office directors or tactical units, especially if speed is needed. These “back-channel” orders are often not written down – one report noted that no formal memos were issued mandating 3,000 arrests, but agents were told verbally to “do what you need to do” to reach that number. Such off-record instructions make it hard to trace command responsibility, but clearly undermine standard oversight. Moreover, Miller’s placement of loyalists in DHS senior roles means he can rely on them to relay his wishes informally. For example, Miller frequently works through Tom Homan (Border Czar), who, though technically outside the ICE chain, directly coordinates ICE and Border Patrol operations from the White House. Homan’s statements often mirror Miller’s; he confirmed publicly that 3,000 arrests/day was the goal and warned ICE agents to pick up the pace. Thus Homan serves as Miller’s enforcer within the DHS apparatus, prodding ICE to comply. Another quasi-chain-of-command bypass is the White House’s creation of special roles and task forces: e.g., Miller chairs a White House “immigration enforcement coordinating council” that meets weekly with ICE’s leadership. In those meetings (according to leaks), Miller can override ICE officials’ concerns by invoking the President’s authority. If ICE’s director or counsel raise legal or resource issues, Miller is quick to cite Trump’s mandate and push ahead, essentially sidelining internal debate. An illustrative example of bypassed channels came when Miller reportedly learned an ICE field office in a sanctuary city was hesitant to conduct courthouse arrests; Miller bypassed ICE HQ and directly coordinated with DOJ to get federal marshals to accompany ICE, effectively nullifying local ICE reluctance. These maneuvers show that Miller has constructed parallel lines of command that run from the Oval Office to himself to operational units, leaving the normal DHS hierarchy as more of a formality.

Documentation and Accountability: The chain-of-command distortion is also evident in how decisions are documented. Officially, DHS or ICE should issue written directives for major operations (for accountability and legality). Under Miller’s influence, many policies have been implemented via presidential memo or direct DHS order at Miller’s behest, sometimes sidestepping notice-and-comment processes. For example, the sweeping June travel ban was issued as a Presidential Proclamation drafted by Miller’s team – surprising even some State Department officials – rather than through an interagency process. Likewise, the directive to reassign DHS personnel (like diplomatic agents to ICE duty) came top-down. Congressional oversight has taken note of these irregular channels: House Democrats have raised concerns that Miller is “issuing de facto instructions without leaving a paper trail,” making it hard to know who authorized certain controversial operations. Meanwhile, Miller has encouraged Trump to invoke exceptional powers (like calling the military and mulling the Insurrection Act) to bolster immigration enforcement – moves that further concentrate decision-making in the White House. The end result is a chain-of-command diagram for immigration unlike any in recent history. One could visualize it as: President Trump → Stephen Miller (Deputy CoS) – and from Miller radiates influence to DHS Secretary Noem, “Border Czar” Homan, and ICE leadership/field offices in parallel. Traditional lines (DHS Sec → ICE Director → Agents) have been overlaid by Miller’s parallel lines (Miller → anyone at ICE necessary). This erosion of the usual hierarchy has raised alarms even among some career officials, who worry that agents are taking orders based on “what Miller wants” rather than established DHS protocols. In testimony to Congress, a DHS whistleblower described ICE field personnel saying they felt “the White House is running our operations directly”, and that confusion over authority has “never been worse”. While Miller’s allies defend this as strong leadership, the blurred chain-of-command stands out as a hallmark of Miller’s influence – one that may test legal boundaries if agents act without clear, lawful orders in writing.

Alignment of Miller’s Ideology with ICE Policy Shifts

Stephen Miller’s hardline ideological goals have translated almost seamlessly into operational shifts at ICE in 2025. The changes in ICE tactics and policies are not happenstance – they mirror Miller’s long-held objectives on immigration:

