ICE’s Secret Weapon Is in Your Community

ICE Arrests Reach Record Levels Through Expanded Local Partnerships

Last summer, immigration enforcement operations in southern California targeted day laborers, street vendors, garment workers, and farm workers. News helicopters and eyewitness videos documented the actions, which local community groups had sometimes anticipated through social media alerts. Local outlets such as L.A. TACO reported daily arrest figures over several weeks. Residents in cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis responded by positioning themselves between agents and individuals targeted for detention. These events occurred during the first year of expanded interior enforcement priorities set by the administration.

Recent ICE data indicate that average daily arrests reached 1,300 in June and 1,474 during the first 11 days of July. Austin Kocher, assistant research professor at Syracuse University, noted that arrest totals had been stable or declining in prior months before the increase. He attributed the change to adjustments in operational approach under different leadership at the Department of Homeland Security. The agency has continued arrests at airports using TSA data on visa overstays and has received information from the Office of Refugee Resettlement regarding individuals whose children had previously been in shelters.

ICE maintains partnerships with other federal agencies and with state and local law enforcement. These arrangements build on authorities established when the agency was created in 2003. One longstanding mechanism is the 287(g) program, authorized by Congress in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Under the program, state and local officers receive training to perform certain immigration functions, including identification of removable noncitizens in custody. Jurisdictions in Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas currently operate under such agreements. The Miami field office has recorded the highest volume of arrests, averaging roughly 120 per day in recent periods.

Silky Shah of Detention Watch Network observed that enforcement volume tends to be higher in areas with active 287(g) agreements. Former ICE acting director John Sandweg stated to CBS News that cooperation levels between local agencies and ICE contribute to higher arrest numbers in locations with substantial immigrant populations. In contrast, some jurisdictions have moved to limit participation. Key West officials voted last year to end their 287(g) agreement following local advocacy. Florida’s attorney general responded by threatening removal of those officials. Miami’s mayor, elected in 2025, pledged during the campaign to end the city’s agreement but has not yet advanced a formal proposal to the city commission.

Data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University and by ICE indicate that a significant share of interior arrests involve individuals with prior criminal convictions or recent unlawful border entries. Enforcement priorities have directed resources toward those categories in multiple fiscal years. Routine interactions such as traffic stops or jail bookings can lead to immigration detainers when local agencies share custody information with ICE field offices. This process does not require public raids and operates through existing criminal justice databases.

During operations in the Twin Cities last winter, approximately 3,000 ICE personnel were deployed regionally. Separate incidents in Minneapolis resulted in the deaths of two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Additional deaths occurred in Texas and Maine involving Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero. ICE temporarily restricted certain traffic-stop activities following those events. Official statements from the agency have described the circumstances as involving resistance or medical emergencies in some cases; investigations into individual incidents remain ongoing or concluded without criminal charges against agents in several instances.

Scholars have examined the intersection of criminal law and immigration enforcement, sometimes termed “crimmigration.” This overlap predates recent administrations and stems from statutory changes in the 1990s that expanded grounds for removal based on criminal convictions. Local police continue to conduct standard law enforcement duties regardless of immigration status. When an individual is identified as removable, federal authorities may assume custody for removal proceedings.

During the 2024 campaign, administration officials including Tom Homan and Stephen Miller stated that local law enforcement cooperation would be essential to meeting removal targets. Meghan Maloney de Zaldivar of the New York Immigration Coalition noted in 2024 that public statements emphasizing criminal enforcement can influence officer behavior at the local level. Some jurisdictions maintain sanctuary policies that limit information sharing with ICE, though compliance varies by department leadership and state law.

New York City operates under state and local measures restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Mayor Zohran Mamdani has expressed support for abolishing ICE. At the same time, Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch oversees day-to-day operations of the NYPD. Spencer Ackerman has written that compelling non-cooperation requires ongoing oversight, as police departments retain substantial operational independence. Approximately 40,000 New York residents face expiration of temporary protected status and work authorization in coming months, according to the New York Immigration Coalition.

The 287(g) program requires participating officers to complete a four-week training course administered by ICE. Memoranda of agreement specify the scope of authority delegated, which can include database access and detainer issuance but does not confer full federal arrest powers. As of mid-2025, several dozen jurisdictions nationwide maintained active agreements. Proponents cite improved identification of removable noncitizens already in local custody; critics argue the program diverts local resources and erodes community trust.

Arrest statistics released by ICE show monthly totals fluctuating with operational tempo and resource allocation. Interior removals require either voluntary departure, administrative removal orders, or judicial proceedings in immigration court. Backlogs in those courts exceed three million cases. Individuals placed in removal proceedings receive notice and an opportunity to contest charges before an immigration judge, though many cases conclude with orders of removal when respondents do not appear or lack relief eligibility.

Enforcement activity in high-immigrant areas correlates with both population size and the presence of formal cooperation agreements. Jurisdictions without such agreements rely more heavily on federal agents for identification and arrest. Public demonstrations and local policy debates have accompanied these developments in multiple states. Federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the 287(g) program while reviewing specific implementation questions in individual lawsuits.

ICE continues to conduct targeted operations alongside the broader use of local partnerships. Data releases indicate that recent monthly arrest averages exceed those recorded in the first half of the year. Officials attribute part of the increase to improved information sharing across agencies. Community organizations track enforcement through public records requests and direct observation.