ICE arrested more than 1,000 people per day across the United States through mid-October 2025, and nearly half of those arrests — 48% — took place in local jails and other lock-ups, according to government data obtained via FOIA and processed by the Deportation Data Project. The Prison Policy Initiative published its analysis of the figures on December 11, 2025, as an update to its July 2025 report "Hiding in Plain Sight."

The data show the federal government remains well behind its mass deportation goals, in large part because state and local decisions on cooperation with ICE shape how many people are actually detained. Local jails and police departments facilitate arrests of people already in custody, often before criminal charges are resolved.

What drove the surge in 2025?

Arrests rose sharply around Donald Trump's inauguration in January 2025 and again in late May, when White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller pressured ICE officials in a May 20 meeting to triple arrest efforts to a target of 3,000 per day and deliver a million deportations in Trump's first year.

Arrests at local jails averaged 350 per day in late January and climbed past 500 per day by August. Arrests in other locations — streets, workplaces, homes and courts — peaked at nearly 700 per day in late May and early June, and ICE averaged over 600 per day in September.

ICE agents operate under arrest quotas and instructions to detain nearly everyone suspected of lacking U.S. citizenship. Texas data cited in the analysis show undocumented immigrants have much lower criminal arrest rates than U.S.-born citizens.

Which states see the most ICE arrests?

The analysis compares arrests from January 20 to May 20, 2025, against May 21 to October 15, 2025, standardizing rates per 100,000 residents:

• Texas: highest overall arrests; rate nearly doubled from about 58 to 110 per 100,000.
• Tennessee: overall rate rose 40%, from 35 to 49 per 100,000.
• Florida: 67% of ICE arrests came from local jails; the overall rate rose nearly 50%, from 39 to 58 per 100,000.

States like Florida, Texas, Louisiana and Georgia require local law enforcement to deputize staff to serve ICE, often under 287(g) agreements.

Do anti-cooperation policies reduce arrests?

Illinois, New York and Oregon show measurably lower arrest levels, even as rates grew:

• Illinois: nearly tripled, from about 8 to 21 per 100,000.
• New York: up 179%, from 9 to 26 per 100,000.
• Oregon: up 160%, from 5 to 13 per 100,000.

In these states, jail-based arrests made up only a small share of the total — roughly 1 in 10 in Oregon and New York, and 1 in 6 in Illinois. Illinois bars local agencies from transferring people to ICE custody, granting agents access to detainees, or lending facilities, databases or on-site support, with narrow exceptions such as criminal arrest warrants.

Why did New Jersey's rate nearly double?

New Jersey occupies a middle ground. It banned formal 287(g) deputization by executive order in 2019, yet its ICE arrest rate almost doubled between May and October 2025, from 21 to 40 per 100,000, with a large share out of local jails. ICE agents retain informal access to some facilities. Morris County Sheriff James Gannon described the arrangement in 2017: "They come in, and they check, you know, every other day they're in our jail... we are going to maintain cooperation with the authorities with regards to issues of immigration."

Between May 21 and October 15, 2025, 34% of people ICE arrested in New Jersey had pending charges but no prior convictions, versus 13% in New York. Among those with convictions, the most frequent most serious charge was a traffic offense.

What does the data mean for policy?

The report concludes that the federal deportation agenda depends heavily on state and local collaboration, and that states limiting cooperation see significantly smaller increases in arrest rates. The authors caution that the ICE data exclude some enforcement actions, including Border Patrol arrests, and that ICE changed its arrest location coding in late July 2025. Readers should consult the official ICE data tables, the Illinois Attorney General guidance and state legal codes for authoritative details; this report summarizes the published analysis and does not constitute legal advice.