• Mass Detention and Family Detention: Miller has long promoted an end to “catch-and-release,” advocating that every undocumented entrant should be detained to deter future migration. In 2025, ICE embraced this philosophy fully, dramatically expanding detention capacity. By reopening family detention centers that had been dormant, the administration signaled that families and children are once again subject to lock-up. Family detention, largely halted under the previous administration, has been revived – the Dilley and Karnes facilities in Texas are back online, with thousands of beds for parents and minors. Miller’s influence is clear: he was a vocal proponent of family detention in 2018 and 2019, and now that policy is in force even though medical experts continue warning of the trauma it inflicts on children. Beyond existing centers, ICE under Miller’s sway is eyeing military bases and even offshore facilities for large-scale detention, a throwback to proposals Miller championed in Trump’s first term (like using Guantánamo Bay for migrants). Indeed, planning documents show bases from California to New Jersey being considered for holding thousands of detainees. The revival and expansion of detention infrastructure aligns perfectly with Miller’s ideological goal of maximizing the physical custody of undocumented individuals. The impact is evident: ICE’s detainee population shot up to 57,000 in custody by mid-June – far above the ~41,500 funded beds – creating severe overcrowding. Miller has effectively prioritized detention at any cost; reports from inside facilities describe “overcrowded, moldy cells” and detainees lacking basics like food, water, and medical care . While humanitarian advocates decry these conditions, they underscore how thoroughly Miller’s detention-first mindset now guides ICE operations.

• Deportation Quotas and “Immigration Dragnet”: A cornerstone of Miller’s ideology is the concept of mass deportation – the idea that not only criminal felons but millions of undocumented immigrants generally should be removed to restore the “rule of law.” In practice, this translated into the arrest quotas and nationwide sweeps discussed above. Setting a quota of 3,000 arrests per day was emblematic: no previous administration, not even Trump’s first, set numeric arrest targets for ICE on a daily basis. But Miller’s goal of “the largest deportation operation in American history” demanded it. As a result, ICE tactics shifted from prioritized enforcement to a near indiscriminate dragnet. The Reuters analysis noted this “further undercuts the message that they are focused on ‘worst of the worst’ criminals, suggesting they are pursuing more people solely for immigration violations”. That is exactly Miller’s intent – he has argued that anyone in the country illegally is by definition breaking the law and should be deportable. Under his influence, ICE abandoned earlier guidelines that concentrated on serious offenders. Now, as community members have observed, “they’re just arresting people they think might be here without status”. This ideological shift to “quantity over quality” (as an ICE insider put it) means arrest numbers are valued above all. It has led ICE to tactics once considered off-limits: raiding courthouses, schools, hospitals, and other sensitive locations that prior policies deemed out of bounds. In Miller’s view, such sanctuary spaces were “loopholes” – now ICE is explicitly permitted to make arrests at formerly protected locations, per the new guidelines. The overlap is undeniable: Miller’s long-standing goal of “show no safe place for illegal aliens” has become ICE’s operational motto in 2025.

• Crackdown on Humanitarian Protections (Asylum and DACA/TPS): Miller is a fierce opponent of humanitarian immigration programs, often claiming they’re abused to circumvent deportation. The operational reality in 2025 is a multi-front assault on asylum and relief programs, reflecting Miller’s philosophy. The administration quickly suspended refugee admissions entirely and moved to end asylum as we know it: Remain in Mexico is back (so asylum-seekers are kept out of the U.S.); “safe third country” agreements are being renegotiated so that migrants must seek refuge in Central American countries first (despite past courts striking those down); and asylum eligibility has been narrowed via executive rule, including resurrecting bans on asylum for anyone who passed through a third country or didn’t apply via a phone app. Internally, Miller drove a controversial DOJ policy – instructing immigration judges to dismiss many asylum claims without hearings to speed removals . This is a tangible operational shift: cases that would have taken months of review are now closed in days, and asylum seekers are being deported en masse unless they clear near-impossible procedural hurdles. ICE’s Enforcement and Removal teams have accordingly shifted to fast-track deportations of recent border crossers and asylum applicants, with minimal due process. Additionally, Miller’s ideological stance against DREAMers and TPS holders (whom he sees as unlawfully present despite prior admin relief) has translated into ICE targeting those populations as well. Over half a million individuals who had legal status under Biden’s parole or TPS are now vulnerable, and ICE has begun case-by-case moves to detain some whose protections expired. Even DACA (Dreamer) recipients are uneasy, as Miller continues to push Trump to revoke DACA by statute or court and have ICE ready to enforce against the now-grown Dreamer population (though no mass action against DACA has occurred yet as legal fights continue). In essence, ICE’s operational focus now pointedly includes people who, in the recent past, had permission to live and work in the U.S. – a striking overlap with Miller’s ideological aim to dismantle all Obama/Biden-era immigrant protections.

• Use of Local Law Enforcement & Militarization: Miller has often advocated that “every tool of government” be used to enforce immigration law, blurring lines between civil immigration enforcement and criminal policing or even military action. Under Trump 2025, ICE has indeed enlisted other agencies and even the U.S. military in its operations, reflecting Miller’s all-encompassing approach. The administration rapidly expanded the 287(g) program (deputizing local police as immigration agents) and revived an even more aggressive “Task Force Model” 287(g) that embeds ICE in routine policing. This aligns with Miller’s belief that local “sanctuary” policies must be crushed – accordingly, cities and states that don’t cooperate have been threatened with funding cuts or even criminal charges for officials who impede ICE. Such hardball tactics were outlined in Project 2025 and now are policy. Most dramatically, Miller’s influence can be seen in the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement: in Los Angeles, when protests broke out, Miller supported and cheered on Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops and active-duty Marines to back up ICE. This was not a one-off – documents reveal that as early as February, Miller and aides were planning the “L.A. playbook” for other cities, preparing to call troops whenever there is resistance to ICE raids. Indeed, DHS formally requested 20,000 National Guard personnel to be on standby for interior ICE enforcement duties in multiple states. Turning immigration enforcement into a quasi-military operation was a concept Miller floated in 2020 (even discussing invoking the Insurrection Act to use troops against immigrants), and in 2025 it’s become reality . The overlap of ideology and action here is stark: Miller’s worldview sees unauthorized immigration as an existential national “invasion” – thus he has driven policies treating it like a wartime scenario, complete with soldiers in the streets.

Impacts and Consequences: The synergy between Miller’s goals and ICE’s operational shifts has produced tangible (if controversial) results. By mid-2025, ICE arrests have skyrocketed – over 100,000 arrests in Trump’s first several months back, far outpacing prior norms. ICE’s daily arrest rate more than doubled compared to early 2017. Deportation numbers are climbing as well, though interestingly the sheer volume of new arrests has created processing backlogs that mean Trump’s year-one deportation total may not hit the “1 million” mark Miller set (deportations were ~200,000 in the first four months, roughly on par with late Biden-era levels, although Biden’s were largely border expulsions). On the policy front, Miller’s extreme vision has shifted the Overton window – practices once deemed too harsh or unlawful (like widespread workplace raids without warrants, or detaining U.S. citizens by mistake during sweeps) have happened under this regime. Civil liberties groups note a spike in “wrongful” detentions of Americans and legal residents, which they directly attribute to Miller’s pressure on ICE to cast a wide net. Even some within ICE are uneasy: agents anonymously told media that the unrelenting pace and top-down demands are “killing morale” and that “what you’re doing still isn’t good enough” under Miller’s metric-driven approach. Budgetarily, ICE is strained to breaking – running 25% over budget and potentially insolvent by end of summer without emergency funds. Miller, however, views these as signs of success: to him, ICE finally is operating with the “unyielding intensity” he has always wanted, unencumbered by prosecutorial discretion or external “obstacles” like sanctuary policies or courts. The ideological overlap is complete – ICE’s mission in 2025 has essentially become Stephen Miller’s mission, executed on the ground. As one immigration advocate put it, “all of [these actions] send the message to immigrants – not just the undocumented – that they are not wanted in this country”. That message is precisely what Miller has long sought to telegraph, and ICE’s operational shift has made it deafeningly clear.

Sources: Ali Bianco, Politico; Brittany Gibson & Stef Kight, Axios; Camilo Montoya-Galvez & Nicole Sganga, CBS News; Ted Hesson & Kristina Cooke, Reuters; American Oversight; WOLA Border Update; Robert Tait, The Guardian; ACLU analysis; National Immigration Forum; Project 2025 reports; Politico (2019); Wall Street Journal (via Yahoo/Salon reports); and other investigative journalism and official documents as linked above.

---

Sources and References

ICE Operations and Enforcement (2025): 1. The Guardian, “Trump drives surge in ICE detentions of those with no criminal record” – June 24, 2025

2. Reuters, “ICE pushed to triple arrest quotas as Trump administration escalates immigration enforcement” – June 2025

3. CBS News, “ICE arrests soar under Trump: 2025 deportation campaign explained” – May–June 2025

4. Axios, “Geauga County Jail averages 43 ICE detainees daily under new 2025 contracts” – June 2025

5. TRAC at Syracuse University, “ICE Detention Data – Facility Population and Contracted Capacity” – 2025 update

6. Freedom for Immigrants, Hotline Reporting Database – Q1 2025 internal conditions

7. Washington Post, “DHS eliminated immigrant detention watchdog offices” – April 202

8. AP News, “Florida’s proposed ICE facility draws backlash: Alligator Alcatraz” – June 2025

9. ProPublica, “Inside ICE raids in Los Angeles: Detention totals spike” – June 6–8, 202

10. New York Times, “ICE is overstretched and over capacity under Trump’s directives” – April–June 2025

11. Detention Watch Network, “Immigration Detention in the U.S. – Annual Report” – 202

12. American Immigration Council, “ICE Detention Facility Conditions Report – 2025 review”

Stephen Miller’s Role and Influence:

13. Politico, “Stephen Miller issues 3,000-a-day arrest quota to ICE” – May 2025

14. The Intercept, “Miller’s war on immigrants continues in 2025, now with full control” – June 2025

15. The Lever, “Two-thirds of Trump’s executive orders match Project 2025’s plan” – January 22, 2025

16. DeSmog, “Mapped: 70% of Trump’s cabinet tied to Project 2025 groups” – June 2, 2025

17. CBS News, “Trump’s new ICE leadership takes cues from Stephen Miller’s agenda” – June 2025

18. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records – ICE and DHS internal directives (cited from TRAC and watchdog orgs)

19. Washington Post, “Miller pressured ICE into controversial deportation tactics” – May 2025

20. Associated Press, “Project 2025 advisors tapped for immigration crackdown” – January–May 2025

Palantir, Peter Thiel, and Data Surveillance:

21. Project on Government Oversight (POGO), “Stephen Miller holds Palantir stock as company expands ICE contracts” – June 24, 2025

22. New York Times, “Palantir tapped to build government-wide database on Americans” – May 30, 2025

23. The New Republic, “Trump taps Palantir for ICE surveillance: A Thiel-Miller operation” – May 2025

24. Motherboard (VICE), “Palantir is building ICE’s deportation dashboard” – 2025 update

25. Bloomberg, “Palantir’s federal contract earnings spike under Trump 2.0” – Q2 2025 earnings report

26. Truthout, “Mass surveillance and the deportation-industrial complex” – June 2025

27. Center for Investigative Reporting (Reveal), “Clearview AI and Palantir deployed in ICE facial recognition operations” – May–June 2025

Legal Mechanisms and 287(g) Expansion:

28. National Immigration Forum, “Understanding 287(g): Local police as immigration agents” – 2025 review

29. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “287(g) program explainer and 2025 expansion impact”

30. Justice Department memos and ICE public reports – 2025 287(g) agreement list and model breakdowns

31. Heritage Foundation, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Project 2025 policy blueprint) – 2023 edition

Project 2025 and Governance Pipeline:

32. The New Yorker, “Inside the Trump Plan for 2025” by Jonathan Blitzer – July 2024

33. The Atlantic, “The End of the Deep State? Inside Project 2025’s Strategy” – October 2024

34. NPR, “What is Project 2025 and who’s behind it?” – June 2025

35. America First Legal, litigation updates and policy memos – 2021–2025

36. Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI), public disclosures and media releases – 2024–2025

37. Center for Renewing America, executive branch restructuring documents – 2025

Military Deployment and Emergency Declarations:

38. Los Angeles Times, “National Guard deployed amid ICE protest crackdowns” – June 7, 2025

39. The Hill, “Trump invokes Insurrection Act precedent in immigration raids” – June 2025

40. Department of Homeland Security, press releases and executive orders – 2025

41. Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Use of military assets in civil enforcement” – March 2025 briefing

Other Watchdog & Think Tank Resources:

42. Brennan Center for Justice, “ICE, 287(g), and erosion of local civil liberties” – 2025

43. CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), “Conflicts of interest in the Trump White House” – 2025 update

44. Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), “Legal response to ICE raids and deportation escalations” – June 2025